# The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread



## elrog (Mar 17, 2013)

*Please read before posting*

I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed. This is a place to post them. I have come up with many ideas and didn't want to post a new thread for every one of them when most don't get very far. Perhaps if an idea gets very far, it may deserve its own thread, but until then, it should go here.

*Be open and understanding*
Everyone should be open to new ideas, yet also understanding if others don't think it will work.

*Post all kinds of ideas*
Feel free to post all kinds of ideas here. It does not necessarily have to be oriented around speedsolving. Ideas could range from fewest moves, blindfolding, speedsolving, OH, cube designs and more.

*Be clear*
Please try to be clear in your explanations of why something is a bad/good idea and use evidence to support your thoughts. Also be clear as to what idea you are referring to.

*Avoid cluttering the thread*
To avoid unnecessary clutter, you should edit a post to add more information rather than create a new one, unless you want to bump your idea. You should wait at a days since your last post on a certain topic to bump it. To present a new idea, you should present it in the same post as your last idea or bump if you do it on the same day.

*Do Your Research
*There are a lot of different methods out there. Please try to make sure your idea is new/original before posting. You should check out the methods pages on the wiki.

Here is a list of commonly suggested methods:
_Belt_ - Anything that solves the cube like this (the belt does not always have to be made first / many times EO is solved with it). This is a broad category and there is a large variety of belt methods already out there and there is a good chance you will be repeating something.

_F2L blocks_ - Solving a 2x2x3 block (as in Petrus) by solving 3 cross edges and the two pairs that go between them, solving two 1x2x3 blocks on opposite sides (as in Roux) by placing two cross edges and solving F2L pairs, or any other kind of block, but the already previously listed are the most common.

_Cross variants_ - Solving the cross (or EO line) in a different manner to affect the solve later in some way. Common examples are only solving 3 cross edges, purposely solving the last cross edge as a different edge, and swapping two edges in the cross or EO line.

_Last layer variants_ - There are for subgroups that the last layer is commonly broken down into. These are corner permutation, corner orientation, edge permutation, and edge orientation. Any combination of these in any order has been thought of before. Also, influencing any one of these in some way while placing the last F2L slot has most likely been thought of.

_Corners/edges first _- Solving either all or most of the corners or edges before solving much (if any) of the other is frequently suggested. In fact most of the early speedcubing methods were corners first.

_PCMS _- This technically is included in the corners first category, but it is suggested often enough that attention should be brought to it.

_Big cube reduction variants_ - Reducing a 4x4 to a 2x2 has been suggested many times. Influencing edge orientation or the permutation of certain pieces while reducing the cube has been thought of as well.


If there is anything you think I should add to this list, you are welcome to suggest it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To start off, here's a idea I had that ended up similar to the Roux method. Because I liked how easy it was to make corner edge pairs using them M layer, I started making an F2L minus the M layer. I then proceeded to make 2 corner edge pairs in the top layer similar to what is done in Heise. These pairs should not interfere with the M layer and should contain either both BU or FU corners. In other words, you have both the left and right side complete minus 1 corner in each of them. You could then solve the remaining 2 corners and the M layer with an algorithm.

I thought this could better be adapted to speed solving by solving 2 corners while solving the last F2L pair. Then you could solve the UL and UR edges with M and U moves. In Roux, there are variants to solve the M layer last rather than the top 4 edges.

After realizing the similarities with roux, and realizing the ability to AUF the M slice separate from the corners of the top layer, I came up with this: Solve 2 1x2x3 blocks on opposite sides, AUF until you get to a CLL case, Solve the UL and UR edges without misplacing the U layer (you may temporarily move the U layer), solve the top 4 corners and the M layer with an algorithm that is reduced by the ability to AUF the M layer. It should be noted that an experienced solver wouldn't need to AUF to find a CLL case just to have to move the U layer to solve the UL and UR edges.

The number of cases could drastically be reduced by orienting edges while placing the UL and UR edges. You could also reduce it even further by using partial corner control while placing the last F2L slot finishing the second 1x2x3 block. Because CLL cases are recognized by swapping 2 corners, when you AUF to a CLL case and have the UR and UL edges solved, you leave only permutations with an odd number of swaps in the M layer giving you 4 possibilities compared to the 5 possibilities (including solved) that there would be with an even number of swaps. This is not true of CLL cases with corners correctly permuted. In all, I calculate 92 algorithms to solve the top 4 corners and the M layer using partial corner control and having edges preoriented (I did include CPLL but not cases with all corners solved and I did not include mirrors).


----------



## Skyplateau (Mar 17, 2013)

sounds awesome


----------



## KongShou (Mar 17, 2013)

i was just thinking of making a thread like this yesterday! damn your one step faster than me.
ps sticky?


----------



## elrog (Mar 18, 2013)

Does anyone know of a way to tell if a 2x2 solve is 2 gen after 2 corners adjacent corners are solved?

I'm planning on adapting this to a 3x3 method that permutes corners to a 2 gen state during inspection.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm finding it difficult to follow your ideas. You should organize them a little bit better. 

Try having clear and concise steps that are labelled, rather than 2 rambling paragraphs. Although it's not 100% necessary, I would recommend putting the average movecount and approximate number of algorithms for each step.


----------



## mDiPalma (Mar 18, 2013)

elrog said:


> Does anyone know of a way to tell if a 2x2 solve is 2 gen after 2 corners adjacent corners are solved?
> 
> I'm planning on adapting this to a 3x3 method that permutes corners to a 2 gen state during inspection.



Although it's certainly not the optimal way, I'd just mentally attach 2 corners that are supposed to be adjacent, if none are already attached, and then evaluate the situation. In other words, if you have two adjacent corners that are supposed to be adjacent and are in the correct permutation with respect to each other, and the rest of the corners (which are reduced to 1 side through R and U) are in a solved permutation, then the corners can be solved 2gen. If the adjacent corners are incorrectly permuted with respect to each other and the other 4 corners are diagonally swapped, then the corners can also be solved 2gen. Porkynator had a post in the ZZ/ZB Homethread a while back about using the algs L' U R U' L and L' U R2 U' L to reduce the corners to 2gen.

If this explanation is as unclear as I think it is, PM me with any specific questions. <3


----------



## elrog (Mar 19, 2013)

@ somerandomkidmike

How do you suggest I do this? Make more divisions to make paragraphs seem shorter or delete some centences that are not really necessary? Maby merge senteces or divide them?

I'm not completely sure about the average movecount for the algs because I have not generated them. I also don't see them being much more useful than any other last layer substep. Heres an Idea I came up with tohugh.

Use the ZZ method but make the EO line with the UF and UR edges in place of the DB and DF edges. Solve the 2x2x3 blocks on both sides as in regular ZZ. Recognise the CLL case and you cen very easily insert the UR and UL edges into place because they are completed with the EO line. You can then solve the cube with a single algs and much less cases than ZBLL. I do think that the steps between and the recognition of the case make other last layer substeps just as good if not better.

@ mDiPalma

It would be much more adequate for speedsolving if you corrected the corner permutation while solving 2 adjacent corners and did so in optimal/near optimal moves. I think it may be hard to look ahead far enough to see where corners will be after you solve 2 of them, but people have somehow done similar things. EG is one example. It is useful to know the 2 corners swapped diagnaly thing though. Thanks.

For a better Idea of my method:

First step: Corner permutation and a 1x1x3 block at the bottom left edge. Only R Rw U Uw M and maby E moves will be used from here on out. Unkown movecount and don't know how to do exactly.

Second step: Add to the first block making a 1x2x3 block by adding the left center and the LF and LB edges. Usually done by matching center with edges on the right side and doing E2 or Uw2. I can usually do this in about 7 moves. I have gotten a 4 some 5s and many 6 moves solves for this step. I've never had this step take more than 9 moves.

Third step: Make a opposite 1x2x3 block similar to the blocks in Roux. Done usually by aligning the DR edge and matching with corner edge pairs. Corner edge pairs can be created easily with the M slice. Putting a pair into a slot can be difficult at first because you must do Rw U Rw' rather than F U F'. This also requires that the pair must be above the slot it goes in before insertion. I can do this in about 17 moves. I've gotten as low as 12 (I've gotten 13 a few times) for this step and never exceeded 18 though I've got it many times.

Fourth step: use M and U moves to solve the FD and BD edges while orienting the U layer edges.This step can take anywhere from 8 to 13 moves. Many times this can be done in around 8 moves, but occasionaly you'll get a case where you have all bad edges, solved centers,and the DF and DB edges are in place, or something like it. This step would be a breeze for any experienced Roux user.

Fifth step: 2GLL to finish the solve. 2GLL can be done in around 13 moves. I got this statistic from the wiki an I'm no sure weather it meant 2-gen or not (I'm assuming it did). Any of the EPLL cases can be done in fewer moves with slice moves, but many prefer to use the 2-gen algs. Despite the higher move count, 2GLL can be done very quickly. Personally, I find it hard to recognize the case quickly before AUFing (I don't actually know 2GLL), but I'm sure it is possible to become quick at recognising it without AUFing first.

Overall, I think this method could be very quick if I could get the first step sorted out and be able to increase my recognition time. It uses more intuition than most methods using blockbuilding and intuitively orienting edges. I find it is easy to do turns quickly with the reduced moveset. When I add the number I got up, I get 45 moves plus whatever the first step takes.


----------



## elrog (Mar 23, 2013)

I just got to thinking about a post I made a while ago on cyoubx's forum about his new cube. I posted my idea on his thread because it was related to creating a new home-made cube. Now that I made this thread, I'm posting my ideas here. The only got one comment on my idea saying this: "it wouldn't corner cut". I personally don't see why not.

On the other thread, I talked about making a cube in which the center pieces are not seperate from the core. I mentioned the problem of having to have the center of a side circular to make pieces spin aruond it, but not being able to round pieces around it without inhibiting the turning of other sides. I've come up with a solution to this now.

My idea is to have a peice that is a square with a circle cut out of it that fits onto each of the center pieces. You would then have edges between those and corners between edges.The square piece should be able to click on over the core so that it won't fall off, yet can be taken off. The clicking mechanism should also not touch anything once it actually is on. This would create an all plastic cube and it wouldn't need to be tentioned.

Not having to/being able to tension I view as a good thing, but others may like to have it adjustable. I personally just don't like messing with tensions because it is hard to get them equal and they change over time. To get a loose or tight cube, you could get a different sized square piece.

As before, I would use rubber tiles that are inlayed into the pieces and can be taken out simply by pinching them, yet they wouldn't ever fall out or break.

As for the previous comment about not being able to corner cut, you could do it just as well as any other cube. You could round out the square piece that fits around the centers some and also round the edges and corners.

For an anti-pop mechanism, you could make the corners fit into grooves in the core farther in than the square piece. You cuold also use grooves or overlapping parts with the edges, square pieces, and corners just as in many other speedcubes.

One more Idea I had for a 3x3 was to use the design for a New Rubiks 2x2 with edges held in place between the corners. You could then have the center pieces held in by the edges. This design would be possible, but I don't see it ever being a very good speedcube.

If anyone else has any ideas they think are interesting, feel free to post.


----------



## jayefbe (Mar 23, 2013)

I see a potential issue, and I believe this is why the other person said it wouldn't cut. The reason why cubes are designed the way they are is that the spring allows for fast turning and corner cutting, but still maintains a stable shape. Your design, from what I can tell because it's hard to know exactly what you're thinking, is either going to be very loose with no stable integrity, or very tight with difficult turning.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 23, 2013)

KongShou said:


> ps sticky?


Done.


----------



## elrog (Mar 23, 2013)

I was looking for my thread and couln't find it anywhere! then I realized it got stickied. You had me worried there for a second.

I know that the springs allow it to be loose yet stable. My design could be loosened aswell. I do not think it will lose its stability because it still has the pieces interlocking with eachother and the actuall core as well. If you look at speeddcubes with lots of overlapping parts such as the Fangshi Shuang Ren, they are so stable because the overlapping parts they have. If I really need to, I can make a piece that screws into the core after you slide the square piece on that you could use to tension the cube. I really don't want to use metal screws though...

Also, rather than make the square piece click on, I think it would be better to have it 2 seperate pieces that lock together around the centers.

I also realize that my idea before about making the pieces solid plastic really would raise the price up. I think I may make the pieces lighter by hollowing the out, yet not having them be seperate pieces of plastic. I would make the holowness parts on the inside be connected with the outside through small holes or pockets similar to what the Fangshi Shuang Ren has on its corner pieces.

I was just thinking about a better way to orient all of the pieces on a 3x3. So far, heres what I've come up with.

First - orient edges.

Second - solve the bottom color

Third - use an algorithm to solve the top color

To recognize a case for step 3, you would look at where the top colored edges are in the middle layer, then look at the corner orientation case, then look at where the top edges on the top side are. I'm not sure how many algorithms this would take, but I will calculate this soon. I can see it taking anywhere from 100- 150 algorithms. It would be possible to reduce the alg number by using partial E-layer control while placing the pieces in the bottom layer.

(EDIT: This takes 103 algorithms not including mirrors)

You could also do this with counting opposite colored sides as the same, reducing the length of algs. This could be done counting opposite colors as the same for only corners or only edges aswell.

I went and tried a couple of cases in cube solver using only L U and R moves, and the longest algorithm I found was 11 moves. I think I may adapt this to my method idea that used PBL and solved the E slice at the same time. If it were possible to predict the case through inspection, this would be a very quick way to orient everything. I'm not sure it would be very humanly possible to predict during inspection though, but you may get hints as to what case you will get. This would be easier or more feasible counting opposite colors as the same because it would take less moves to get to the point that you use the algs.


----------



## The Supreme One (Mar 25, 2013)

wouldn't that just be a zz opening with zbll as the second step, then a sandwich/waterman closure

now to my discoveries:
Over time, I have found that during F2L, you can place pairs that don't match using two simple rules: if the corner and edge share a face, then that face will be on opposite sides in the pair. If the edge and corner share no color, than the complementary colors will share the same sides of the pair. Usually, the cube will give you one of these pairs, and if you use it, the cube will usually give you a normal pair for free. No idea why.

Another is that you can place completed pairs during the cross formation so that you don't have to worry about them later. Essentially forming a Petrus block because it was given to you.


----------



## elrog (Mar 26, 2013)

No, it isnt quite like that. In ZZ, you orient edges and solve the DB and DF edges. With my version, you solve the whole bottom color, but don't worry about permutation of any peces. ZBLL is a lasy layer only substep that permutes the whole top layer and orients corners. With mine, edges are already oriented and you don't care about the permutation (as long as you seperate E-layer edges and U-layer edes). You just orient top layer corners whle moving the top layer edges to the top. It does have the sandwich closure, but not waterman. Waterman solves a single side, then the top corners. It then solves some edges in the top layer and the middle layer at the same time until it solves.

From your explanation, I am getting this: Solve F2L with the E layer not lined up, then line it up afterwards. I've actually done this before. It sort of reminds me of keyloing.

The thing about solving pairs with the cross is basically just the X-cross. It just seems that, rather than plannig the F2L pair, you just use it when it happens. That won't work well if you already plan out your whole cross during inspection.

You talking about F2L reminded me of an idea I had that I threw away because of practicalities. I may aswell post it though.

I was once searching for a good way to incorporate the effectiveness of EG into 3x3 methods. One of my ideas was to not worry about where you place F2L pairs, and permute the pairs while doing another step of the last layer. One good thing about this is that it won't affect the last layer cases at all because your swapping pairs. It is possible to swap any even number of peices regardless of them being corners or edges. You always have an even number because your using pairs that consist of 2 pieces. Basically, you won't have parity in your top layer. Another good thing is that you can AUF the U layer independently of the pairs.

One bad thing about this is the fact that, rather than having only 3 EG cases, you would have 10 because of having centers placed.

This idea could be used with many different last layer substeps. If you were going to do it with PLL or CLL, you would want to always make sure you have 2 F2L pairs in their proper places, ruducing you back down to the 3 EG cases.

It is nice to finaly see someone else posting something on here. I'm also sorry if I completely mis-understood you.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Mar 26, 2013)

As a speedsolving method, it seems overly complicated. Unless I'm not understanding you properly.


----------



## elrog (Mar 26, 2013)

I'm not sure if your referring to my idea for orienting or for th EG F2L. The EG F2L is not practical as I've already stated. The orientation idea I had could be quick, but I'm not sure it would beat any other speedsolving method, so its not worth the amount of algorithms for it. I also stated when I made this thread that it was for ideas that you didn't think deserve their own threads.


----------



## rj (Mar 27, 2013)

*New method*

I have developed a new method for solving--somewhat similar to petrus, as well as an edge-first method. First you solve all the edges. You should be able to figure to figure this out. Then use URU'L'UR'U'L to put two corners next to each other in place, oriented correctly. This will take some experimentation. Your cube should now look like you have finished petrus step three. Now use URU'L'UR'U'L again to move corners around until they are all positioned correctly. now use R'D'RD to orient them. You can also use some PLL algs to move the corners. If anyone can give me some better algorithms, it would be appreciated.  Your cube should now look like this. If you notice any holes, please notify me.


----------



## cannon4747 (Mar 27, 2013)

I'd say it's fairly inefficient seeing as it requires you to scan the entire cube during inspection and then again when you finish the edges. It would make look-ahead very difficult. The advantage of methods such as CFOP and roux is that it moves the parts you've already finished to the part of the cube you can't see as well and allows the unsolved pieces to be most clearly in your line of sight.


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 27, 2013)

*New method*

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have come up with something that many people have come up with before. It's amazing how few ways there are to solve the cube, so it is very rare for someone to come up with something actually new. 

Edges first has been speculated about a lot, and the general consensus is that it is not feasible for fast speedcubing. Even using BH for the corners step, the fastest you could expect to get the corners is about 8 seconds, and when added to the time spent solving edges, the best you can probably do is about 13 seconds. That being said, feel free to try to be creative, because ultimately you will learn more about the cube.

By the way, this method shares nothing in common with Petrus. Petrus is about blockbuilding and edge orientation, neither of which this method contains.


----------



## rj (Mar 27, 2013)

One of the steps ends up being solvable with petrus step 4 onwards

You could solve all the edges LBL, which would speed things up.

So if you want to teach someone a sub-30 method that is easy, here it is.

You can also put in one corner while you are doing the edges. That would eliminate a large part of identification of the corners.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 27, 2013)

This is just edges first. Also, you can do the corners much more efficiently than by just spamming Niklas and sexy moves.


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 27, 2013)

*New method*



rj said:


> You can also put in one corner while you are doing the edges. That would eliminate a large part of identification of the corners.



Or you can put in 4 corners while solving the first two layer of edges and then finish with OLL and PLL.


----------



## rj (Mar 27, 2013)

I say that anyone who doesn't want to learn fridrich, but also isn't intuitive should try this.


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 27, 2013)

*New method*



rj said:


> I say that anyone who doesn't want to learn fridrich, but also isn't intuitive should try this.



This seems very intuitive, much more so than beginner's method.


----------



## rj (Mar 27, 2013)

Niklas? I am a fridrich guy. What is the alg?


----------



## JasonK (Mar 27, 2013)

rj said:


> Niklas? I am a fridrich guy. What is the alg?



Niklas is the alg you posted, URU'L'UR'U'L, and its variations.


----------



## rj (Mar 27, 2013)

WOW! I know two of the three petrus algs. And what, may I ask, is Allen?


----------



## JasonK (Mar 27, 2013)

rj said:


> WOW! I know two of the three petrus algs. And what, may I ask, is Allen?



The Allan alg on Petrus's site is L2 U' B F' L2 B' F U' L2. Just a U-perm.


----------



## rj (Mar 27, 2013)

An idea for a new 5x5x5 method--I think it's unique. It goes like this: Solve 2x2x2 cubes on all the corners, then solve the edge "inner squares" as Heise would call them, then solve as a 3x3x3. Any more ideas or algorithm suggestions?


----------



## Godmil (Mar 27, 2013)

rj said:


> An idea for a new 5x5x5 method--I think it's unique. It goes like this: Solve 2x2x2 cubes on all the corners, then solve the edge "inner squares" as Heise would call them, then solve as a 3x3x3. Any more ideas or algorithm suggestions?



On you go, solve the 2x2x2 corners of a 5x5 and tell us how you get on.


----------



## elrog (Mar 27, 2013)

I don't think solving as a 3x3 with double moves is such a bad idea. I think it would be easier to turn quickly. It is kind of hard to start out with corners though.


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 27, 2013)

*The New Method/Substep/Concept Idea Thread*



elrog said:


> I don't think solving as a 3x3 with double moves is such a bad idea. I think it would be easier to turn quickly. It is kind of hard to start out with corners though.



This made me lol. It is an absurd thought to change to the most impractical reduction method just so that the 3x3 stage uses a different number of layers. And aren't you "Mr. Movecount" or something? What happened to your argument that what turns you make don't matter as long as it's fewer moves?


----------



## elrog (Mar 28, 2013)

Trying to solve with a method that is hard to recognize doesn't necessarily mean higher movecount.

I was thinking about a easier way to finish F2L (minus 1 slot) and edge orientation at the same time. It can be done intuitively, but algorithms help to increase reaction time. You can do things intuitively until they basically become algorithms, but this is not always the case if you have a large amount of possible positions.

I talked about doing ZBLS before. You could use it on the 2nd and third slot using 86 of the ZBLS algorithms to orient two top layer edges each time. To reduce the number of cases greatly, you could use ELS on the 2nd to last slot and keyhole in the slots corner. Then you would solve the last slot with whatever other substep you wish.

It would be possible to solve the corner of the 2nd to last slot, then keyhole your ELS alg to make the slot and orient eges, but you may not be able to bring the edge above the corner of the slot into the top layer if it is a bad edge. Solving the corner while preserving edge orientation may take a few more moves for some cases, but I think it is better than trying to deal with the corner being in the way.

I think it would be cool if they had competitions where you won if you had the best average of moves and speed. 

This could be calculated something like this: Time/(100 - number of moves) to some power.

You would have to disqualify movecounts over 100 or something. You would need a high power to make using less moves actually worth it, otherwise, it would be like regular speedsolving. Doing FMC could also provide you with ok ratings with a high enough power. You would want to get the power somewhere in a happy medium so that it doesn't turn into either complete speedsolving or FMC, though there may be some people who use both approaches. You could also change the 100 if needed.


----------



## Noahaha (Mar 28, 2013)

*The New Method/Substep/Concept Idea Thread*



elrog said:


> Trying to solve with a method that is hard to recognize doesn't necessarily mean higher movecount.



I was referring to how you justified thisethod because of it's "more ergonomic" 3x3 stage.


----------



## elrog (Mar 28, 2013)

I've been messing around with L5P cases with edges oriented. I don't include L3C in this because thats just solved with commutators. It only would take me 15 algs without mirrors, but it would be extremely useful for the Heise method. I am thinking about learning them because it is only 15. I also realized that for cases of L5P that need 2 edges swapped and flipped, you can use a single setup move to convert them to a case with edges oriented and needing to be swapped. Heres a few examples:

convert to j perm case - Bw' (R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L) Bw

convert to v-perm case - Lw' (R' U R' Dw' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F) F z'

convert to random case I know - Rw' (U) (R U2 R D Rw' U2 Rw D' R2) Rw

You may need to do the third one backwards to see what it case it solves.


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 28, 2013)

elrog said:


> I think it would be cool if they had competitions where you won if you had the best average of moves and speed.


Much as I enjoy reading about theory and ideas, I'm still confused about what you're trying to achieve. Speed, or fewest moves? A number of times you've expressed a preference for saving moves over using faster algs/techniques, but you're not doing full-on FMC either. So yes I can imagine that kind of competition event would suit you! Perhaps there should be a forum called "elegantsolving.com" 

Rather than use a formula, which kind of makes it hard to care about the score, you could use a metronome. For example, solver chooses a bpm and has to solve cube without missing a beat, or maybe with N misses allowed before DNF. Speed of thinking becomes the challenge rather than tps, move count is the deciding factor for a given bpm, and to my mind there's no solve more elegant than one that's done at continuous turn rate with no pauses.


----------



## Username (Mar 28, 2013)

My idea for 2x2. Very similar to ortega. Solve a face, but always solve it diagonally, OLL, PBL. PBL will consist of 2 algs.

Basically 2-look EG-2


----------



## jayefbe (Mar 28, 2013)

*The New Method/Substep/Concept Idea Thread*

A competition taking both time and number of moves will never work (unless we are talking about FMC which already IS about move count and time). The reason it will never work as you suggest is that what constitutes a "good" solve is totally dependent on how you score it. From one extreme, reducing moves can be worth everything, to the other extreme, reducing time is worth everything. In which case, those are two separate events that already exist. Trying to force an event that is in between will only lead to arguments over which aspect should be rated higher over the other, and thus who is actually best will always be up for debate. There is no objective way to rank solves using two wholly different aspects of solving a cube.


----------



## elrog (Mar 29, 2013)

@ mark: Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. I think it would work well though. Cool idea.

@ Username: Thats not a bad idea to save on alg count, but why always solve the bottom face where it needs a diagnal swap? I can see that it would get rid of the need for AUFing the bottom, but if you solves the face the correct way, you would have a pretty good chance to skip PBL with using the same number of algorithms.

@ jayefbe: Yes, I see your point, but it still would be fun for a non-official type of thing. I really don't expect it to be added to WCA or anything (if I did, I'd make it its own thread).


----------



## The Supreme One (Mar 29, 2013)

the "big block corners" was how i originally tried to solve my v-cube 5. the idea is great, but there are almost no algs in existence for it, and there is almost zero intuitive portions, it would be all alg. the only advantages are having an epic looking solve, and a very fast 3x3 phase because double layer turns are faster on a v-cube

elrog, as per your question, the idea i was sharing was not to solve the F2L with offset, but rather to move the bottom layer to correspond with pairs that are offset and already formed in the cube, then to finish the F2L using two keyholes (or one more offset), and the the cube usually then gives you a free fourth pair


----------



## redbeat0222 (Mar 29, 2013)

So I was thinking for a CFOP who likes m slices. I think that you could do F2B, COLL/CMLL, fix cross, ELL. It is not a new method and I'm sure A *LOT* of you have found this out or experimented to find this out but I think it was cool for me to find it out on my own. I believe I've gotten sub 25 without practice on the first try.


----------



## Smiles (Mar 29, 2013)

redbeat0222 said:


> So I was thinking for a CFOP who likes m slices. I think that you could do F2B, COLL/CMLL, fix cross, ELL. It is not a new method and I'm sure A *LOT* of you have found this out or experimented to find this out but I think it was cool for me to find it out on my own. I believe I've gotten sub 25 without practice on the first try.



isn't that just roux but having LSE broken up into D-layer and U-layer?
im pretty sure there's no way it can compare to roux.


----------



## elrog (Mar 29, 2013)

Yes this has been thought of before and it is a varient of Roux.



Smiles said:


> im pretty sure there's no way it can compare to roux.



How so? The move count is no greater and neither is the recognition or turn speed? The only thing that is greater is the alg number because L5E is done intuitively except for some certain cases.


----------



## Smiles (Mar 29, 2013)

i was thinking that cause LSE in roux solves 2 edges, then solves the last 4 edges.
this LSE variant solves 2 edges, then takes at least one of them out during ELL.
it would also be harder to maintain a constant look ahead like Roux's LSE, since ELL requires its own recognition.

and im not here to argue about movecount and _potential_ in this variant based on learning different things and doing it differently, im just pointing out that Roux's LSE is better.


----------



## alevine (Apr 1, 2013)

*FTP method (or PTF)*

The FTP method is good for cubers transitioning from Fridrich to Petrus, as it incorporates many elements from Fridrich, but the F2L is solved in a slightly different way. FTP stands for Fridrich to Petrus, BTW. Basically, you do two adjacent cross colors, and then insert the F2L pair between them, making a 2x2 block as in Petrus. Then you solve another adjacent cross color, and solve the F2L pair in between that. Then solve the last color, and solve the last parts of the F2L Fridrich style. Then it's just OLL/PLL as in Fridrich. Also there's the PTF method (Petrus to Fridrich), which solves Cross/F2L as in Fridrich, but a Petrus-style LL (don't know this, I know the basic steps of Petrus, but not all the algs.) I don't even use Petrus myself.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 1, 2013)

alevine said:


> Also there's the PTF method (Petrus to Fridrich), which solves Cross/F2L as in Fridrich, but a Petrus-style LL (don't know this, I know the basic steps of Petrus, but not all the algs.) I don't even use Petrus myself.



Petrus "last layer" assumes edges have already been oriented. Thus, you would seem to need to insert an orient last layer edges step in order to finish the LL Petrus-style. One could use techniques for influencing the LL during F2L, but since this method is apparently promoted as being for someone just learning CFOP F2L, inserting the EOLL step seems to be the way the person would get to the Petrus-style finish.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 1, 2013)

Smiles said:


> i was thinking that cause LSE in roux solves 2 edges, then solves the last 4 edges.
> this LSE variant solves 2 edges, then takes at least one of them out during ELL.
> it would also be harder to maintain a constant look ahead like Roux's LSE, since ELL requires its own recognition.
> 
> and im not here to argue about movecount and _potential_ in this variant based on learning different things and doing it differently, im just pointing out that Roux's LSE is better.



No thats pretty bad. Anyway 2.5 look lse is great if you use it loosely.


----------



## ben1996123 (Apr 12, 2013)

Poke2000 said:


> 1.Solve the corners like a 2x2.
> 2. bring 2 edges with an alg to make half a face (i calculated it to be 20 algs, although[/I]may be wrong.(The edges don't have to permuted correctly.)
> 3. Repeat step 2. to make a face.
> 4. Bring 1 f2l edge into its correct position while preserving the corners and permuting the first layer edges(? algs.)
> ...


*

no its not*


----------



## Benyó (Apr 12, 2013)

please before post your ideas, just practice it a bit and if it works or at least not totally stupid, THEN post it.
noone wants to hear as *****ic methods as 'build 2x2 blocks in a 5x5' or 'i have made an already slow method much more complicated in order to create a method named after me'


----------



## elrog (Apr 28, 2013)

I have had much time for cubing lately, but when I do, I've been trying to solve the 3x3x3 cube using different move sets. I can already do M U, R U, 180 degree turns, slice moves, always having to turn opposite sides in oppossite directions at the same time, and some others. I also do not break the move set at any time hile solving it such as doing U2 M U2 M' while doing 180 degree turns.

I tried doing only Rw and U turns and it turned out more challanging than I thought it would. Doing this moveset is essentially not being able to turn one side and having a 2x2x3 block on the opposite side that you can't break at any time. While doing this moveset, corner permutation is solved after you finish the F2L. I have come up with a solution to this substep, but I want to see what everyone else comes up with as my solution is very lengthy.

After solving the F2L, I solve edge permutation, edge orientation, then do a form of a H-Perm if corner permutation isn't algined with edge permutation, and finally finish with corner orientation. It took me about and hour to come up with a solution that worked consistantly every time. If anyone is interested, I could post my solution here.


----------



## stoic (Apr 28, 2013)

elrog said:


> If anyone is interested, I could post my solution here.



I'd be interested to see how you did that.


----------



## elrog (Apr 29, 2013)

Alright, but the solutions can sometimes be very, very lengthy. I have found some ways to shorten this, but it would take more algorithms and you can't always do them. There are 3 algorithms (all other algorithms are made up of these 3) you will need to know to solve this moveset and you repeat than many times. I found these by just breaking my F2L and fixing it in a different way and seeing how it affected the pieces. Normally I'd use commutators, but this moveset didn't allow for many commutators (that are easily seen at least).

Here are the 3 algorithms you will use (when I type R I mean Rw):

Alg 1 v1: R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U R'

Alg 1 v2: R' U R U R' U R U' R' U' R

Alg 2 v1: (R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R') U' (R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R')

Alg 2 v2: (R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R') U2 (R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R')

Alg 3 v1: R' U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U R'

Alg 3 v2: R U' R2 U R2 U R2 U' R

If you are experienced enough at stardard intuitive F2L, you should be able to get the F2L and use some short cuts for this step. If not, you should start with the BR F2L pair (1x1x2 block composed of the BRD corner and the BR edge). This is made by getting the BRD corner in the top layer unoriented (without the bottom color on top) and moving it into the left side by using U moves. You can then match the edge up with it using R turns and possibly a U move or two. If you can't figure this out, you should probably get more experience before trying this.

You may need to get the pair out of the left side so you can flip it over with an R move. At this point, you may notice that if you put the pair in its correct place in relation to the 2x2x3 block on the left, you will have trouble getting the M layer centers matched up. You will need to get the pair in the U and L layers so you can move the M centers with an R move to the correct position so that the top color center will be on bottom when you place the pair. I know your probably thinking, why the top center? You will realize soon enough.

Your next step is to place the RD edge in the RU position. It must be oriented (has the bottom color on the top).This should also be pretty simple and easy to figure out. You then need to do the moves R' U2 R2 U2 R. To place the DB edge. To do this, you will need to place the edge in the UL position unoriented (having the bottom color not on top) and apply Alg 1 v2. You can flip the edge in the UL position by doing U' R U' R'. If the BD edge is in its correct place and is misoriented, you will need to do Alg 1 v2 to get the edge in the top layer and then solve it like normal.

Next, you will need to solve the FR pair. This can be done similarly to the first pair. If you get the case with the FRD corner in the UFL position with the bottom color on the left side and the FR edge in the UB position with the right color on top, you can use these moves to solve that case: R' U R2 U2 R2 U' R. It isn’t hard to see how this "algorithm" works.

Now you should have the F2L complete except for the FD edge. Get the edge in the UL position misoriented and apply Alg 1 v1 to solve it. If you’re having trouble flipping the edge while it is in the top layer, put it in the UR or UB position and perform Alg 2 v 1. If the edge is in the correct place and is misoriented, you will need to apply Alg 1 v 1 to get it into the top layer.

The first step to solving the top layer is to permute the top 4 edges. This is done using edge 3-cycles. Alg 3 v1 cycles UB --> UL --> UF and alg 3 v 2 cycles UF --> UL --> UB. You should never need to do more than 2 three cycles to solve edge permutation.

After permuting the top layer edges, you orient them using Alg 2. Alg 2 v 1 flips the UB and UR edges while alg 2 v 2 flips the UL and UR edges. If all edges are misoriented, you will need to do 2 algorithms to flip all 4 edges.

At this point, AUF until all edges are solves. Look at your corners to see if they are in their correct positions or if a X-perm (H-perm) is necessary to permute them. If you need to do and X-perm, do [ (Alg 3 v1) U ]2.

You should now only have to orient the last layer corners. All of the cases can be solved using the Pi case and the H case. (* means it is a solution for that case that I found later)

Pi case - AUF so that the headlights are facing the front. Do (Alg 2 v2) U2 (Alg 2 v2)

H case – AUF so that the headlights are on the left and right sides. Do (Alg 1 v1) U (Alg 1 v1)

Headlights case – AUF so that the headlights are in front. Do the H case to convert to the Pi case
* AUF so that the Headlights are in back. Do R U' R' (2nd Bowtie case) U' R U R'

T case – AUF so that the misoriented corners are in front. Do the Pi case to convert to the H case
* AUF so that the misoriented corners are in front. Do R' U R U' (2nd Bowtie case) R' U' R 

Bowtie case – AUF so that there is no top color on the front side. Do the Pi case to convert to the Pi case
* AUF so that the misoriented corners are in the UFL and UBR positions and there is no top color on front. Do (X-perm) U' (X-perm)

Sune case – AUF so that you have the correctly oriented corner in the F layer and there is another corner with the top color on the front. Do the Pi case to convert to the Headlights case

I know it is EXTREMELY long, but atleast its a solution.


----------



## stoic (Apr 29, 2013)

Thanks for posting. I did have a play with this and the F2L is indeed challenging but doable. Will work through the rest of your solution when I get a chance.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jun 15, 2013)

4x4 idea. 
1. Two centers
2. Edges yau style 
a. Four cross edges and place
b. 3-2-3 edge pairing with slightly less restriction
3. 3x3 solve. Before f2l, adjust cross so most corners seem solved. 
4. z' plus centers. I used niklas (r U' l' U r' U l U' i think) and variants. 
Not bad. Kinda yau-cage blend.


----------



## Username (Jun 15, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> 4x4 idea.
> 1. Two centers
> 2. Edges yau style
> a. Four cross edges and place
> ...



The centers will take forever


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 15, 2013)

Username said:


> The centers will take forever



...for just slightly simpler edge pairing. Doesn't sound like a good trade off.


----------



## Username (Jun 15, 2013)

jayefbe said:


> ...for just slightly simpler edge pairing. Doesn't sound like a good trade off.



I wouldn't say it's any simpler, since you still wind up with last 4 edges that you can't freeslice without breaking the already made pairs.


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 15, 2013)

Username said:


> I wouldn't say it's any simpler, since you still wind up with last 4 edges that you can't freeslice without breaking the already made pairs.



Oh but what about that first u or u' you get to skip if you're doing 3-2-3 edge pairing? We can't overlook that


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jun 23, 2013)

Cross
F2L
Winter Variation
CPEOLL
EPLL
Interesting method. What do you guys think?


----------



## TDM (Jun 23, 2013)

*Centres last*

I've been doing some CFOP solves, except solving the white cross _not_ on the white side. It could help when the cross is difficult if you aren't colour neutral; it can be an alternative to colour neutrality to make crosses easier. At the end of the solve, you finish the centres using (M' y)*4, (M' y')*4 or M2 E M2 E'. Here are some example solves because I'm bad at describing things:


Spoiler: R2 L' U D R2 L' F R F D' L2 D2 L2 B L2 D2 B R2 U2 F' B'



x' z
L B F R' F' // 'Cross' (5/5)
U R' U R L' U L // F2L-1 (7/12)
U' R' U R // F2L-2 (4/16)
U R U' R' U' R U R' // F2L-3 (8/24)
y' L' U2 L d' L U L' // F2L-4 (7/31)
U F R U R' U' S R U R' U' f' // OLL (12/43)
R2' u' R U' R U R' u R2 y R U' R' U' // PLL (13/56)
M' E M E' // Centres (4/60)





Spoiler: U' L' F2 U2 R U B' U L' F2 D2 F2 R2 F U2 D2 B2 R2 L2 B



z' y'
R' L' D L D' // 'Cross' (5/5)
d' R U R' // F2L-1 (4/9)
L' U' L U' L' U L // F2L-2 (7/16)
d' R U' R' y R U R' // F2L-3 (7/23)
U2 y R U R' U2 R U' R' // F2L-4 (8/31)
U R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R' // COLL (10/41)
R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U // EPLL (12/53)
M' y' M' y' M' y' M' // Centres (4/57)

I also could've ended with L R' E M E' to avoid rotations.


There are some certain rules when making the cross: the pieces must be correct in relation to each other; if made on the opposite side to normal (Y if you start on W), two opposite pieces must be on their correct face (e.g. RW and OW edges on R and O sides); if made on a side adjacent to W (e.g. G) then the piece that would normally go between that side and W has to be a quarter turn from its correct place (e.g. WG edge goes in GO or GR position).

Opinions? I think it looks like it could be useful with a bit of practise - just like CN.


----------



## PoHos1 (Jun 27, 2013)

*NEW metod idea *

HI just have new idea of metod its bit advenced 
but I mean that can be fast

*1 STEP *

Just easy solve 2x2x3 block like whit petrus 

*2 STEP*

solve the corner and opposite edge like with keyhole trick  you will see in example solve  next

*3 STEP A *

Next you have to solve last edge to cross and this is advenced you have to twist edges to have orient 3 edges on top

*3 STEP B*
now you have to like with keyhole trick solve last pair to f2l but you have to look to edges on top and dont destroy it to have cross on top after it

*4 STEP *

now you have to do all coll alg. to solve last layer and that just do U perms or Z or H perm  its fast 







Example solve :F2 R2 D' U' B2 U' B2 L2 D B2 R2 F' R' D B F2 U R' D F L2 U2 


orient: x2 y 
2x2x3 block: R Ui Ri yi U2 r Ui ri y Ri Fi R
Corner+Edge: y R2 U Ri U R Ui Ri 
Edges orient : y U Mi U M
Keyhole: Di Li U2 L U2 Li U L D
Last layer R U Ri U R U2 Ri and then Z perm

its not best but you can try it I mean it that sometime its good solve like I have on it time like 14 sec


----------



## Rnewms (Jun 27, 2013)

It would be nice if you changed i to ' and the solution does not work during Corner+Edge.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 27, 2013)

Inb4 or you could use petrus.


----------



## CubeRoots (Jun 27, 2013)

so you are basically orienting the edges during the last half of F2L? I think it's a decent-ish idea but you didn't really explain it very well :/


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 27, 2013)

It's really hard to understand what's going on here, but I think you say that you have to do things multiple times without actually explaining how to do them.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jun 27, 2013)

Interesting metod. What's you best time with this?


----------



## Qthulu (Jun 28, 2013)

applemobile said:


> Inb4 or you could use petrus.


Or you could use Petrus.

However, I quite didn't understand the method. Is it a Petrus-Keyhole hybrid with a touch of ZZ?


----------



## MatejMuzatko (Jul 9, 2013)

*L6E with AUF*

I found out that Roux users solve UL and UR edges first and then do L4E... Isn't it more logical to solve ANY 2 edges first (depends on bottom edges), recognise L6E case (or EP case if you solved DB and DF edges) and then do AUF? 

I am not Roux user and I don't know if some of Roux users use it, but it's worth to think about....


----------



## Username (Jul 9, 2013)

Aka. Pseudo


----------



## chimchu (Jul 11, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdKJ7li9IQ
please give this a few minutes its pretty interesting i want to see peoples thoughts on a edges first variation for beginners


----------



## CubezUBR (Jul 11, 2013)

its not 100% complete and i need comfermation that it dosent allready exist. basically you:
1: solve a 2x2x3 block in the bottom left
2: orient all the remaining corners (6)
3: put ul and dr edges in ul and dr
4: solve the 5 remaining edges like roux i think (im not sure)
i dont know how fast it is or if it allready made and is a known method so sorry and delete this post if you have a problem with it admins


----------



## AHornbaker (Jul 15, 2013)

*2-Gen Solves*

Hello Everyone. 

For a long time I've wanted to be able to do a 2-gen solve. As a novice cuber, I thought by just making a 2x2x3 I could finish the cube 2-gen. (For those of you who don't know, 2-gen is using only 2 sides) I quickly figured out that this wasn't possible, actually most of the time. Lars says it's only possible about 1/6 of the time. It has to do with the corners. When solving 2-gen (assuming edges are already oriented) you can solve the cube to the point where there is 1.) Nothing needed, the cube is solved 2.) An adjacent corner swap is needed 3.) An opposite corner swap is needed. 

To get the cube in a state where you can do a 2-gen finish, you must "fix" the corners so that you can do a 2-gen solve. The problem with this is that by just looking at the cube, you cannot tell which corners need to be switched. My quick solution to this is to put the last two corners on the bottom in the correct spot (a.k.a. permutation) after solving the 2x2x3, then assessing the corner permutation on the top layer. As the corners do not need to be oriented at this point, recognition may be a little tricky at first. Then, you can determine whether there needs to be an adjacent or opposite corner swap, or none at all. My simple fix to this is the algorithm *R U R'*. 

If the 2x2x3 is on BD and two adjacent swapped corners are on UR, this alg will swap the corners, allowing you to do y' and solve with U and R. To avoid having to reassess twice for an opposite corner swap, I have come up with the easy opposite swap alg *R U R' F' R' F' R*. The same applies for this algorithm; you must have the 2x2x3 on BR and the two bottom corners in the right spots. Using these two algs, you can solve the cube 2-gen after the 2x2x3 step. These extra setup moves may or may not prove to be valuable in a solve. 

I want to keep this short and not spell it all out so that it allows you to think about ways to use this, and also because I don't have the drive to develop this method if it gets shot down, or if my idea isn't the best way to apply this concept. It's hard for me to believe that I'm the first person to come across this, but I haven't seen this anywhere else. I will make a brief video if it is requested to show how this is used. Give me your best ideas!

Enjoy!



Spoiler



My original idea was just to add onto the Petrus method and make the EO stage coupled with this corner fixing. A small taste of how this would work is using the adjacent swap alg but putting the swapped corners on UB instead of UR. This will allow you to change the orientation of the FR and UB edges but not fix the edges, so that two corners still must be swapped. This allows you to do both steps at the same time as both EO and corner "fixing" conflict with each other. Clearly there would need to be one set of algs for all this, and probably setup moves to lower the number of algs. 

Then, there would have to be some way to solve the cube 2-gen efficiently making the most of 2-gen. Again, more new algs. Personally, I think that 2-gen and more moves is way better than regular algs. I found this out when learning WV. See my page on WV: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2853&d=1368391115 Algs would be way faster to execute, no grip changes, faster to learn, and possibly easier to recognize, but I don't have anything definite on that. This stage could be done a couple ways:
1.) solve bottom two layers like Petrus, then one set of LL algs for 6 CO cases and 4 edge perm cases (Petrus users would probably find this fastest)
2.) One huge set of algs (very unfeasible considering the 81 corner orientation cases with edge perms, however if the bottom two corners are solved, that means no corner perms, only 6 CO algs times a couple edge perm algs. 
3.) Solve 2x2x3, then 2x2x1 on FR leaving the last slot on FL. Then place last corner (starting to look like Pikas**t) assess, flip corners and EO somehow preserving the 2x2x1 on FR, then y' and 2-gen finish the last 5 corners and 5 edges using one set of algs. 
4.) Solve 2x2x3, place bottom corners and assess, fix corners, orient corners (essentially permuting if bottom corners are right), then use F, U, and M moves to orient and permute edges.

I'm sure there are other ways to split it up, and many other applications of this find. 

One of my biggest concerns is my idea being shot down because of the existing CLL algs that permute and orient the corners, which would be the most efficient use of the corner assessment. My argument is that these algs are long and hard, and your work would be in vain when you went to permute edges 2-gen. Which of course you would not do. You would probably use U and M moves (plus some well-timed F moves for FR and FL edges, or maybe these would be done before CLL leaving permutation of L5E) Solving this way is almost definitely better than the way I proposed for #4, but that wouldn't be an application of the corner fixing.

Sorry for the rambling. These ideas weren't well-developed.

For more thoughts on this concept, here's my most recent email to Lars (not sure if he has read it yet):


Spoiler



Here's an update on what I've been figuring out so far. I've included headers for reference because this was longer than I intended.

Slight Modifications:
I figured out it's easier to place the last two bottom corners in the right spots, and then assess the permutation of the top layer rather than to place three corners and try and analyze the remaining three. Not a big difference from what I previously explained, but I found it is much quicker and easier on the mind. I'm sure this step will be easy for Pertrus users who do CLL already.

Another thing that will lower the move count is placing the last two bottom corners even if they are swapped. By doing this, you can still easily assess the permutation of the top layer, then factor in for the adjacent corner swap on the bottom corners later.


Basic Algorithms and Roadblocks:
I have figured out a basic adjacent corner swap (as shown in the video I attached in an earlier email). If the adjacent corners that must be swapped are on the UB intersection, you may do <B U B'> to "swap" the corners. The same concept applies to the other side (UF) and the moves <F' U' F>. However, I have not been able to figure out two things:

1.) How to do an opposite corner swap (maybe you can be of assistance?). I know that doing an adjacent swap alg will "swap" two specific corners, but in the case of an opposite swap, doing this will turn it into an adjacent swap case while leaving me clueless as to the next two corners that need to be swapped. Then, I must "reset" by placing the two bottom corners again, looking at the top layer, then doing the adjacent swap once I have determined the two corners that need to be swapped. To make these two steps into one algorithm, I have been attempting to find a solution by working backwards, so far with no success. Apparently I am not creative enough trying random combinations of moves to induce an opposite corner swap from a solved cube. (As a side note, obviously this can be done with a PLL alg, however I want to keep the move count low and am not particularly interested in the edges at the stage. I have been trying things on a 2x2 cube to simplify and speed up my "testing" of sorts.)

2.) How to orient edges while putting corners in the correct permutation. The main concern for this is if the edges are correctly oriented, but a corner swap needs to be performed (if this is even possible, assuming EO and edge swaps are unrelated). Clearly, I still don't full understand how an F move changes the permutation of the corners from one [of the three categories correct, adjacent, or opposite swap] to another. I know that an adjacent swap alg will flip the orientation of two edges and swap two adjacent corners. I don't know how to do one without the other. It may be possible to some sort of adjacent swap that results in an adjacent swap, in the same way that doing a 3-corner cycle PLL when the U face is turned the wrong way will turn into the same 3-corner cycle case. Also, E (slice) and U moves can be used to change the orientation of edges without changing the permutation of corners. If it is ever understood how F moves interact with the corners, the rest of this will become a lot easier. 


EO + Corner Perm Stage:
Coupling the EO of Petrus with this corner "permutation" in one stage will probably require a new list of algorithms. The number of EO cases (I think around six?) times the three categories will be the least number of algorithms needed, not accounting for flipped algs, or where the position of the corners makes the EO case from one into 2 or 4 (not sure if this makes sense). This may occur in the same way that there are # EO cases like there are 21 PLLs instead of 84 PLLs for each U face rotation. When something else is superimposed on something like PLL, for example, the number may rise from 21 to account for more unique cases. 

Also, while on the the subject of new algorithms, when the cube is reduced to a 2-gen solve, the 7 OLL cases for all edges oriented (including the solved case) are combined with the 5 PLL cases for correct corner permutation (including the solved case) it would total to 34 total algs (minus the solved case). However this is only for the last layer, and the number of algs for the last two layers (R and U) would be significantly higher and would make recognition very hard. To do this, you would on a very simple level just orient the corners and permute the edges. A more practical approach might be making OCLL or WV algs for 6 corners and using existing Roux alg sets (I think Roux solves the last 6 edges, excuse my ignorance. I will read up on Roux shortly).

*As a note, the difficulty with these corner permutation categories (correct, adjacent and opposite swap) is that they are transferrable between corners. Unlike edges, the "orientation" of corners is not specific to a certain corner. That is why the setup moves of placing the last two bottom edges is necesary, to limit the corner swap case to the four corners on the U layer and therefore reduce the number of cases to be recognized. Also, it is difficult to talk about these categories without calling them permutations. They are not permutations, but three subsets of all the cases [of 6 corner permutations] that will determine the PLL(s) if the case is solved 2-gen.

Related Thoughts:
Keep in mind that all these algs would be 2-gen, very fast to learn, very fast to execute. Although the alg counts/length may be disouraging, it still may be a very viable method. Because there are only 6 moves that can be done (R, R', R2, U, U', U2), then three after that (as each move would alternate faces), it might make sense to rewrite algs using a condensed notation. 

One idea I have for a condensed notation is to represent an R or U move with 1, R2 or U2 move with 2, and R' or U' move with a 3. Because each move alternates faces, the sequence would start out with R or U, indicating which face the first move would be on, then proceed with a string of numbers. This might make it faster to learn, execute, and recall, etc., and make it easier to spot pattens between algs. Algs would definitely be shorter in text.

An idea popped into my head that maybe Petrus isn't the right method to apply a 2-gen finish to. I love Petrus and the concepts it was made with, but there's always room for improvement. Clearly, the 2x2x3 step is essential to a 2-gen solve, but maybe there are better, more systematic ways of making this that makes the rest of the solve easier. Maybe something along the lines of x-cross or ZB/ZZ (can't remember right now if either is the right acronym) would solve EO at the same time. Any way, I think if this method turns out to be viable, it may have valuable applications to a new method, 2x2 solves, and probably fewest movest competitions. 

I've been playing around with a new 2x2 method where during inspection you could figure out how to separate the yellow and white, for example, on the top and bottom layers as well as get the "correct permutation", then AUF and Orient Both Layers and AUF for a finish. This would need a new set of OBL algs (unless they already exist) and new concepts to learn for inspection. I think this is easily a viable method with a smart inspection, and 48 OBL algs (7 OCLL cases multiplied for both layers, minus the solved case).


Closing:
Hopefully this information was not difficult to follow as I made an effort to express my ideas explicitly. I think this email just about sums up every developed thought I've had about 2-gen solves. I can't imagine that I am the first to come across this concept, as it doesn't seem very complicated. Hopefully it might make the Pertus method faster, lay the groundwork for a new method, or at the very least spark some interesting discussion on the forums. Let me know what you think of all this. If some ideas don't make sense in writing, I can make some mediocre videos illistrating these concepts.

-Austin


----------



## Username (Jul 15, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> *R U R' F' R' F' R*



Nope, that alg flips the edges, leading to a non 2-gen solve

Also assuming that edges are oriented is wrong because after building a 2x2x3 block you have one of 4 edge orientation "cases" (amount of misoriented edges)


----------



## Renslay (Jul 15, 2013)

Noah's CP method solves the 2x2x3 part in a way that the remaining parts can be finished with 2-gen. It fixes the corner-problem (as well as the edge orientation) in an early step; so when you finish the 2x2x3, the cube is already in <R,U>.
It's not a speed method, but it is fun and one of my favorite methods.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?41986-Noah-s-CP-Block-Method-2-0
CP1 is Petrus-like, CP2 is Roux-like.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 15, 2013)

it's weird how people think 2 gen is some holy grail for solving


----------



## mDiPalma (Jul 15, 2013)

ZZ-Porky incorporates the same basic solving approach with _accurate_ algs and a good recognition system. 



Kirjava said:


> it's weird how people think 2 gen is some holy grail for solving



It's a really easy way for a 1LLL, assuming you know the alg set.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 15, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> It's a really easy way for a 1LLL, assuming you know the alg set.



Sure, 2GLL is a great step. Unfortunately, every method that incorporates it seems to have trouble getting to that step efficiently. (CPEOLL -> 2GLL might be a decent LL method though).

A notable nuance of 2GLL is that the <R,U> solution isn't even always the best solution for the 2GLL case.


----------



## AHornbaker (Jul 17, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Sure, 2GLL is a great step. Unfortunately, every method that incorporates it seems to have trouble getting to that step efficiently. (CPEOLL -> 2GLL might be a decent LL method though).
> 
> A notable nuance of 2GLL is that the <R,U> solution isn't even always the best solution for the 2GLL case.



True. I've been pretty fascinated by the idea of CP fixing lately. I've spent a lot of time reading up on Noah's CP and the CPLS and F2LL pages on the wiki. One of a couple ideas i've been playing with lately goes like this:

-1x2x3 (FLD)
-2x2x2 (BRD) using R, r, and U
-EO and FD edge
-CP/LS
-CO/EP

I'm pretty hooked on it. Roux block during recognition, super fast 2x2x2 using U, R, and r (the only reason I uses these moves is because another idea I'm playing with does CP before the 2x2x2 block), then EO using the same moves (I'm a total noob here, any help/pages would be appreciated) recognize CP, fix it and restore EO, last slot, (look-ahead for LL) 2-gen corner orient, 2-gen edge perm. The way I do it now is very slow because I don't know any of the algs, but if it looks good to everyone i'll learn the algs. The alg sets this method needs are: CPLS and F2LL, but CPLS still confuses me for the alg sets I'd use and none of the F2LL links work but the BOCA alg database. Still trying to figure out where and how to do CP, but I really like the idea of an CO/EP alg set. Thoughts?


----------



## elrog (Jul 19, 2013)

I was thinking about doing CP method, but doing CP later in a solve is inefficient (not necessarily because of move count). So I got the idea of doing it during inspection, but I have not found a way to do it. Also, even if I did manage to find a extremely efficient and easy way to do it, the method would be no better than CFOP or Roux.


I've been looking for ways to solve the last layer along with something else while still using only 2 algorithms. I've looked at a lot of last slot + last layer options, but they have too many algorithms to be proficient with and to recall quickly. 

So here's what I've come up with. During F2L, you do not need to worry about the permutation of the E layer edges, only the orientation. This can easily be done by treating opposite colors as the same. You will be able to find better F2L cases more often and have a lower chance of not seeing a pair to make due to pieces being hidden. You will then solve corner orientation or the top layer while permuting the E layer edges. You would then do PLL and EO of the last layer all in one step.

Solving corner orientation with E layer permutation would take 71 algorithms while PLL + EO would take 76 (not including PLL and mirrors). Using Partial edge control would lower the 76 to 62. Recognition for both would be good as with many LL methods.

Pros
- Better F2L cases
- Find pairs easier.

Cons
- more algorithms and all the disadvantages that come with it such as recall and mastering every alg.
- Algs for corner orientation + E layer permutation wouldn't be quick to preform.

I don't think that recall should be much of a problem because neither alg set it overly huge. It would be extremely difficult or maybe impossible to master every one of the algs though. Do you think the better F2L is worth it?

You could also solve edge orientation throughout F2L and have the first alg set preserve edge orientation leaving you with normal PLL.


----------



## stoic (Jul 19, 2013)

elrog said:


> solve corner orientation or the top layer while permuting the E layer edges



Wouldn't recognition for these edges be awful?


----------



## rainymood (Jul 19, 2013)

Hi all!

So I have been reading into zz and fooling around with it. Being the total plebian that I am I found the 12 edges too hard to keep track of. Therefore I totally disregarded the 4 yellow edges in the EOline step, creating essentially an easier version of EOline at the expense of the yellow cross.

Has this intermediate step between learning full EOline already been discussed at length?


----------



## mDiPalma (Jul 19, 2013)

rainymood said:


> Hi all!
> 
> So I have been reading into zz and fooling around with it. Being the total plebian that I am I found the 12 edges too hard to keep track of. Therefore I totally disregarded the 4 yellow edges in the EOline step, creating essentially an easier version of EOline at the expense of the yellow cross.
> 
> Has this intermediate step between learning full EOline already been discussed at length?



Yeah it's cool, as long as you're not *gasp* placing the left and right cross pieces after you finish your eoline.


----------



## stoic (Jul 19, 2013)

rainymood said:


> Hi all!
> 
> So I have been reading into zz and fooling around with it. Being the total plebian that I am I found the 12 edges too hard to keep track of. Therefore I totally disregarded the 4 yellow edges in the EOline step, creating essentially an easier version of EOline at the expense of the yellow cross.
> 
> Has this intermediate step between learning full EOline already been discussed at length?



I might try that, as I enjoy ZZ but suck at EO.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jul 19, 2013)

rainymood said:


> Hi all!
> 
> So I have been reading into zz and fooling around with it. Being the total plebian that I am I found the 12 edges too hard to keep track of. Therefore I totally disregarded the 4 yellow edges in the EOline step, creating essentially an easier version of EOline at the expense of the yellow cross.
> 
> Has this intermediate step between learning full EOline already been discussed at length?



Don't do it. Just practice eoline. Not too hard after some practice.


----------



## elrog (Jul 19, 2013)

ellwd said:


> Wouldn't recognition for these edges be awful?



It could be recognized from looking at the left, front and right sides if you don't remember what edge was where after F2L. If you just remember where one edge is while doing F2L (preferably and earlier one), you should be able to use just the front and right sides most of the time.



For doing EO, you only need to remember where the bad edges are. It is not all 12 of them very often. I normally recognize EO by first looking at the D layer, then the E layer, and lastly, the U layer. I make sure I can remember where each edge is before I move on to memorizing the next layer.


----------



## Suratha (Jul 29, 2013)

*OLLL-by orienting last layer corners*

Can we orient the last layer corners while inserting the last F2L pair and solve the last layer in one look?..
Because in ZBLL,there are seven orientation cases and PLL..but if we orient the corners,then there will be only three orientation cases and PLL..Can anyone come up with an idea for this?


----------



## Username (Jul 29, 2013)

No.

This doesn't need a thread. There is a new substep/method/idea thread already.

If we orient corners, but not edges we don't get ZBLL... 

Also the last step would be OLLCP with the corners oriented


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 29, 2013)

Suratha said:


> but if we orient the corners,then there will be only three orientation cases and PLL



there will be 8 orientation cases


----------



## Suratha (Jul 29, 2013)

There must be only three orientation cases for edges(4 edges flip,2 adjacent edges flip,2 opposite edges flip)..


----------



## tx789 (Jul 29, 2013)

There winter and summer variation which is similar to this


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 29, 2013)

Suratha said:


> There must be only three orientation cases for edges(4 edges flip,2 adjacent edges flip,2 opposite edges flip)..



You are wrong. Because:

1. case is all edges oriented
2. case is all edges unoriented
3. and 4. case is 2 opposite edges unoriented. This has two possible cases because you can have either front and back edges flipped or left and right edges flipped
cases 5.-8. will be 2 adjacent edge flip with same logic. You van have (front left) or (left back) or (back right) or (right front) edges flipped.

And these are all different cases because you can't AUF both PLL and flipped edges at the same time... Unlike in OLL where you only have 4 edge orientation cases because you can AUF and do PLL later...


----------



## elrog (Aug 1, 2013)

You do recognize CLL by the orientation case of the top/bottom colors and the left/right colors, correct? Could you use the same recognition system for doing the last 5 corners at once?

What I'm thinking about is a better way to recognize corner permutation. If you know the CLL case, you know the permutation case. You wouldn't really need to know algorithms for every last 5 corners case, just the permutations. You could possibly recognize CP without placing all 4 bottom corners.

Thoughts?


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 3, 2013)

Here's an idea I've fooled around with a little, and I'm not sure what kind of potential it has if any.

1. *Solve one side* with opposite colors (ie. red/orange) so all pieces are "oriented" on bottom
2. Use U, u, E, and R moves to *orient all edges* in E layer and U face
3. While orienting last two edges, use an alg to *orient all corners* on the U face (at this point all edges and corners are oriented)
4. *F2L like ZZ* using R, L, and U2 moves to preserve corner orientation (may lose moves here)
5. *PLL*

The first steps (1 and 2) are super easy and fast, step three potentially has a lot of algs, step four may lose efficiency in U2 moves, and PLL cases aren't reduced at all. After thinking about this some more, it's just ZZ with corner orientation before F2L, so ZZ is almost definitely more efficient and fast. Just thought I should get the idea out there.


----------



## Username (Aug 3, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> 4. *F2L like ZZ* using R, L, and U2 moves to preserve corner orientation (may lose moves here)



Preserving Corner orientation isn't that easy, also having all corners correctly oriented would make F2L terrible imo


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 3, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> Here's an idea I've fooled around with a little, and I'm not sure what kind of potential it has if any.
> 
> 1. *Solve one side* with opposite colors (ie. red/orange) so all pieces are "oriented" on bottom
> 2. Use U, u, E, and R moves to *orient all edges* in E layer and U face
> ...



Or you could just use ZZ.


----------



## blade740 (Aug 3, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> Here's an idea I've fooled around with a little, and I'm not sure what kind of potential it has if any.
> 
> 1. *Solve one side* with opposite colors (ie. red/orange) so all pieces are "oriented" on bottom
> 2. Use U, u, E, and R moves to *orient all edges* in E layer and U face
> ...



3x3 Guimond?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 3, 2013)

Weird approach. 

1. Solve 4 f2l pairs (pcms style)
2. Place the 4 D-edges
3. OLL/PLL or CLL/ELL

CLL has a slight advantage because you can recognize the case while placing d-edges. However oll/pll can also be done. 

Edit: one other approach I thought of. 

Place 3 d-edges
L5EOP
COLL/EPLL

However the other two seem faster.


----------



## elrog (Aug 3, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> Here's an idea I've fooled around with a little, and I'm not sure what kind of potential it has if any.
> 
> 1. *Solve one side* with opposite colors (ie. red/orange) so all pieces are "oriented" on bottom
> 2. Use U, u, E, and R moves to *orient all edges* in E layer and U face
> ...



Using R L and U2 doesn't preserve corner orientation to the top/bottom colors, just the left/right ones. If you had corners oriented to the left right sides, building that first layer becomes a little more tricky and you can't finish the solve with PLL. Why not orient corners to the top/bottom faces and preserve orientation by doing R2 F2 L2 B2 U and D moves like in Orient Frist. Doing this you could also finish with PLL.


----------



## Username (Aug 3, 2013)

1. Cross with 2 opposite pieces swapped
2. F2L
3. OLL
4. Fix 2 cross edges and do PLL at the same time (or do "PLL Parity to force better cases)


The 2 cross edges could also be corrected during F2L to separate pieces and set up nice cases
Would this work?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 3, 2013)

Username said:


> 1. Cross with 2 opposite pieces swapped
> 2. F2L
> 3. OLL
> 4. Fix 2 cross edges and do PLL at the same time (or do "PLL Parity to force better cases)
> ...



Been thought of. Meep has a few algs iirc.


----------



## uvafan (Aug 3, 2013)

Username said:


> 1. Cross with 2 opposite pieces swapped
> 2. F2L
> 3. OLL
> 4. Fix 2 cross edges and do PLL at the same time (or do "PLL Parity to force better cases)
> ...


Involves too much thinking to get very fast at it. Just another slight variant of CFOP that's not nearly as good.

Ofc you could get like one second worse averages with it because of the added time from the M2 U2 M2, but I doubt you could ever get better with it.


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 3, 2013)

uvafan said:


> Involves too much thinking to get very fast at it. Just another slight variant of CFOP that's not nearly as good.
> 
> Ofc you could get like one second worse averages with it because of the added time from the M2 U2 M2, but I doubt you could ever get better with it.



Its not a bad idea. It doesn't involve any more thinking than a cfop solve with practice. And could be very useful for f2l.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Aug 4, 2013)

Username said:


> 1. Cross with 2 opposite pieces swapped
> 2. F2L
> 3. OLL
> 4. Fix 2 cross edges and do PLL at the same time (or do "PLL Parity to force better cases)



Swapping DF and DB with "PLL" adds about one move (optimal face turn metric) on average over regular PLL. There is no "skip" case and the worst case of 16 moves instead of 15.

I also note that if using one alg for each case, you will half the time need a pre-AUF (90-degree turn) to line up the last layer properly with the pieces to swap on D, in addition to also needing a post-AUF a majority of the time. Regular PLL just requires one AUF, which can be done either before or after the alg.

Move distribution comparison is given below:

```
moves Standard  DF-DB swap
          PLL   + PLL
-----    -----  -----
 0f*:      1      0
 1f*:      3      0
 5f*:      0      1
 6f*:      0      5
 7f*:      0      2
 9f*:     18      0
10f*:     82      2
11f*:     16     30
12f*:     40     74
13f*:     84    100
14f*:     40     63
15f*:      4      8
16f*:      0      3

avg.:     11.64  12.63
```


----------



## elrog (Aug 5, 2013)

As I was messing around with different ideas, I happened across this.

Rather than using CLS + PLL, you can save on alg count by just orienting the corners and permuting the last layer + 1 corner.

CLS + PLL = 104 + 21 = 125

CO + PLL+1 = 15 + (72+21) = 108

PLL+1 corner could be recognized from 2 sides just like PLL, while CO is easier a little recognition than CLS.


I also found that Using ELS with key holing is still efficient while keeping a low alg count making it better than ZBLS.


----------



## elrog (Aug 8, 2013)

When solving edges on the 4x4, I place the edge oriented correctly while I swap it for another edge. This makes EO complete when I finish the edges. I solve the last 2 edges into correct orientation usually with a 3-cycle commutator. I'm sure others have thought of this, but does anyone do it?

Another Idea I've had is to just not pair the last 2 edges and save them for the very last part of the solve so you solve both parities and pair the last 2 edges in one step.


----------



## BaMiao (Aug 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> When solving edges on the 4x4, I place the edge oriented correctly while I swap it for another edge. This makes EO complete when I finish the edges.



But then the edge you're swapping in isn't necessarily oriented well for pairing up the next edge. You'd just end up wasting moves trying to set up the next pair.


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> When solving edges on the 4x4, I place the edge oriented correctly while I swap it for another edge. This makes EO complete when I finish the edges. I solve the last 2 edges into correct orientation usually with a 3-cycle commutator. I'm sure others have thought of this, but does anyone do it?
> 
> Another Idea I've had is to just not pair the last 2 edges and save them for the very last part of the solve so you solve both parities and pair the last 2 edges in one step.


Ever heard of Z4?


----------



## elrog (Aug 8, 2013)

BaMiao said:


> But then the edge you're swapping in isn't necessarily oriented well for pairing up the next edge. You'd just end up wasting moves trying to set up the next pair.



You can put the edge in in a different place in the middle layer to have it oriented correctly. The only problem is you can't do multi edge pairs at the same time.



aceofspades98 said:


> Ever heard of Z4?



I have actually, I just didn't know what it was. It is just what I was thinking of though.


----------



## elrog (Aug 11, 2013)

We Have VHF2L for CFOP. Why not also have it for Roux? Rather than having 8 algs for the pair connected, 8 for it unconnected, and then the mirrors of them, it would take 32 algs for the pair connected and 32 for it unconnected.

In R U R' and U' F' U F the pair is only a M move away. If you get the centers off though, the edge in the pair would be counted as a bad edge though completely ruining the systems recognition.
If anyone has any solutions to this, you could eliminate half the cases.

Also, if you get the mirror of a case, you'll just have to do a D move to keep from messing up the S layer. The only problem with this is cube rotations. I gues you could get completely different algs, but that's doubleing the alg count if you don't count mirrors as separate algs.

Another cool Idea is to do VHF2L with Phasing. This would take 24 algorithms for the pair connected, 24 for unconnected, and all the mirrors.

EDIT: You could also do this without the corner possibly shortening the alg. It'd be like doing Phasing with ELS.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Aug 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> We Have VHF2L for CFOP. Why not also have it for Roux? Rather than having 8 algs for the pair connected, 8 for it unconnected, and then the mirrors of them, it would take 32 algs for the pair connected and 32 for it unconnected.
> 
> In R U R' and U' F' U F the pair is only a M move away. If you get the centers off though, the edge in the pair would be counted as a bad edge though completely ruining the systems recognition.
> If anyone has any solutions to this, you could eliminate half the cases.
> ...



Well Roux is all about minimal algorithms so I don't think most Rouxers would learn this. Cool idea though


----------



## elrog (Aug 11, 2013)

*New Speedsolving Method (Navi)*

I liked the way that porkynator named his algorithms for his version of ZZ-d after Pokemon. I decided to go with a random name as well and name this method after the fairy in the Zelda games. I also put a lot of thinking time into the creation of this method, so please don't dismiss it as you normally would dismiss any random method. I wasn't going to post something I didn't think could be fast.


My "theory" behind this method is to exploit the small algorithm sets the same way that OCLL/PLL is so much better than ZBLL. This method utilizes a total of 86 (21 mirrors) algorithms including algorithms used throughout the F2L. A few of the algorithms can be done intuitively. The largest single algorithm set is 33 (9+24) algorithms, so recall shouldn't be a problem. You can learn subsets of the algorithms and still be able to solve the cube, which helps people learn the method. I'd say this method is not the easiest method to learn, but its not too difficult. With practice, the first step and possibly the second can be planned out during inspection.

Here is a step by step description of the method.
- Pictures that go along with the explanations were created using VisualCube.


Spoiler: The Method



*Step 1:* D-Block






Solve a 1x2x3 block on the D face and position it so that the R slice is free. This could also be done on the left side with the U-layer free. If you use the left side, your first two layers would be the left 2 layers.

*Step 2:* 2EE





Solve two adjacent E-layer edges using U, Uw, R, and possibly E moves and position them to create a 2x2x3 block or a pseudo 2x2x3. You may also influence the next step by orienting the last D-layer edge, or matching it with one of its corners. You may do this influencing during step one if you see the chance.

*Step 3:* D-Pair





Solve the missing D-layer edge and one of the missing D-layer corners. Keep in mind that you will want to have the still unsolved corner slot in the FRD position for orientation and permutation algorithms. Assuming you don't favor doing the BRD corner first, which you should, you have a 25% chance of having to do a y rotation to get the unsolved corner in the FRD position. Don't go out of your way too much to avoid a rotation though, because F moves are arguably worse. You can also try to avoid bad E-layer edge positions.

*Step 4:* EELS





Keyhole one of the missing E-layer edges in using ELS to orient top layer edges. You count the last E-layer edge as good or bad depending on the one in its place or depending on if you have an even/odd number of bad/good edges. This step uses 21 algs (8 mirrors). Some of these can be done intuitively.

You may run into some situations that you cannot simply do an ELS algorithm. This is either because both E-layer edges are oriented incorrectly in their correct position, or the 2 unsolved E-layer edges are in each others correct positions. If you run into the first case, just orient as many of the edges as you can while solving one of the E-layer edges and use one of 3 (1 of this will be your ELS algorithm for that case) algorithms in step 5 that deal with this situation. If you end up with the second case, you can simply move one of the edges into the top layer and influence the ELS case you'll get afterwards, or you can use an algorithm for that specific case which is included in the Extra algorithms listed with the ELS algorithms.

*Step 5:* LEEP





Keyhole in the last E-layer edge and phase the U-layer edges (make opposite edges opposite of each other). This step takes 9 (3 mirrors) algorithms. 6 are used when the edge is in the top layer, 1 is used when the last E-edge is solved, and the 3 mentioned in step 4 also must be counted (Remember that one of these will be your ELS alg for that case). All of these can be done intuitively except for the 3 mentioned in step 4.

*Step 6:* O5C





Orient the last 5 corners. This step can be recognized by the orientation of the top 4 corners (looking at the bottom corner isn't necessary), but there are some cases where you have to look at the left or back side of the cube. If you do look at the corner in the slot only for these cases, looking at the left or back side is never necessary. This step takes 23 algs. 7 are OCLLs and it takes 8 more algs and their mirrors.

*Step 7:* PLL+C





Place the D layer corner and permute the top layer. This takes 33 algorithms. 9 are PLLs (2 mirrors), and 24 (6 mirrors.) are without the last D corner in place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I chose to build the F2L this way because it saves moves, yet still sustains good look ahead and a decent move-set. You may build the F2L minus one slot with edges oriented any way you want, but this is what I think the most efficient way is for speed (balancing move count with TPS). You can solve the 1x2x3 block on the left to do an easier x rotation instead of a y rotation after step 3, but the transition to the last layer requires rotation(s) unless you learn the algorithms from this angle.

With all other speedsolving methods I know of, cubers learn extra algorithms to help out in certain cases. I have generated what I believe are the most useful extra algorithms to learn. With this method, it would be recommended, but not necessary, to learn 17 (4 mirrors) extra algorithms. 8 (1 mirror) of these algorithms orient the top layer edges while phasing just in case you end up with your edges already solved in the E layer. You should already know 3 of the 8 if you know ELS. 6 (there are 12 cases, but 6 of them are not worth it) of the algorithms orient the edges while swapping one of the E layer edges to the other remaining E slot. Note that you may end up with the last E-layer edge being placed misoriented, but you should already know algorithms for this from step 5. The last 6 (3 mirrors) algorithms place the last E edge while phasing and preserving the orientation of the comers in case they end up oriented.

Pros - Low average movecount for a speedsolving method. No large algorithm sets. Can be broken down easily making it suitable for beginners to learn.
Cons - Uses F moves in the F2L. Occasionally requires a rotation.



Here are some example solves.
- Scrambles for this section were generated using qqtimer.


Spoiler: Example Solves



Example solve 1:


Spoiler



Scramble: L2 U2 R2 U2 F' D2 F L2 B' F D F2 L' B2 D2 U' L' D F'

(y) D2' L2' F2' u2 B' // D-Block
U R u' R' u2 // 2EE
R' U R' U' R U' R // D-Pair
u R U2 R' u' // EELS
F' U2 F // LEEP
(u U x) R' U R D' R' U' R D (x')// O5C
(U2) (R U' R' U) R U' R2' F2 R2 U' R' U' R U R' F2 (U2)// PLL+C


 Example solve 2:


Spoiler



Scramble: U2 F2 U2 B L2 U2 B' L2 B L2 F' U L R B2 U' B2 U' B2 L2

(y) F2 B' D L' F L' // D-Block
R U R u' R U2 R' u2 // 2EE
U R2 U R2 // D-Pair
R' F R F' u // EELS
F' U F u2 // LEEP
R' U L U' R U L' // O5C
(U' y') R U R2' U R U' R2 U' R' F R2 U R2' U' F' (U')// PLL+C


 Example solve 3:


Spoiler



Scramble: L D' R L2 D R2 L B D B D2 F R2 D2 B2 U2 B R2 B' L2

// D-Block
// 2EE
// D-Pair
// EELS
// LEEP
// Orientation of Corners
// PLL+C


 Example solve 4:


Spoiler



Scramble: L2 F2 U2 R2 F' L2 B' D2 B R2 F R U B' D' L B' R' U' L2 B2

// D-Block
// 2EE
// D-Pair
// EELS
// LEEP
// O5C
// PLL+C


 Example solve 5:


Spoiler



Scramble: F2 R2 D2 L2 D' L2 D' B2 U B2 U2 R B2 R2 D' F L2 D U2 L2

// D-Block
// 2EE
// D-Pair
// EELS
// LEEP
// O5C
// PLL+C






Algorithms for each step can be found here.


Spoiler: Algorithms



Normally people would use that have something like (y R' U R) instead of (F' U F) if they were a CFOP solver, but you can't effectively do (y) rotations with this method because you have a corner unsolved in the bottom that needs to stay in a certain position. So don't learn the algorithms that way. This doesn't matter for the last step though, because you'll solve the cube anyway.

Here are the 21 (8 mirrors) ELS algorithms along with 12 extra algorithms for cases with the E layer edges placed in the slot where the other E layer edge goes.
- I got pictures for each ELS case from Lucas Garron's MGLS-ELS Algs page.
- I created images for the Extra algorithms in this section using VisualCube.


Spoiler: ELS Algorithms + Extras






Spoiler: ELS Algorithms



Case 1:


Spoiler: Er








F U R U' R' F'
F R' F' R U R U' R'
U' M' U' M U2 M' U' M


 Case 2:


Spoiler: Tree








F R U R' U' F'
R U R' U' R' F R F'


 Case 3:


Spoiler: Dot








R U2' R2 F R F' U2' R' F R F'
(y) r U r' U2 r U2 R' U2 R U' r'


 Case 4:


Spoiler: Yi








(U') R U R' F R' F' R
R U' R' F' U2 F


 Case 5:


Spoiler: San








l' U R U2' r' U' L F
(U) R' F R F' U' R' F R F'


 Case 6:


Spoiler: Right Fang








(U') F' U' F


 Case 7:


Spoiler: Left Graw








F R' F' R


 Case 8:


Spoiler: Left Dmr








(U') l U F U' l'


 Case 9:


Spoiler: Right Sling








(U) R' F R F2' U' F


 Case 10:


Spoiler: Left Karp








(U') F R' F' R2 U' R'


 Case 11:


Spoiler: Right Shren








(U) F' L' U' L U' F


 Case 12:


Spoiler: Right Eko








R' F R F' R U2 R2' F R F'
U2 R' F R F2' U2 F


 Case 13:


Spoiler: Left Link








r U r' U2 M' U M


 Case 14:


Spoiler: Left Fang








(U') R U R'


 Case 15:


Spoiler: Right Graw








l' U l F'


 Case 16:


Spoiler: Right Dmr








(U) F' L' U' L F


 Case 17:


Spoiler: Left Sling








R U' R2' F R F'


 Case 18:


Spoiler: Right Karp








R U R2' F R F'


 Case 19:


Spoiler: Left Shren








(U') l U F U' F L'


 Case 20:


Spoiler: Left Eko








R U2' R2' F R F'


 Case 21:


Spoiler: Right Link








(U2) R' F R F' U2 R' F R F'








Spoiler: Extras: NK



I did not show which edge is the other E-Layer edge because it's permutation doesn't matter while its orientation does. 

I have not been able to find good algorithms for cases 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 12. If I (or anyone else) finds decent algorithms, I will add them. I would recommend that you convert these cases into whatever ELS case works best for you (assuming it is easily reachable from the current state).

Case 1:


Spoiler








R2 U R2' U' R2


 Case 2:


Spoiler










 Case 3:


Spoiler










 Case 4:


Spoiler








(x) R U R2 U' R' (x')


 Case 5:


Spoiler








R' F R F' u R U2 R' u'


 Case 6:


Spoiler










 Case 7:


Spoiler








R U2 R' u R U R' u'


 Case 8:


Spoiler










 Case 9:


Spoiler










 Case 10:


Spoiler








F R' F' R u R U' R' u'


 Case 11:


Spoiler








(U') R U' R' u R' F R F' u'
(U2) R U F R' F' R'


 Case 12:


Spoiler

















Here are the 10 (one algorithm will be an ELS algorithm and 3 are mirrors) algorithms for Step 5 along with 14 other algorithms. 8 of these 14 are used in cases when you end up having the E-layer solved and the other 6 (3 mirrors) algorithms are used for cases when everything ends up being oriented correctly.
- I created pictures for the algorithms in this section using VisualCube.


Spoiler: LEEP + Extras






Spoiler: LEEP



Please note that you only need the get opposite U-layer edges opposite of each other. You do not need to fully solve the U-layer edges. Because of this, opposite colors are counted as the same color.

Case 1:


Spoiler








R' U' R U' R' U2 R


 Case 2:


Spoiler








R U2' R'


 Case 3:


Spoiler








(U) R U R'


 Case 4:


Spoiler








(U') R U' R'


 Case 5:


Spoiler








F' U2 F


 Case 6:


Spoiler








(U') F' U' F


 Case 7:


Spoiler








(U) F' U F


 Case 8:


Spoiler








(U') R' F R F' R U' R'
(U) l U' R U l' U R'


 Case 9:


Spoiler








(U) R U' R' U2 F R' F' R


 Case 10:


Spoiler








(U') R' F R F' U R U2 R'








Spoiler: Extras: EOP and Orph






Spoiler: Solved E-Layer Cases - EOP



The unsolved corner should be in the FRD position.
Please note that you will know 3 (or 4 if you know the mirror case) of these if you know ELS.

Case 1:


Spoiler








F' U L' U2 L U' F
M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M


 Case 2:


Spoiler








R U2' R2' F R F' U2 R' F R F'
M' U2 M U2 M' U M U2 M' U2 M
(M' U)4 (M U)4


 Case 3:


Spoiler








(U2) M' U M U2 M' U M
(U') R U2' R' U2 R' F R F'
(U') M (U' R U R') M'


 Case 4:


Spoiler








F (U R U' R') F'


 Case 5:


Spoiler








R U' R' U R' F R F'


 Case 6:


Spoiler








F (R U R' U') F'


 Case 7:


Spoiler








F' (L' U' L U) F


 Case 8:


Spoiler








l U r U r' F U' F2 l'








Spoiler: Fully Oriented Cases - Orph



This is meant to be used for cases when you corners end up being oriented before phasing. These algorithm preserve corner permutation as well as orientation, so this gives you a hint at what your PLL+C algorithm will be.

Please note that you only need the get opposite U-layer edges opposite of each other. You do not need to fully solve the U-layer edges. Because of this, opposite colors are counted as the same color.

Case 1:


Spoiler








R' U' R' U' R2 U R U R


 Case 2:


Spoiler








R' U' R' U' R' U R U R


 Case 3:


Spoiler








R' U' R' U' R U R U R


 Case 4:


Spoiler








(u') R U R U R2 U' R' U' R'


 Case 5:


Spoiler








(u') R U R U R U' R' U' R'


 Case 6:


Spoiler








(u') R U R U R' U' R' U' R'












Here are the 23 (8 mirrors) Orientation algorithms. I found most by hand, so they're not optimal.
- I created pictures for the algorithms in this section using VisualCube.


Spoiler: O5C



The unsolved corner which is not shown should be the FRD corner (excluding OCLL cases of course).

You can influence the permutation algorithm you will end up with by AUFing differently for cases that have symmetry in the U-layers corner orientation. A good example of this would be cases 22 and 23. 

Case 1:


Spoiler: Headlights








(R U R' U')3
(U2) R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R'


 Case 2:


Spoiler: T








(R U2' R' U2)3
(U' x') R U R' D R U' R' D'
r U R' U' r' F R F'


 Case 3:


Spoiler: Bowtie








R' F R B' R' F' R B
R' F R U R U' R' F' R U R'
(U2) R U2 R' U' (R U R' U')2 R U R'
(U) F' r U R' U' r' F R


 Case 4:


Spoiler: H








F (R U R' U')3 F'


 Case 5:


Spoiler: Pi








(R U R' U') R' U2 (R U R') U R2 U2 R'
(U) F U (R U' R' U) R U2 R' U' R U R' F'
(U') (R U R') U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R'


 Case 6:


Spoiler: Sune








R U' L' U R' U' L
l F' L' F l' U' L


 Case 7:


Spoiler: Anti Sune








L' U R U' L U R'
r' F R F' r U R'


 Case 8:


Spoiler: Left Twister








R2 U' L' U R' U' L U R'
R U R' U R U' R' U2 R U R'


 Case 9:


Spoiler: Right Twister








R U' L' U R U' L U R2


 Case 10:


Spoiler: Left Ape








(x) R U' L' U R' U' L U' (x')
R' U2 R2 U2 R U2 R U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R


 Case 11:


Spoiler: Right Ape








(x) (R2 U L2 U')2 (x')
(U2) R U' R' U (R U R' U) R U' R'


 Case 12:


Spoiler: Right Arc








L U' R U L' U' R'
R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R'


 Case 13:


Spoiler: Left Arc








R U L U' R' U L'
(U') R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R'


 Case 14:


Spoiler: Left Alpha








R U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R
R2 U2 R2 U' R U R U2 R' U R'


 Case 15:


Spoiler: Right Alpha








R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 R'


 Case 16:


Spoiler: Left Star








R U2' R' U R U' R' U' R U' R'


 Case 17:


Spoiler: Right Star








(R U R') U (R U R') U' R U2 R'


 Case 18:


Spoiler: Left Zora








R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R'
F' (L F' L' F)3 F


 Case 19:


Spoiler: Right Zora








l (U' R U R')3 l'
(U') R2 U2 R' U R2 U2 R U' R' U2 R2 U R


 Case 20:


Spoiler: Right R








R' U R2 U R U' R U R U2 R
R' U2 R' U' R' U R' U' R2 U' R


 Case 21:


Spoiler: Left R








F U2 L F' L' U2 R' F' R
(U2) R' F R U2' L F L' U2 F'
(U') R' U2 R U2' F' U2 R' U2 R F
(U) R U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 R U R'


 Case 22:


Spoiler: Left Pinwheel








R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U2 R'


 Case 23:


Spoiler: Right Pinwheel








R U2 R2 U2 (R U R') U R2 U' R'






Here are the 33 (8 mirrors) Permutation Algorithms. 9 (2 mirrors) are PLLs, while the other 24 (6 mirrors) are PLLs plus one corner (PLL+C).
- I created pictures for the algorithms in this section using VisualCube.


Spoiler: Permutation Algorithms






Spoiler: PLL Algorithms



Case 1:


Spoiler: H-Perm








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


 Case 2:


Spoiler: Z-Perm








M2' U M2' U M' U2 M2' U2 M'
(U) M2' U' M2' U' M' U2' M2' U2' M'


 Case 3:


Spoiler: A-Perm:a








(x') R' D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R2 (x)
(U') r U r' U' r' F r2 U' r' U' r U r' F' U


 Case 4:


Spoiler: A-Perm:b








(x) R D' R U2 R' D R U2 R2 (x')
(U') l' U' l U l F' l2 U l U l' U' l F


 Case 5:


Spoiler: E-Perm








(U x') R U' R' D R U R' D' R U R' D R U' R' D' (x)
R2 U R' U' (y) (R U R' U')2 R U R' (y') R U' R2'


 Case 6:


Spoiler: F-Perm








R' U R U' R2 F' U' F U R F R' F' R2 U'
(U2) R' U2 R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R U' F


 Case 7:


Spoiler: N-Perm:a








(L U' R U2 L' U R')2 U'
(z) (U R' D R2 U' R D')2 (z')


 Case 8:


Spoiler: N-Perm:b








(R' U L' U2 R U' L)2 U
(z) (D' R U' R2' D R' U)2 (z')


 Case 9:


Spoiler: T-Perm








R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'
F R U' R' U R U R2 F' R U R U' R'








Spoiler: PLL+C Algorithms



The unsolved corner which is not shown should be in the FRD position.

If an algorithm has a (x) or (z) rotation at the beggining, but does not undo the rotation at the end so you can AUF, it is indicating that you perform the AUF from that orientation of the cube.


Case 1:


Spoiler








(U2) F2' (L' U' L U) L F' L2 U L U L' U' L F'
(U2 y) l' L' U' L2 F2' l' F' l F2' L' U l


 Case 2:


Spoiler








(R U R' U R U R' U2')2


 Case 3:


Spoiler








(y')(R' U' R U' R' U' R U2)2


 Case 4:


Spoiler








(R' F R F')3


 Case 5:


Spoiler








(U2 y') R U R2' U R U' R2 U' R' F R2 U R2' U' F'
(U) R2 U R2 U R2 U2' R2 U y' R2 U' R2 U'R2 U2 R2 U'
(U) R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 D R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 D'
(U) R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2 U2 R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 R2 D'


 Case 6:


Spoiler








L U y' R2 U' R2' F' R U R2 U R' U' R2 U' R'
(U) R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R' L


 Case 7:


Spoiler








(U2 z') R' D2 R U2 R' D2 R U2
(U') R' F' L F R2 F' L' F R'
(U2 x') R2 U L U' R2 U L' U' (x)


 Case 8:


Spoiler








R U2 y' l U l' U l U2' l' U' l U' R' F2 U' (x)
R2' L U' R2 U L' U R' U2 R' U2 R' U' R2 U' R U2 R'
R' U' R' F2 U R U2 F2 U2 R' U' F2 R U R
(U2) R D' R U R' U2 R U2 R' D R2 U' R U R


 Case 9:


Spoiler








(U')(R U' R' U) R U2 R' (U' R U R')


 Case 10:


Spoiler








(U y')(R' U R U') R' U2 R (U R' U' R)


 Case 11:


Spoiler








(U2 x') R2 U2' R' U R' F' R2 U2' L' U' M' R'
(U2)(R' U R U') R U' R U' R U R' L' U R' U' L
(U) L' U R U R2 U' R2 U2 R L U R2 U2 R' U R' U' R'
R' F2 R2 F R' U2 R U2 F' U2 R' U2 R' F2 R


 Case 12:


Spoiler








(U2) R U2' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R2 D R' U2 R D' R2


 Case 13:


Spoiler








(U' z') U2 R' D2 R U2' R' D2 R
(U' x') U L U' R2 U L' U' R2 (x)


 Case 14:


Spoiler








(U)(R U' R' U) R U' R2' F2 R2 U' R' U' R U R' F2
(R' F R F')2 L F' M' U' R U L' r'
(F R' F' R) L F' L' U2 L2 F2' L' F' L F' L2


 Case 15:


Spoiler








(U y') R2 U' R2 U R2 U2' R2 U' R2 U R2
(y')(R' U R' U' R U R) U2 (R' U' R' U R U' R)
R2' F2 U' R L F2' R' L' U F2 R2


 Case 16:


Spoiler








(U') R2 U R2' U' R2 U2' R2' U R2 U' R2'
(R U' R U R' U' R') U2 (R U R U' R' U R')


 Case 17:


Spoiler








R2 U2 (R2 U')3 y L2 U2 (L2 U)3
(U2) M R U L U2 R2' F R U' R U2' R2' (x)
(U' z') U' L U2 L' U' L' U2 R' U' R U' R' U' L2 U' R
(U) L' U R U' L R U' (R' U)3 (R' U' R U)


 Case 18:


Spoiler








R2 D R' U2 R D' R2' U2' R U R' U2' R U2 R'


 Case 19:


Spoiler








(z) U' R2' U R D2 R'U' R D2 R U
(x) R' U2 L U R2 U' L' U R2 U R (x')
(U') L' U2 R U2 L U2 L' U2 R' U2 L
(U') l' U2 R U2' l U2 R' F2 R' F2 R


 Case 20:


Spoiler








(R U R' U') R U L' U (R' U R U') R' U2 L


 Case 21:


Spoiler








L' U' L U' R2 U2' R2' U L' U L U R2 U' R2
(U2 y')(R' U' R U) R' F2 U (R U R' U') R' U' F2 U R2


 Case 22:


Spoiler








(y')(R' U R U)2 R' U' (R U R' U)2 R
(y') R' U R2 U2' R U' R U R' U2 R2 U' R


 Case 23:


Spoiler








R U' R2 U2 R' U R' U' R U2 R2 U R'


 Case 24:


Spoiler








(U2) r R U R2' F2 r F r' F2 R U' r'
(U2) R2 y (R U R' U') R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F












Here's an explanation of how to solve the cube using less algorithms for beginners to the method.


Spoiler: Where To Start






Spoiler: Beginners to Speedsolving



This section if not finished yet.

Before you begin learning Navi, you should know the beginners method and know how to keyhole. If your having trouble getting started, here is a blockbuilding tutorial:
Donovan's Roux Tutorial (Part 1/5) Left Block
The video is meant for the Roux method, so he shows you how to build the block on the left side. You need to do it on the bottom, but its pretty much the same thing. You should be able to make it to step 4 from here.

Rather than doing ELS for step 4, your going to do keyholing. Here is a keyholing tutorial:
How to do Keyhole Method for Beginners
Keep in mind that you will keyhole in the last edge and leave the last corner blank, rather than solving the corner and then using an algorithm for the last edge as show in the video.

If you understand the concepts very well, you can try intuitively doing ELS. If you manage to do this, have a look at the Experienced Speedsolvers section and come back here to continue this path if you can't do the Experienced path yet. If that is just to far out of your reach at the moment, just keyhole in the remaining 2 edges.

You should then orient the edges using 3 algorithms that you probably learned in the beginners method. If you did not learn them, learn the first 3 cases listed under "ELS Algorithms" in this post. They are pretty much the same thing as the edge orientation algorithms used in the most common beginners method.

Now, you should phase the edges (get the opposite top layer edges opposite of each other) using the first algorithm listed under "Step 5 Algorithms" in this post.

Now you should learn the 7 OCLL algorithms if you do not know them already. They are the first 7 algorithms listed under "Orientation Algorithms" in this post. If you do know them already, check if they retain the phasing and learn the OCLL algorithms in this post for the cases that don't, if any. Using these 7 algorithms, you should always be able to do one of them and end up with no more than one corner in the top layer misoriented. You will then have one of the two Ape Corner orientation algorithms (or everything might already be oriented), which you can learn from this post. 

You now need to learn any one of the PLL+C algorithms to place the last D layer corner. I used (x) (R' U R U')3 (x'). Now you should learn both of the A-perm and one of the N-perm PLLs to solve the top layer corners. And finally, learn the Z-perm, and H-perm to solve the cube if it is not already.

Learning more algorithms can drastically decrease your times by eliminating the number of times you have to do algorithms. Don't be scared away by the number of algorithms, because learning algorithms is not hard, it just takes time. You should learn algorithms gradually at a consistent pace. If you want to learn more, You should start by learning the rest of the 7 PLLs listed in this post. Following those, you should learn more ELS algorithms or try learning to do ELS intuitively. You should start using ELS to place the last E-layer Edge when you get a case you know so you don't have to orient the edges afterwards. After you learn all of ELS, learn the "Step 5 Algorithms" and start using ELS on the second to last E-layer Edge. These should be followed by the rest of the orientation algorithms and then the rest of the PLL+C algorithms.





Spoiler: Experienced Speedsolvers



You should be able to get to step 4 with no problems. You should be able to do ELS intuitively and just go back to refine cases later, just as you would do for F2L. You should also be able to phase intuitively, as this is very easy. You probably already know OCLL, so you should just do that to create an Ape case, and just learn both of those. You might want to check if your OCLL algorithms disturb the phasing or not, and if they do, learn the OCLL algorithms in this post for those cases. You can then learn a single PLL+C to do to insert the D corner {I began using (x) (R' U R U')3 (X') } and finish the solve with PLL. You may then gradually learn the rest of the Orientation algorithms and PLL+C algorithms, and maybe eventually, the extras.






You can find out what the acronyms stand for here.


Spoiler: Acronyms



*Navi:* The name of the method; didn't you read the title?

*D-Block:* The 1x2x3 block on the D-layer that you build in step 1.

*2EE:* Two E-layer Edges that are placed in step 2.

*D-Pair:* The last D edge paired with a D corner that you place in step 3.

*EELS:* Early ELS (Edge of the Last Slot) which is really no different than ELS except for where it is done in the solve. This is used in step 4.

*LEEP:* Last E edge and phasing which is done in step 5.

*O5C:* Orient the last 5 corners which is done in step 6.

*PLL+C:* PLL (Permute Last Layer) plus a corner as done in step 7.

*NK:* No keyhole. This just describes the situation where this alg set is used. This is what I named it because you can't keyhole an edge in if they are both in the E layer already.

*EOP:* Edge orientation and phasing which is pretty self explanatory.

*Orph:* Orientated phasing. I didn't capitalize the P because I didn't like how it looked .

The ELS algorithms which are left have the edge that is in the slot oriented so that the top color is on the left, and the right is the same thing, just on the right.

The O5C algorithms which are left have the DRF corner with the top color on front, while the right ones have the corner in DRF with the top color on the right.

I named the individual cases mostly at random, so don't ask why it looks like an ape.


 Thanks to Cride5 for creating VisualCube, and to Lucas Garron for creating alg.garron.us and making it *so* easy to use on the forums.

If you find anymore algorithms that are good or better than these, or if one of these doesn't work, please notify me.

I do plan to eventually make algorithms for solving with the first block on the left throughout the solve, and algorithms to orient the corners before phasing in case you prefer to do the Orph cases rather than the standard phasing. You may also just decide to do this when you get a phasing case that an F move shows up.


----------



## chavak (Aug 11, 2013)

What timing do you achieve with this method?


----------



## ottozing (Aug 11, 2013)

Would it be any more or less advantagoud to do the 1x2x3 on the left and solve the 2x2x3 with R r U M in your opinion? The block ends up in the same spot and the move groups are generally better for the second half of the 2x2x3 (Yours might have better moves for the 1x2x3, idk).


----------



## Ranzha (Aug 11, 2013)

Better variant:
Petblock, EOsquare, phasing, ZZLL.

Or you could just use ZZ.


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 11, 2013)

Interesting. I would like to see this done in competition.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 11, 2013)

Or you could use petrus. 

But seriously, it's okay.


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 11, 2013)

What are the pros and cons relative to established methods? Without some analysis of that, it looks like just another random compilation of steps labelled a method. 

Wasn't it you who created the "new methods" sticky megathread? Would be good to hear why this proposal is too special to be posted there


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 11, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Or you could use petrus.
> 
> But seriously, it's okay.



This method isn't that bad. Has about the same potential as most methods these days.


----------



## elrog (Aug 11, 2013)

It seems to me that the speedsolving community doesn't like to accept things without algs. Porkynator come up with a system with algs already generated and people liked it. I've never seen the community like an unfinished project yet though, so I'll work on getting algs. It may take a while with Cube Solver though.

Originally posted by me - "I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed."

I am actually serious about this idea. It has much more potential than anything else I've posted. The only "not fully developed" part is the algorithms. However, I'm fine with it being moved here if that's where the mods think it should be.

To ottozing: I thought about that, but doing U, Uw, E, and R is easier for me personally, while also transitioning to the last layer better. When doing CFOP I actually like doing cross on the left for F2L, but It makes for a bad transition to the LL. Anyone is welcome to do it if they want though.

To Ranzha V.Emodrach: If that method would be any good at all, people would be doing it by now because its so similar to methods out there already. Large alg sets like ZZLL just don't work. Recall and recog both worsen. It also becomes hard to remember all the algs let alone master each one individually. Also, Petrus blockbuilding isn't great for speed because you have to find 3 pieces to be able to add onto your block. Moving 3 pieces around intuitively just isn't as fast as moving 2 at a time like in F2L. The style of blockbuilding I am doing isn't really that similar to petrus. the only similarity is you can call it blockbuilding. (sorry if I come across as unwilling to accept other ideas, but I just have thought about nearly all of the options people keep posting before and have already dismissed them)

To Chavak: Well, the algs are not generated yet. And I only average around 30 with my very Heise influenced CFOP. I do think this could be just as good as other methods out there though.

To mark49152: The more methods out there that are good, the more option you have. More options isn't a bad thing is it?


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> To mark49152: The more methods out there that are good, the more option you have. More options isn't a bad thing is it?


No of course not, but as far as I can see, you haven't said why you think this is a good/better option. What advantages does it have? What problem does it solve? I'm not complaining, just interested.


----------



## elrog (Aug 11, 2013)

Well, one advantage of more options is you can find a method more suited to you. It can also just make it harder to choose though. I didn't think there was really any problem that needs solving though.

I think this is a good option because there's no large/unlearn able alg sets, look ahead isn't bad, movecount is not bad either, the moveset is decent, and cube rotations are not needed. Basically anything you'd say about any other good method.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 17, 2013)

*Method System: Block => CP => EOF2L => 2GLL*

I have been fascinated by the idea of solves using CP. Unfortunately, recognition is usually not very good or move efficient. There is speculation whether CP solves are more efficient than traditional CP at the end as part of PLL. There is no doubt that a solve with early CP can lower the move count overall, and make the solve more efficient in cases and move sets, but is it viable for speedcubing? 

The main problem in my opinion is the slow setup and recognition of CP early in the solve. I have come up with a fairly easy recognition system for CP with only 2 setup moves and 5 algs to learn, which could make CP viable for speedcubing. 

I am classifying this as a method system because there are too many possible substeps and variations for a single method. I believe it should start off with a block; something simple and efficient that can be planned out during inspection. Two block approaches I will talk about are the 1x2x3 or Roux block, and the 2x2x3, or Petrus block. 

Next is the distinguishing step: CP. After solving two of the corners in the initial block, you have 6 corners left to look at, which translates to 720 permutations. By placing the two remaining corners in the ULB and DRB spots, the perm count is reduced to 48 (24 times 2 if DRB is right/wrong corner). This setup takes only 2 moves, and may also be part of inspection. At this point there are 6 distinct cases to recognize, which can be solved in an average of 3 moves. This step is useful for the Roux block, because EO can later be solved using <R,U,r,M> without breaking up the block. In the case of the Petrus block, a single EO/CP step would be more efficient than using EO algs that preserve CP afterward, or the other way around. However, this step is very complicated, and is not yet viable for speedcubing. It may be a very useful FMC step.

CP Algs:


Spoiler



CP + EO Algorithms - Austin Hornbaker

CP Recognition:
1. Place 2 D corners in UBL and DBR (2 moves)
........-Make note of the corner in DBR
2. Examine colors on FRU corner
........-Find the other two corners with the same colors 
........-This will make an L shape on either the F, R, or U face
........-Determine if the end corners of the L are permuted c-correct, or s-swapped

D Corners Correct CP (2.8 HTM)
Fc: (f R' f') or (d R' U' R d')	
Fs: Correct CP
Rc: (f R f') or (d R' U R d')	
Rs: (R F R F') or (R2 d R' U' R d') 
Uc: (f U2 f') or (d' L' U L d)
Us: (U f R f') or (d R' U2 R d') 

D Corners Swapped CP (2.8 HTM) 
Fc: Correct CP
Fs: (f R' f') or (d R' U' R d')	
Rc: (R F R F') or (R2 d R' U' R d') 
Rs: (f R f') or (d R' U R d')
Uc: (U f R f') or (d R' U2 R d')
Us: (f U2 f') or (d' L' U L d)

12 EO Cases: (5.4 HTM).....U Edges......Alg:  
0 Edges Misoriented-............-...............None
2 Edges Misoriented-	
........L on U.......................F,R............r U R' U' M
........Line on U ..................L,R............R U' M' U R' U M 
........Both on F ..................-...............r U R' U R U r'
........FR 1 on U...................F..............M' U R U r'
........FB 1 on U...................B..............M' U M U M' U M
4 Edges Misoriented- 
........Cross on U.................-...............M' U2 M U2 M' U M
........FR, 3 on U..................F,R,B.........r U2 r' U2 M' U M
........FB, 3 on U..................L,F,R.........M' U M
........Line on U...................F,B............R U M' U' r'
........L on U.......................L,F............r U r'
6 Edges Misoriented-	
........All flipped..................-...............r U R' U M U M' U M



Next is the EOF2L stage. Again, there are many ways to do this. In the case of the Roux block, I would solve a 2x2x2 block on BR. This reduces the cases for EO, which would only have 12 distinct cases. After EO, I would then fill in the last slot and proceed to 2GLL. There are many other ways to do EOF2L. An experienced cuber ideally could solve F2L while subsequently orienting the edges. The move count of the Roux block method comes down to how good you are at this step. In the case of the Petrus block, EO is already solved, and F2L would be finished with <R,U>. 

The last step is 2GLL. This has 85 different cases to orient corners and permute edges. There are two possible ways to solve this. The first is learning all 84 algorithms and solving in one look. An alternate method is to learn 7 COLL algs and the remaining 4 edge perm algs and solve LL 2-Look.

2GLL Algs: (post wont let me indent or attach files, sorry for bad format, these algs can be found elsewhere)


Spoiler



2GLL Algorithms - Stachu Korick
________________________________________________________________________________
Corners Solved UUUU (5 cases) [39/5 moves]
- 0	-
+ 7 M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 
Z 10 M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2	
Bc 11 R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'
Ba 11 R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2

Double-sune RLLR (8 cases)	[107/8 moves]
- 18	y'	F R U R' x U R' U' R x' U' R U R' x U R' U' R x' U' F'
+ 15	y2	R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R U2 R' U' R U' R'
Zr 15 y	R U2 R' U' R U' R' U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R
Zl 15 R' U2 R U R' U R U R U R' U R U2 R'
Fa 11	y'	R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'
Ba 11	y2	L' U' L U' L' U L U' L' U2 L	
Lc 11	y'	L' U2 L U L' U' L U L' U L
Bc 11 y2	R U R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'	

T UULR (12 cases)	[172/12 moves]
- 15 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R U R' U R U2 R'
+ 15 R U2 R2 U R' U R' U R' U R U2 R2 U' R2
Zr 13 R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R
Zl 13	y2	R' U2 R U R' U R2 U2 R' U' R U' R'
Fa 15	y' R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' R U' R'
La 15 R U' R U2 R U2 R' U R U R' U' R' U R'
Ba 13	y'	R U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' R U' R'
Ra 15	y2	R' U2 R U R' U R U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R
Fc 15	y'	R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U R
Lc 15 R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R U R' U R U2 R'
Bc 13	y'	R' U' R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R' U R' U R
Rc 15 L' U L' U2 L' U2 L U' L' U' L U L U' L

Headlights UUBB (12 cases)	[172/12 moves]
- 15	y	R' U2 R U R' U R U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R'
+ 15 R2 U R2 U2 R' U' R U' R U' R U' R2 U2 R'
Zr 13 R' U' R U' R' U2 R2 U R' U R U2 R'
Zl 13	y2	R U R' U R U2 R2 U' R U' R' U2 R
Fa 15 R U2 R' U2 R2 U R' U R' U' R U R U2 R2
La 15	y	R U2 R' U' R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R'
Ba 13 R' U' R U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U R
Ra 15	y	R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U' R U R' U R
Fc 15	y2	R U R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R' U' R U' R'
Lc 15	y	R U' R U R U' R' U' R U2 R' U2 R' U R'
Bc 13 L U L' U L' U2 L2 U L2 U L2 U' L'	
Rc 15	y	R' U2 R U R' U R U R' U' R U' R' U2 R

L ULUB (12 cases)	[180/12 moves]
- 15 R U2 R' U2 R' U' R U R U' R' U2 R' U2 R
+ 15 R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'
Zr 15	y2	R U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R' U R U2 R'
Zl 15	y2	R U R' U R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R'
Fa 15	y2	R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R' U2 R U R' U R
La 15	y2	R U R' U R U2 R' U R' U' R U' R' U2 R
Ba 15	y	L' U2 L' U' L2 U' L U L' U' L U2 L U' L
Ra 15	y	L2 U' L U' L U L' U L U L' U' L' U L2
Fc 15 R2 U R' U R' U' R U' R' U' R U R U' R2
Lc 15 R U2 R U R2 U R' U' R U R' U2 R' U R'
Bc 15	y	R' U' R U' R' U2 R U' R U R' U R U2 R'
Rc 15	y	R' U2 R U R' U R U' R U2 R' U' R U' R'

Pi FLLB (12 cases)	[161/12 moves]
- 15 R U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R U2 R'
+ 15	y	R U R' U R U2 R' U R U R' U R U2 R'
Zr 15	y	R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U' R'
Zl 12 f R U R' U' f' F R U R' U' F'
Fa 13	y	L' U2 L U L' U L2 U L' U L U2 L'
La 15	y2	R' U' R U R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 U R' U' R
Ba 9	y2	L' U2 L2 U L2 U L2 U2 L'
Ra 15 L U' L' U L2 U2 L' U' L U' L2 U L U' L'
Fc 9 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R
Lc 15 L U L' U' L2 U L' U L U2 L2 U' L U L'
Bc 13	y	R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 R	
Rc 15 L' U L U' L2 U2 L U L' U L2 U' L' U L

Sune ULBR (12 cases)	[143/12 moves]
- 15 R' U R2 U R' U R U2 R U2 R U R' U R2
+ 11 R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R'
Zr 13 R2 U' R' U' R2 U R U R2 U R' U R
Zl 14 L' U' L U' L' U2 L y' L U2 L' U' L U' L'
Fa 13 R' U2 R2 U R U' R' U R U R2 U' R'
La 13 R2 U R U' R' U' R U2 R U' R2 U' R2
Ba 13 R2 U' R2 U' R U2 R U' R' U' R U R2
Ra 11	y	R U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R'
Fc 7	y	R U R' U R U2 R'
Lc 13 R2 U R' U' R' U' R U2 R' U' R2 U' R2
Bc 13 R2 U' R2 U' R' U2 R U' R' U' R' U R2
Rc 7 R' U2 R U R' U R

Antisune RULB (12 cases)	[146/12 moves]
- 15 L U' L2 U' L U' L' U2 L' U2 L' U' L U' L2
+ 11 L U2 L2 U' L2 U' L' U L' U L
Zr 15 R U R' U R U2 R' U R' U2 R U R' U R
Zl 13 L2 U L U L2 U' L' U' L2 U' L U' L'	
Fa 7	y	R' U' R U' R' U2 R
La 7 L U2 L' U' L U' L'
Ba 13 L2 U L2 U L U2 L' U L U L U' L2
Ra 13 L2 U' L U L U L' U2 L U L2 U L2
Fc 13 L U2 L2 U' L' U L U' L' U' L2 U L
Lc 13 R' U2 R U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2 R
Bc 13 R2 U' R U' R2 U R2 U' R' U R2 U R2
Rc 13 L2 U' L' U L U L' U2 L' U L2 U L2

________________________________________________________________________________
(85 cases)	[1120/85 moves]

Notation:
- Edges correct
+ L-R, B-F
Zr B-L, F-R
Zl B-R, F-L

Anticlockwise:
Fa L->R->B->L no F
La B->F->R->B no L
Ba R->L->F->R no B
Ra F->B->L->F no R

Clockwise:
Fc L->B->R->L no F
Lc B->R->F->B no L
Bc R->F->L->R no B
Rc F->L->B->F no R



Here are the two potential methods I outlined above:

Roux Block:
-1x2x3 ......~7
-CP..............5
-2x2x2.......~8
-EO + Pair..~10
-2GLL...........13
................~43 moves

Petrus Block:
-2x2x3
-EO/CP
-2GF2L
-2GLL

At the moment, I have finished the CP and EO algs for the Roux block method. However, I have not completed one-look EO/CP yet for the Petrus block method. The main problem with EO/CP is that both EO and CP interact with each other. In short, you cannot do one without messing up the other. Although there are only 6 cases for CP, there are 64 unique EO cases, which makes learning a set of algs unfeasible. Also, turning the U and R faces to position the edges for EO changes the CP. It would theoretically take 24 algs: (6 CP) X (4 EO: correct, 2, 4, or 6 misoriented). There is a pattern to track CP this way, but again, it would be infeasible for speedsolving. 

A different way of doing this step is to orient edges while placing the corners for recognition, then creating a new set of CP algs that preserve EO. Unfortunately, this step would probably require too much thinking and be very inefficient.

Currently I am testing out the Roux block method the way I have outlined to see if it is viable for speedcubing. At the very least, I have developed a low move count CP recog/solve method. Let me know what kind of potential you think this system has and/or ways to improve it. All criticism is welcome. 

-Austin


----------



## rj (Aug 17, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> ~snip~



Nice concept. I will try this.


----------



## elrog (Aug 17, 2013)

I think the 1x2x3 is more practical for speed. By doing all of this, you are increasing your understanding of how CP works. I hope you can eventually find a way to solve it during inspection with a 1x2x3 block or something of the sort.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 21, 2013)

Another similar method that could also be viable is 1x2x3 => EOF2L => Winter Variation/OLL => PLL
Again, the biggest factor is the efficiency of EOF2L


----------



## BoBoGuy (Aug 23, 2013)

*3x3 method: X-CELL*

*X-CELL*

Okay, I don't know if this is a new method, but I decided to make a new F2L method for beginners and intermediates.

*Steps:*
X-Cross
First layer corners
3 E-Layer edges
LL

*Step 1: X-Cross*

This step is pretty simple. Just make a 2x2x2 block, like in the petrus method, and then finish the cross edges.
Or, you can do cross+first pair.
For beginners, do cross+corner+edge (in the same slot).

*Step 2: Corners of First Layer*

This is a fairly intuitive step.
Finish the first layer with R U R', U R U' R', or R U2 R' U' R U R'.

*Step 3: E-Layer*

In this step, we will finish the E-Layer in only 2 , at most 3 looks.
It's easier to explain with just examples. Scramble with:
R U R' F U' F' R' U F2 L F2 L' U2 R U2 R U' R' L F' L' F R' U' R2 B' R' B U L' U' L
Sorry for the long scramble.

Anyway, U2 L' U L pairs up a F2L slot.Then you finish up the other 2 edges without ruining the pair with keyhole.
If you don't know what Keyhole F2L is, check out the wiki.
What you do is D R U R' D R' U' R D' F' U' F D'. Now you can insert the last pair easily.
We solved the E-layer in 17 moves, so it is pretty efficient.

Note: For the last layer, you can use partial edge control, or VH.

LL: Solve the last layer. OLL/PLL, CLL/ELL, EOEPCPCO, 4LLL, 3LLL, 1LLL, ZBLL, OLLCP, EO COLL/EPLL, etc. etc. etc.

And that's it. 
Average move count: 60ish


----------



## Lapinsavant (Aug 23, 2013)

Looks like an intermediate method which consist to solve the e layer (3 edges only) with the corner unsolved of the first layer, then you have to solve the last slot to finish f2l


----------



## BoBoGuy (Aug 23, 2013)

Just got a 11.98 NL solve with X-CELL and a low 16 average.
Sub-15 can definitely be reached.


----------



## scottishcuber (Aug 23, 2013)

Your scramble + solution isn't working for me.


----------



## BoBoGuy (Aug 23, 2013)

Sorry. I'll fix it.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 23, 2013)

Sounds like a very slow way to do keyhole


----------



## CubezUBR (Aug 24, 2013)

elrog said:


> When solving edges on the 4x4, I place the edge oriented correctly while I swap it for another edge. This makes EO complete when I finish the edges. I solve the last 2 edges into correct orientation usually with a 3-cycle commutator. I'm sure others have thought of this, but does anyone do it?
> 
> Another Idea I've had is to just not pair the last 2 edges and save them for the very last part of the solve so you solve both parities and pair the last 2 edges in one step.


I do that first one out of bad habbit! I do white pairs then f2l pairs (non white or yellow) then yellow pairs in the right(ish) spot


----------



## cubacca1972 (Aug 26, 2013)

Just a random idea I had:

For those of you who like to solve using Fridrich (CFOP for you youngsters), there are 57 possible orientation cases for the last layer when the F2L stage is complete. I hate that number. That number is the specific reason I never bothered to learn Fridrich.

So I had a random thought-What if while you were about to slot the last corner-edge pair, you were able to orient 2 corners and one edge, and jam them together on the last layer (adjacent to each other, as in UFL-UL-UBL)? You would be able to reduce the total possible orientation cases to 11, one of which is an OLL skip, and four of the cases are a pair of mirrored algorithms. 

In theory, there would be lots of freedom in slotting the last CE pair, as it doesn't really matter which last layer cubies make up the C-E-C cluster. Consider your standard issue slotting of your last CE pair, paying no attention to what that does to the last layer (R U' R', R U2 R', Sledgehammer, etc.) Intuitively, if you were to apply the inverse to a solved cube, you can see that the standard slotting algorithm can be applied to four unique C-E-C cases. 

The potential problems would be recognition, and possible move count issues. Recognition could be tricky, as you would have four candidate edges to focus on, and what corners to go with it. I don't know how many cases there are outside of the ones that can be done using the standard CE pair slotting algorithms, and finding the optimal algorithms for those cases is a rather tedious process. On the other hand, each found algorithm can be used for four unique cases.

If this idea has legs (and hasn't been proposed before), I will add it to my list of obscure sub-step variations (WV, some non-useful Roux LSE ideas, and so on).


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 26, 2013)

cubacca1972 said:


> Just a random idea I had:


I like the idea of simple, intuitive last slot inserts that reduce the number of OLL cases. They have to simple enough that they don't cause a recognition pause and become a slower version of 2-look OLL though.

One idea I briefly explored is manipulating corners to always get a sune or antisune case, with any orientation of edges. I like those OLL cases (squares, small lightning bolts, etc.) because many of them are easy to learn and execute as sunes with set-up moves. It has the same advantage that you have several cases to aim for and that freedom can result in shorter and easier algs. I didn't get very far with it though.

Here's a similar idea but working on edges to force a "bar" OLL case, where the freedom to create the bar either way around means fewer and shorter algs than full VHLS: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39278-Another-last-slot-method-F2L-to-bar-OLL-case


----------



## Dapianokid (Aug 26, 2013)

My friend, Zach, is a speecuber. He's the one who interested me in this hobby. He doesn't really seriously focus on it, though. He is trying to learn Waterman and we discussed different methods wayy back before I even had a cube and he said something about a method which "cretes 6 crosses first." After some research, I found that no such method exists (I tried learning as many as I could in a short amount of time and found MANY methods, but no Edges First except for maybe Pochmann, but it's not a speedcubing method).

So, I decided to attempt solving a cube with edges first. I am adept at ZZ, so I thought perhaps EO would be a good first step. So far, this is the first out of two steps I have actually successfully completed. Intuitively solving all edges is as far as I've gotten. I would like help with this, because I've learned I can solve all edges in about the same amount of time it takes me to get the 2x2x3 block + EO in Petrus. This is blazingly fast for a new method, and I'm hoping that maybe the rest of the method would lead to a very nice solve.

Step one: EO +Line. Tip: Solve it exactly as you would in ZZ. Make sure it's on the bottom.

Step two: Intuitively solve the middle layer edges. If white is on bottom, which it normally is for me, then you are solving all edges without yellow or white.

Step three: Use PLL algorithms to permute the (if correctly executed, already oriented) LL edges. If white is on bottom, you should be going for the yellow edges to be solved. I use your classic R U R' U R U'2 R', A.K.A. your good friend, Sune!

Step four: Now you have a nice design with many twisted and misplaced corners. It is very likely you have a 2x2x2 or 3x3x3 block solved, and that you have many 2x1x1 blocks to move around. Go ahead and use Petrus or Roux to finish this one off.

Or, if you want to help me out, take advantage of the many algorithms which permute and orient corners without disturbing edges. I know very few of these. I don't want there to be a true LL or F2L in this, unless that is simply how it turns out. One should be able to solve the edges with any color on top or bottom at this point, because the corners are all fair game. This method could be a very speedy one! Help guys!


----------



## Renslay (Aug 26, 2013)

Dapianokid said:


> My friend, Zach, is a speecuber. He's the one who interested me in this hobby. He doesn't really seriously focus on it, though. He is trying to learn Waterman and we discussed different methods wayy back before I even had a cube and he said something about a method which "cretes 6 crosses first." After some research, I found that no such method exists (I tried learning as many as I could in a short amount of time and found MANY methods, but no Edges First except for maybe Pochmann, but it's not a speedcubing method).



Of course there are edge first methods.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/EF
However:
"EF is not well suited for advanced speedsolving,* the first step is very easy but the corners needs a unplesant number of moves* to be solved after that in most cases."
It is highly recommended inserting some corners before you solve all the edges - that's why you can't find many pure edge first variants.
For example, the 8355 method (or the Sexy Method) is almost a pure edge first method, but it inserts 3 corners in the middle of the solving of the edges, just to make the solving easier.
A simplified Belt method can be an edge first method.
The "Ultimate Method" (if I recall the name well) is an edge first method, where you solve the corners with commutators. It is very slow (high move count).
And as you said, almost every BLD method is technically an edge first (or equivalently, a corner first) method.

EDIT:
So far you worked out the easiest part of an edge first method: solving the edges (here, with ZZ).
Edge first solving is fun, but it won't be an efficient speedcubing method - why wouldn't you solve some of the corners in an earlier, easier sub-step before finishing the edges?


----------



## Dapianokid (Aug 26, 2013)

Thanks, Renslay 
Very informative. I think I was mostly excited about the possibilities of the cube once all edges have been solved. I also have a very quick way of doing so, which I like. Getting the corners may just be a step that nobody has really perfected yet. I hate corners first methods, though. I'll work on it and either give up, or contribute a practical speedsolving edges first method for the ZZ-apt mind.

I can solve all edges in less than 20 moves, easily, without the aid of algorithms or anything of the sort. So, the human mind of even a beginner speedcuber is capable of it. I think tackling the corners with a strategy would be effective. Something with few moves and yields pleasantly easy to recognize cases and paths to solving. Like treating it as two LLs. Hmmmmmm.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 26, 2013)

Dapianokid said:


> Thanks, Renslay
> Very informative. I think I was mostly excited about the possibilities of the cube once all edges have been solved. I also have a very quick way of doing so, which I like. Getting the corners may just be a step that nobody has really perfected yet. I hate corners first methods, though. I'll work on it and either give up, or contribute a practical speedsolving edges first method for the ZZ-apt mind.
> 
> I can solve all edges in less than 20 moves, easily, without the aid of algorithms or anything of the sort. So, the human mind of even a beginner speedcuber is capable of it. I think tackling the corners with a strategy would be effective. Something with few moves and yields pleasantly easy to recognize cases and paths to solving. Like treating it as two LLs. Hmmmmmm.



Your welcome.
Experimenting around the cube is fun and you can learn many thing. Just don't think you invent something groundbreaking. 
Yes, solving the edges alone (or the corners alone) is easy enough so a beginner can figure out them by him/herself - that's the reason why most of the beginners (who don't learn the solving itself) came up with an EF or CF method first, or their variants.

If you want to solve the corners after an "edge first" step, I suggest you search after BH and TuRBo method (or any 3-cycle corner solving BLD method). BLDs are good in solving corners withouth mixing up the edges. However, they require fully understand the different type of commutators (BH), or learning many algorithms (TuRBo).
See:
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/BH
and
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/TuRBo
Or you can just solve them with free-style 3-cycling (look up for commutators). But again, this requires lots of practice, and the recognition still can be slow.

An other way for finishing the corners is the Belt method (or its variant), where you deal with the up layer and down layer corners separatedly. Think of it as a separation(up layer corners to up layer, down layer corners to down layer), OLL(up), PLL(up), OLL(down), PLL(down), or any other LL variant. However, the recognition can be awful, and there are two kind of parity cases (orientation parity and permutation parity, when you can't do a pure OLL or PLL on one side without touching the other side).
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt


----------



## Dapianokid (Aug 27, 2013)

Brilliant, Renslay! Yes, Belt method. How could I have skipped over it? I've brushed up on cube theory and the terms and logic behind commutors and conjugates and such, as BLD requires knowing quite a bit about the cube. This is good stuff! the "Moore Method" (my last name) is still something that isn't happening yet. Hrmm. Try new things!


----------



## cubacca1972 (Aug 28, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> They have to simple enough that they don't cause a recognition pause and become a slower version of 2-look OLL though.



Very true. I was trying to think this through before burning too much energy looking up algorithms. Unless the cases are remarkably easy to identify, this idea may be DOA. Also, all cases would need to be bounded by an acceptably low number of algorithms, all of which would need to be of an acceptable length (maybe 7 moves at most?).

Oh well.


----------



## BluShehn (Aug 28, 2013)

Is there a method of reduction for the 4x4 where you do edge pairing a little different and instead of solving it like a 3x3 you can solve it like a 2x2? I'd like to see something like this.


----------



## BaMiao (Aug 28, 2013)

BluShehn said:


> Is there a method of reduction for the 4x4 where you do edge pairing a little different and instead of solving it like a 3x3 you can solve it like a 2x2? I'd like to see something like this.



You can do this, but it's much harder. Here's a link to one strategy, from SuperAntonioVivaldi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGgwWiRWhto


----------



## Renslay (Aug 28, 2013)

BluShehn said:


> Is there a method of reduction for the 4x4 where you do edge pairing a little different and instead of solving it like a 3x3 you can solve it like a 2x2? I'd like to see something like this.



Of course there is.
But since you have to handle different type of pieces at the same time (matching centers+edges+corners to form the "corner of the 2x2x2"), it is complicated and possibly highly inefficient. But you can try to reduce it to a 2x2x2, it is fun.


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 28, 2013)

cubacca1972 said:


> Very true. I was trying to think this through before burning too much energy looking up algorithms. Unless the cases are remarkably easy to identify, this idea may be DOA. Also, all cases would need to be bounded by an acceptably low number of algorithms, all of which would need to be of an acceptable length (maybe 7 moves at most?).


Yes it would have to be a small number of short, easily fingerable algs to be worthwhile. If the objective is to reduce the number of potential OLL cases/algs, it would defeat the purpose to have to learn lots of LS algs instead. Plus, there will be circumstances where the algs won't apply and you may need to deal with other OLL cases anyway.

For my sune/antisune idea, I was hoping that with more target states available, all that would be required would be correct choice of a simple insert such as RU'R', RU2R', sledgehammer etc., perhaps with simple semi-intuitive setup moves. It wasn't that simple, so I dropped it.

iMHO the best potential for an LS step is in solving hard F2L cases. If your last slot is going to take 11 moves and a rotation or two to solve, why not learn a few options and do something else useful with those 11 moves too, like solve LL edges? One example would be ZBLS when both pieces are stuck in their slot. The EJLS concept could be extended such that if you encounter a connected pair such as F2L cases 11/12 or 23/24 mid-solve, and solving it would be awkward perhaps because a rotation would be needed, you could quickly insert it as-is, enabling simpler lookahead, and come back and solve it via ZBLS as the last slot.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 28, 2013)

BluShehn said:


> Is there a method of reduction for the 4x4 where you do edge pairing a little different and instead of solving it like a 3x3 you can solve it like a 2x2? I'd like to see something like this.


not a speedsolving method. And if you would make such a method you wouldn't do 12*2 edge pairing but you would do 8 * 3 edge pairing where every group of 3 edges would be in a 2x2x2 block with the 3 correct centers and the correct corner attached. NOBODY would like to see something like that


----------



## cubacca1972 (Aug 30, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Yes it would have to be a small number of short, easily fingerable algs to be worthwhile. If the objective is to reduce the number of potential OLL cases/algs, it would defeat the purpose to have to learn lots of LS algs instead. Plus, there will be circumstances where the algs won't apply and you may need to deal with other OLL cases anyway.



I just checked how many cases there would be for my idea, provided that the last CE pair was set up as in WV. 216. Sigh. The problem is that you would need to scan these cases, and be able to pick out the one C-E-C group which can be solved using one of the algorithms. The problem wouldn't be the total number of algorithms, but rather the amount of signal noise as your brain sifts through those 216 cases, looking for the one C-E-C group that can be solved by the relatively few (and hopefully short) algorithms. You wouldn't even be able to look at one specific potential C-E-C group, as it might only fuse together efficiently in one particular combination of orientations (easy to see, hard to describe).



mark49152 said:


> For my sune/antisune idea, I was hoping that with more target states available, all that would be required would be correct choice of a simple insert such as RU'R', RU2R', sledgehammer etc., perhaps with simple semi-intuitive setup moves. It wasn't that simple, so I dropped it.
> 
> iMHO the best potential for an LS step is in solving hard F2L cases. If your last slot is going to take 11 moves and a rotation or two to solve, why not learn a few options and do something else useful with those 11 moves too, like solve LL edges? One example would be ZBLS when both pieces are stuck in their slot. The EJLS concept could be extended such that if you encounter a connected pair such as F2L cases 11/12 or 23/24 mid-solve, and solving it would be awkward perhaps because a rotation would be needed, you could quickly insert it as-is, enabling simpler lookahead, and come back and solve it via ZBLS as the last slot.



I like the idea of a deliberate misplacement of a cubie or cubies to force certain paterns to happen. I used this in an Roux LSE idea, where you don't bother orienting edges, but rather solve RU and place the LU cubie flipped at LU. This only leaves 24 cases (12 with 3 M edges flipped, 12 with 1 M edge flipped), which then get solved along with LU.

Finding that holy grail of a new and sexy LS method for F2L solves seems to be elusive if not impossible.

My best idea was Petrus up to and including twisting the edges, then WV then PLL. Hasn't exactly taken the world by storm, but it still pleases me that WV gets mentioned from time to time.


----------



## manyhobbyfreak (Sep 4, 2013)

*New method for solving a 3x3?*

I have been searching for different approaches to solve a 3x3 recently.

Trying out variations of CFOP, Petrus and Heise i came up with my own method.



*Step 1.* Solve a 2x2x2 block, (just blockbuilding/intuition)

*Step 2.* holding the block at DLB, solve "f2l-pairs" at FL and BR. (since nothing is solved in R L or U, feel free to rotate R L U for easy pair making)

*Step 3.* solve the front and right "cross-pieces". (be sure to use r/f moves for easy inserting, also you might want to try orienting some edges for the next step)

*Step 4.* solving the last 5 edges, (i tend to orient atleast a few edges during step 3 for easier solving/recognition)

*Step 5.* solving 2/3 out of the last 5 corners using commutators/algorithmes.

*Step 6. *Just a 3 cycle of corners or 2 flipped corners.



Has anyone thought about this way of solving before?
Do you have any tips for improving this method?


----------



## Michael Womack (Sep 4, 2013)

Sound like this http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hahn_Method or this http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Triangular_Francisco


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 5, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> Sound like this http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hahn_Method or this http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Triangular_Francisco



Not really. It's like noob heise.


----------



## elrog (Sep 8, 2013)

If I recall correctly, it takes only 16 algorithms to orient the top 8 edges on a 4x4. The permutation of the edges, however, may take many algorithms because of the permutation possibly requiring and odd number of 2-cycles to solve. This bring me to the idea making the permutation of the edges even while orienting them. There are 2 possibilities between even and odd for both edge cycles making this require 4x16 or 64 algorithms. A large amount of these would be mirrors. 64 is definitely a learnable amount. After the permutation has been made even, the edges would have (4!/2)x(4!/2) or 144 permutations requiring 143 algorithms. This, I think is learnable, but I'm just questioning weather it is efficient to have to recall 1 out of 143 algorithms along side the fact that you cant master all 143. This is the only reasonable system for a 2 look last 8 edges though.

As a side note - I've been wandering why there hasn't been some version of Roux for the 4x4? I've been messing with it some and it seems pretty efficient.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> If I recall correctly, it takes only 16 algorithms to orient the top 8 edges on a 4x4.



4x4 wing pieces don't have orientation. They only have permutation...


----------



## Stefan (Sep 8, 2013)

tseitsei said:


> 4x4 wing pieces don't have orientation. They only have permutation...



Wrong. While you can't flip them in place, they certainly do have orientation. I can even tell you exactly where one is just by telling you which of the 24 possible ways it is oriented. And if for example your last layer is yellow and you want the yellow stickers of its eight wings to point up, then it's even *straight-forward* to think in terms of orientation, not permutation.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 8, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Wrong. While you can't flip them in place, they certainly do have orientation.



Well, IMO the fact that they can't be flipped in their correct places means that they don't really have an orientation. I mean you can't have a piece that is permuted correctly but not oriented correctly... That's why I think they have no orientation. I think it depends how you view the cube  You CAN "orient" last 8 edges so that all U-face stickers are facing up, but to me that's not orienting but just permuting them differently...


----------



## sub20cuber (Sep 8, 2013)

*How to do a CFOP and Roux hybrid method*

this is a new method I thought of whilst playing about with my cube. I am a cfop solver and was trying to get better with roux (4 fun) and came up with this hybrid of roux f2l and edge orientation with cfop pll with semi automatic coll.

STEP 1
firstly solve the two cross edges on the right and left(aka the DL and DR layer)and then build up 2 1x2x3 blocks on the left and right using either roux or cfop style depending on your current method.

STEP 2 
Line up the M slice centers and do either corner orientation etc. if your bottom colour is white the make all the corners on the U layer have yellow facing up using either cmll ithink or 2 look using 2look oll cases to orientate the corners and then the y perm or the tperm to permute the corners.

STEP 3
orientate the rest of the edges so etc. if the top and bottom colour of your cube is white and yellow the edges have to have their red or yellow side facing down for the D layer edges or up for the U layer edges. to do this watch a roux tutorial as explain would take 2 long.

STEP 4
put the remaining D layer edges in the correct spots using M' U2 M to insert an edge in the front slot with the edge above where it needs to go or M U2 M' to insert an edge in the back slot with the edge above its correct slot

STEP 5
now you will have a pll edge cycle case hence the semi automatic coll I mentioned earlier. so the pll you will now be either the u perm the other u perm the h perm the z perm or a pll skip and a solved cube. all that is now left is auf.

thank you for reading this. this took a long time to type down so I hope you could at least try this out for yourself. I know this is not the fastest way and definitely not the best method but I have gotten sub 35 avgs with this method which is faster than my normal roux over 1 minute times. 

please tell me what you think of this method and a new better name for it.
 sorry if you thought of this method before me


----------



## scottishcuber (Sep 8, 2013)

sub20cuber said:


> I don't know I looked it up and didn't find any other mentions of it



I think *almost every single* CFOP/Roux cuber at some point tried mixing them both. They don't mix well. You've taken away the difficulty and efficiency of block-building, as well as the intuitiveness of L6E with this hybrid. Ben no happy.

This isn't original at all.

also your Youtube link doesn't work.


----------



## sub20cuber (Sep 8, 2013)

I made this for experimental purposes only I was only sharing this for fun I would of thought ithers would of done this before but they hadn't posted it also I changed my youtube name and link and stuff


----------



## TDM (Sep 8, 2013)

sub20cuber said:


> STEP 1
> firstly solve the two cross edges on the right and left(aka the DL and DR layer)and then build up 2 1x2x3 blocks on the left and right


Or you could just use Roux for this step.
And for 4 and 5, you've just done 4b as two different pieces. 4c is the same thing but, again, slightly different pieces. And longer algs.
Also you don't permute edges with an A perm.
You're only getting faster times because this is closer to your main method than Roux.


----------



## sub20cuber (Sep 8, 2013)

I agree I am faster on this than roux because its nearer to cfop and thanks I meant a u perm not a a perm


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 8, 2013)

Making a CFOP-Roux hybrid is like mixing milk and orange juice.


----------



## elrog (Sep 8, 2013)

That would be very gross...

The way I view methods is by their last layer system with the best way to build the F2L for that system.

So CFOP is doing OLL/PLL with the most efficient way to build F2L up to that.

Roux is doing CLL/ELL, but builds the F2L with a missing M layer to shorten the CLL (and as a bonus it doesn't affect how you solve the M layer) and because it is a good lead into doing ELL. It also opens up the possibility of doing orientation for the 6 edges followed by permutation, though I personally prefer a more ELL approach. Not that this has anything to do with how good a system is, but it is possible to do L6E intuitively.


----------



## Noahaha (Sep 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> Roux is doing CLL/ELL, but builds the F2L with a missing M layer to shorten the CLL (and as a bonus it doesn't affect how you solve the M layer) and because it is a good lead into doing ELL. It also opens up the possibility of doing orientation for the 6 edges followed by permutation, though I personally prefer a more ELL approach. Not that this has anything to do with how good a system is, but it is possible to do L6E intuitively.



This is not a good description of Roux. You should expand your definition so that not every method has to have an LL system, especially since a lot of methods don't. 

Roux is a method trying to get to LSE as quickly as possible.


----------



## Suratha (Sep 9, 2013)

In CFOP,what if we do ELS in the last slot to orient all edges and insert the corresponding corner while permuting the last layer corners so that we can do 2-gll to finish the last layer? will the move count be lower than MGLS and PLL? or atleast we can avoid some bad pll cases such as v-perm and e-perm?


----------



## TDM (Sep 9, 2013)

Suratha said:


> In CFOP,what if we do ELS in the last slot to orient all edges and insert the corresponding corner while permuting the last layer corners so that we can do 2-gll to finish the last layer? will the move count be lower than MGLS and PLL? or atleast we can avoid some bad pll cases such as v-perm and e-perm?


ELS+CPLS. Also mention in the second paragraph.


----------



## Dapianokid (Sep 9, 2013)

Or you could just use Petrus. Even if it's entirely different.

To put Roux into the shortest defintion I can think of... "Sexy M slices."
Petrus, in short, would be: "Not really but still CFOP"


----------



## Athefre (Sep 9, 2013)

Apples: Not really but still oranges


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 9, 2013)

elrog said:


> If I recall correctly, it takes only 16 algorithms to orient the top 8 edges on a 4x4. The permutation of the edges, however, may take many algorithms because of the permutation possibly requiring and odd number of 2-cycles to solve. This bring me to the idea making the permutation of the edges even while orienting them. There are 2 possibilities between even and odd for both edge cycles making this require 4x16 or 64 algorithms. A large amount of these would be mirrors. 64 is definitely a learnable amount. After the permutation has been made even, the edges would have (4!/2)x(4!/2) or 144 permutations requiring 143 algorithms. This, I think is learnable, but I'm just questioning weather it is efficient to have to recall 1 out of 143 algorithms along side the fact that you cant master all 143. This is the only reasonable system for a 2 look last 8 edges though.
> 
> As a side note - I've been wandering why there hasn't been some version of Roux for the 4x4? I've been messing with it some and it seems pretty efficient.



KCBM or Meyer/Stadler


----------



## Michael Womack (Sep 16, 2013)

How possible is it to reduce a scrambled 4x4 into a 2x2?


----------



## Username (Sep 16, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> How possible is it to reduce a scrambled 4x4 into a 2x2?



Probably not good for speed


----------



## Hypocrism (Sep 16, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> How possible is it to reduce a scrambled 4x4 into a 2x2?



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

It looks clumsy to me, it would require blockbuilding or what seems like a slow LBL method for the first two layers, and then the bandaged 4x4 solve which looks slow.


----------



## Michael Womack (Sep 16, 2013)

Username said:


> Probably not good for speed



I was thinking of doing it for fun.


----------



## elrog (Sep 16, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGgwWiRWhto
> 
> It looks clumsy to me, it would require blockbuilding or what seems like a slow LBL method for the first two layers, and then the bandaged 4x4 solve which looks slow.



If you take parity to mean mathematical parity, then the video wrongly claims that parity is eliminated in a 4x4x4 solve if you solve it by reducing it down to a 2x2x2 puzzle. The only difference between reducing the 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 and a 2x2x2 is that you solve the parity before you finish reducing the 4x4x4 to a 2x2x2 unlike reducing it to a 3x3x3.

Ex: Do the single edge flip OLL parity to a 4x4x4 and then scramble it like a 2x2x2. To solve this, you would get those 2 corners beside each other, solve the parity, then solve like a 2x2x2. You may also have to watch out for messing up the centers while solving the parity.

Whether you view parity as reduction parity or mathematical parity, you still have to solve the mathematical parity.


----------



## Hypocrism (Sep 16, 2013)

elrog said:


> If you take parity to mean mathematical parity, then the video wrongly claims that parity is eliminated in a 4x4x4 solve if you solve it by reducing it down to a 2x2x2 puzzle. The only difference between reducing the 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 and a 2x2x2 is that you solve the parity before you finish reducing the 4x4x4 to a 2x2x2 unlike reducing it to a 3x3x3.
> 
> Ex: Do the single edge flip OLL parity to a 4x4x4 and then scramble it like a 2x2x2. To solve this, you would get those 2 corners beside each other, solve the parity, then solve like a 2x2x2. You may also have to watch out for messing up the centers while solving the parity.
> 
> Whether you view parity as reduction parity or mathematical parity, you still have to solve the mathematical parity.



As I understand it parity only applies to after the reduction has been done. If, once reduction is done, the cube is always solvable as the reduced puzzle, that's solved without parity. In the case of 3x3, half the time it isn't solvable after reduction so that there is parity.

Parity doesn't exist in the 2x2 reduction because it's an even puzzle!


----------



## Dapianokid (Sep 16, 2013)

Hypocrism, and in th case of a twisted 2x2x2 corner...?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 16, 2013)

Dapianokid said:


> Hypocrism, and in th case of a twisted 2x2x2 corner...?



Impossible. That would mean one corner is twisted in place which is impossible.


----------



## elrog (Sep 16, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> As I understand it parity only applies to after the reduction has been done. If, once reduction is done, the cube is always solvable as the reduced puzzle, that's solved without parity. In the case of 3x3, half the time it isn't solvable after reduction so that there is parity.
> 
> Parity doesn't exist in the 2x2 reduction because it's an even puzzle!



I specified that what I said only applies if you consider parity in a mathematical sense rather than a reduction sense. It seems you are viewing parity as reduction parity and trying to tell me my statement is false.

In a mathematical sense, parity is determined by the amount of 2-swaps required to solve a group of pieces (such as edges or corners or any other kind of piece). If the group requires an odd number of 2 cycles, it is in an odd permutation and is considered parity.

Do a single U turn on the 2x2x2 and solve it using only 3-cycles (which are made up of 2 2-swaps). It is impossible.
If you don't understand that, try mixing the 2x2x2 up using an odd number of moves, and solve it using an even number of moves, but remember that *you must count moves in QTM*. It is impossible.


----------



## rybaby (Sep 17, 2013)

COLL on the R-face.
Proposed by Ranzha V. Emodrach (Brandon Harnish) and Ryan Przybocki (me).
We have been generating algorithms especially for recognizing COLLs on R. This is very useful for the Waterman method (my plan), and can be implemented by cross-on-left solvers. For Waterman, this gives a clearer look ahead for the next step) inserting redges. Perhaps Ranzha could share his spreadsheet of algorithms.


----------



## elrog (Sep 17, 2013)

Cool. I've always wandered why Waterman didn't just solve the corners on the right side in the first place.


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 17, 2013)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...6bWVPSTJHRW1hRFUyLXlIcE9sSUE&usp=docslist_api

Here ya go.
It's not done, and a fair bit of the algs suck. Open to suggestions, just PM or FB msg.

This oughta be interesting not only for Waterman solvers, but for COL CFOP solvers.


----------



## JackJ (Sep 17, 2013)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...6bWVPSTJHRW1hRFUyLXlIcE9sSUE&usp=docslist_api
> 
> Here ya go.
> It's not done, and a fair bit of the algs suck. Open to suggestions, just PM or FB msg
> ...



So is this new, or just regular coll from a different angle?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 17, 2013)

JackJ said:


> So is this new, or just regular coll from a different angle?



Basically just coll from a different angle. But not same algs if that's what you meant.


----------



## Ranzha (Sep 17, 2013)

JackJ said:


> So is this new, or just regular coll from a different angle?



COLL with last layer on the R face, so yeah, it's a new angle. New algs for a bunch of the cases. Simply translating COLLs that already exist usually ends up in crappy algs.


----------



## Hypocrism (Sep 17, 2013)

elrog said:


> I specified that what I said only applies if you consider parity in a mathematical sense rather than a reduction sense. It seems you are viewing parity as reduction parity and trying to tell me my statement is false.
> 
> In a mathematical sense, parity is determined by the amount of 2-swaps required to solve a group of pieces (such as edges or corners or any other kind of piece). If the group requires an odd number of 2 cycles, it is in an odd permutation and is considered parity.
> 
> ...



I realise you know more about what parity means than I do  however I thought that, excluding 2x2, it's always impossible to do an odd number of 2-swaps on any cuboid puzzle? By your definition, this would make all 4x4 states parity-less by the definition you gave, because there's no such thing as a state requiring an odd number of 2-swaps. That's what I don't understand about your post.

And since on even puzzles, a "3x3 2-swap" of edges is actually an even cycle (edges on even puzzles are even, edges on odd puzzles are odd, obviously) then edge swaps on the pseudo-3x3 count as even edge swaps on the bigger puzzle, which is why it's not soluble with the basic pseudo-3x3 sides.

However if we go back to the reduction to 2x2, since both puzzles involved are even there isn't parity, because every pseudo-2x2 move on the 4x4 is an even swap, making all the cases soluble.

I'm sure you're right, I do like getting to know puzzle theory though


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 18, 2013)

Looked through this thread and for some reason started working on inserting pair+making a 2x2 block on U. I started filling a big table, this is the first subset that ended up finished (2 oriented edges, 1 oriented corner):



Spoiler



UL	UB	UBL	RU'R'
UL	UB	UBR	U'L'U2RU2R'U2L
UL	UB	UFR	U'R'FR2UR'U'RUR'U'F'
UL	UB	DFR	U'R'FRURU'R'F'
UL	UR	UBL	F'L'U'LF
UL	UR	UBR	RUR'U'RU'R'
UL	UR	UFR	y'rDr'U'rD'r'
UL	UR	DFR	F'RU2R'U'RU'R'FRU'R'
UL	FR	UBL	L'U2RUR'U2L
UL	FR	UBR	RU'R'U'R'U'RU'R'U2R
UL	FR	UFR	RUR'U'RU'R'
UL	FR	DFR	URU'R'URU2R'
UB	UR	UBL	URU2R'
UB	UR	UBR	U'R'FRF'
UB	UR	UFR	URU'R'URU2R'
UB	UR	DFR	RUR'U'RU'R'
UB	FR	UBL	URU'R'U'R'FRF'
UB	FR	UBR	U'L'URU'LR'
UB	FR	UFR	R2DR'URD'R2'U'RU'R'
UB	FR	DFR	RUR2U'R2U'R'UR'UR
UR	FR	UBL	U'R'F2R2U'R'U'RUR'F2
UR	FR	UBR	RU'R'
UR	FR	UFR	RU'R'UR'U'RU'R'U2R
UR	FR	DFR	RUR'U2M'URU'r'



I doubt anyone is interested, I doubt I'll ever look at this again, but sometimes I just feel like doing stuff. Also, some of the algs might not be the fastest but w/e.


----------



## elrog (Sep 18, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> 1: I realise you know more about what parity means than I do  however I thought that, excluding 2x2, it's always impossible to do an odd number of 2-swaps on any cuboid puzzle?
> 
> 2: By your definition, this would make all 4x4 states parity-less by the definition you gave, because there's no such thing as a state requiring an odd number of 2-swaps. That's what I don't understand about your post.
> 
> 3: I'm sure you're right, I do like getting to know puzzle theory though



Sorry for picking your post apart, but I wanted to reply to certain parts of it.

1:Well, it is possible to swap just 2 pieces on the many cubes. On a 2x2, doing a single U turn does a 4-cycle which is composed of 3 2-swaps. In other words, you'd have to switch 2 pieces 3 times to move all 4 U layer corners to their correct positions. I did say this already, but I'll say it again. A 3-cycle (rotating 3 pieces like in an A perm) is made up of 2 2-swaps. So, by doing a single U turn (odd number of moves), then doing an A perm (even number of moves) you end up in a position that has 2 pieces needing swapped and an odd number of moves to solve the puzzle because an even number plus an odd number gives you an odd number. So, every position that is an odd number of moves away from solved needs an odd number of 2-swaps. Where parity comes in is being able to swap 2 pieces independently of other pieces. On the 3x3, you cant move edges without moving corners (unless you have a void cube), but on the 4x4, a slice move can move 4 edges in a 4-cycle without affecting the corners. This also doesn't affect the center pieces because you rotate 8 centers which can be solved in an even number of moves. The centers also have multiples of the same color letting you solve them in an odd or even number of moves, meaning that you can have the edges needing a 2-swap independently of the rest of the pieces.

2:I believe number 1 answers this, but just for an example, the single edge flip parity on the 4x4 swaps just those 2 adjacent edge pieces. This is possible because the edges can be moved independently of the corners while centers don't matter (just like on a void cube).

3: If you are really interested in cube theory, we have a section of the forums dedicated to it and we also have people willing to answer your questions about it. cmowla is very, very knowledgeable about cube theory. He also has come up with dozens of parity algs an the sort for the 4x4. He'd be a great person to consult with your questions.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 18, 2013)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Looked through this thread and for some reason started working on inserting pair+making a 2x2 block on U. I started filling a big table, this is the first subset that ended up finished (2 oriented edges, 1 oriented corner):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you explain this? So like what do the pieces before the algs mean? Looks interesting.


----------



## elrog (Sep 18, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Can you explain this? So like what do the pieces before the algs mean? Looks interesting.



To me, it appears that he is first stating the position of the edge that goes in the position counterclockwise of the corner followed by the edge that goes on the other side of the corner, then the corner that will be in the 2x2 block, and finally the algorithm for the case.

When there are 2 faces (FL, or UR, or DB) included in a pieces position, it is an edge piece. If there are 3 (UFR, or ULF, or BLD) faces included in a pieces position, it is a corner piece. The faces stated (Front=F, B=back, R=Right, and so on) are the faces that that piece intersects. So FR is the edge that is both in the U layer and the R layer.

He did not state anything about the orientation of the pieces, so I'm just assuming they are supposed to be oriented already.

Some case like: R U' R' are shown twice because they can form a 2x2 block in the U layer when the pieces to make it are in any multiple positions.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 18, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Can you explain this? So like what do the pieces before the algs mean? Looks interesting.





bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> (2 oriented edges, 1 oriented corner)



If you have the FR/DFR pair at UF/UFL and you have 2 oriented LL edges and 1 oriented LL corner, you can look up those pieces in the list and perform the given alg to make those pieces form a 2x2 block on LL.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 18, 2013)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> If you have the FR/DFR pair at UF/UFL and you have 2 oriented LL edges and 1 oriented LL corner, you can look up those pieces in the list and perform the given alg to make those pieces form a 2x2 block on LL.



Ohhh. Ok.


----------



## IQubic (Sep 29, 2013)

*NEW ZZ LAST LAYER APPROACH????? ZZ-D Profane Koala + Phasing*

I kinda come up with a recognition method for Asmallkitten's Profane Koala. See that thread. But the amount of 2GLLs is unbelievable; really 80+ algs!!! So I thought Why not permute corners, with Profane Koala, then use Phasing.

I believe this shall reduce the number of 2GLLs you need to learn from 80+ to 28. I think that is the right number, because phasing removes the 8 U-Perms from the possible edge permutations.

Correct me if I'm at all wrong. I feel i have a new concept, but maybe the wrong logic. 
I also want to get some Algs generated for this approach. If i get a guide, I would totally put in the time and effort to generate the Algs myself. 
If this approach needs a name, I propose ZZ Profane Phasing.

-IQubic


----------



## TDM (Sep 29, 2013)

IQubic said:


> I kinda come up with a recognition method for Asmallkitten's Profane Koala. See that thread. But the amount of 2GLLs is unbelievable; really 80+ algs!!! So I thought Why not permute corners, with Profane Koala, then use Phasing.
> 
> I believe this shall reduce the number of 2GLLs you need to learn from 80+ to 28. I think that is the right number, because phasing removes the 8 U-Perms from the possible edge permutations.
> 
> ...


Yeah... not new.

EDIT: Also, why not Prophased Koala?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 30, 2013)

IQubic:

Don't take this the wrong way, but you probably
a) shouldn't bother with any ZZ-d variant until your average is at /least/ sub20.
b) expect that most of your ideas are taken and/or bad. Have fun playing around, but don't suspect that any good will come of it


----------



## aznanimedude (Oct 1, 2013)

i too kinda had this thought to phase->reduced 2GLL set the moment porky talked about porky v1/ ZZ-rainbow, but i figured it was a good stepping stone, but really, the alg count for 2GLL is not that big i felt honestly that it was not really worth it to add in the recognition time to phase, you might as well take any recognition time used for phasing to just recognize the edge permutation


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Oct 1, 2013)

Idea: 
1. Solve cross+2 opposite pairs
2. Solve 3rd pair and place it in the wrong slot
3. Solve 4th pair in wrong slot
4. Swap the two pairs and solve ocll
5. PLL
Somewhere eo needs to be completed. Or use zz. CFOP is better but fun idea.


----------



## Michael Womack (Oct 1, 2013)

Would someone Develope better ALGs for this 4x4 method and a name for it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr37rWsEZMY


----------



## aznanimedude (Oct 1, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Idea:
> 1. Solve cross+2 opposite pairs
> 2. Solve 3rd pair and place it in the wrong slot
> 3. Solve 4th pair in wrong slot
> ...



i'm trying to visualize how/why this would work. your swap two pairs and solve OCLL, after reinserting the 3rd pair in the correct spot, don't you essentially just have a VHLS case?


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Oct 6, 2013)

Michael Womack said:


> Would someone Develope better ALGs for this 4x4 method and a name for it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr37rWsEZMY


Hi Michael,

If you want algorithms to pair up the dedges in the U and D faces, there are 16! possible cases. Ollie made a complete set of 3-cycles of wing edges, so you can use that. However, this method is probably not new, as you have just left a different portion of the cube unsolved than K4, for example. Anyone who is fluent in commutators can solve any portion of the 4x4x4 they wish.

Regardless, here is a list of all possible 2 2-cycles for the last layer:
2 2-cycles.pdf , and here are 2 2-cycles in more than one face Algs_Sorted.pdf.

Perhaps my K4 LL method could give you further insight:
cmowla'sK4LLMethod.pdf

For the 3-cycle and 2-cycle oriented cases, I have made faster (and shorter) algorithms, but I never updated my document: here.
I have also introduced a conjugate method which creates 4-cycles. So the algorithms for the 4-cycle cases can be replaced with "prettier" but longer algorithms (in btm) like: [B2 U2 Rw' Uw2 U Rw' U2 Lw U Rw' U2: r].

I have also made algorithms which involve more than 4 pieces, such as: [F2 r2 F2 U' M2 U: M2] and l r (U' y) L R u L' R' (U y') M2 (U' y) L' R' u L R (U y') l r
Lastly, I made documents full of 2 2-cycles and 2 3-cycles for solving both pieces of a F3L dedge simultaneously. Perhaps this could give you further insight: F3L.


----------



## Michael Womack (Oct 6, 2013)

cmowla said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> If you want algorithms to pair up the dedges in the U and D faces, there are 16! possible cases. Ollie made a complete set of 3-cycles of wing edges, so you can use that. However, this method is probably not new, as you have just left a different portion of the cube unsolved than K4, for example. Anyone who is fluent in commutators can solve any portion of the 4x4x4 they wish.
> 
> ...



Oh wow thanks.


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Oct 10, 2013)

*My FF2L Method*

i designed one method with my algorithm maker software again! HEHE! and i named it FF2L. it's mean First F2L
(First First 2 layer?! omg )

in F2L you solve FR and FRD without any effect on BR and BRD, but sometimes there is a faster way to solve FR but it can move BR too. so when BR isn't true, you can use FF2L to solve FR. so you can use it 1-3 times in each solve

you can see my method here
please give your comments and ideas about my method


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Oct 11, 2013)

I already designed an method for 2x2 first layer.

we have 90 cases for the first face (not first layer). we just do the first face and then we use EG method to solve the cube
Notice that sometimes you should make this cases with one move
the average of moves is 4.05 so we can solve the first layer in average with 4 moves

*you can see my method here*
Please give your comments and ideas about my method


----------



## elrog (Oct 17, 2013)

As many knowledgeable cubers know, corner permutation is preserved (to a point) if you only do 2-gen R and U moves. Whenever you place the bottom 2 corners, the top corners are always permuted correctly in relation to each other and will be no more than a U move away from fully permuted. Solving a cube 2-gen is desirable because the algorithms are easier to preform usually.

The drawback of finishing a solve 2-gen is that it is difficult to get the corners into the correct permutation so that you can actually solve them. The recognition is horrid.

This all applies to cube-shaped cubes of course. On the Mega minx, you can do corner 3-cycles with only R and U moves. We do we not use this?


----------



## porkynator (Oct 17, 2013)

*4x4 LL & Beginner's Roux*

Two random ideas:

4x4 LL + both parities:
- CLL + OP (not COLL)
- ELL + PP

This should give a reasonable amount of algs to learn

A Roux variation (possibly for beginners):
- First Layer minus one edge (or 3x2x1 + 2 corners)
- CLL on Right (Left)
- Second Roux Block using <R, M, U>
- LSE

The 4x4 LL method can be good for speed (assuming good algs exist), the Roux variation is just for fun.


----------



## elrog (Oct 18, 2013)

^
That Roux variation sound pretty similar to a variation of Waterman that Waterman himself proposed. You solve the first layer minus an edge followed by CLL. I've tried it out before. I always try to insert an edge for the second Roux block whole solving the top corners.


*New (?) Roux Grip*
I've always used the grip as described by Kirjava in his thread, but I used my pinky for single M moves and I overlay my fingers on the E slice over the D layer.

A while ago, a had a couple friends who I saw using doing H and Z perms with a different grip. They were alternating using there ring fingers to preform the M moves.

The grip they used is good for the permutations, but it doesn't give you freedom with the U layer for improvising while doing Roux L6E. From there grip I came up with a similar one. Since I'm more used to using my pinky than my ring finger, I held the two blocks with my ring fingers and thumbs while preforming the M moves with my two pinkies alternating. This frees up your pointer and middle finger on the left and right hand for doing double-flicks. This helps incase it is necessary to do two U2 turns (separated by an M move of course) because you can alternate which hand you double-flick with.


----------



## 78BFE (Oct 21, 2013)

*WV and Last 5 Edges 3x3 Method*

So I have an idea for a new method.

1. *3-Piece Cross*
2 *3-Slot F2L*
3. *Winter Variation*
4. *Solve Last 5 Edges*

Any ideas on how to get efficient algorithms?

I want to mainly use M-slices for the last step.

Also, how would I calculate the amount of cases of the last 5 edges?


----------



## tx789 (Oct 21, 2013)

Having a unsolved edge on D isn't efficient. It's like Petrus but not that good. Here's a way to solve last 5 edge in this. Place flipped D edge in DF, M' U2 M U M' U M ELL or if the piece is solved just ELL.


----------



## mDiPalma (Oct 21, 2013)

78BFE said:


> So I have an idea for a new method.
> 
> 1. *3-Piece Cross*
> 2 *3-Slot F2L*
> ...



When do you plan to solve CP?


----------



## TDM (Oct 21, 2013)

78BFE said:


> Also, how would I calculate the amount of cases of the last 5 edges?


5!/2 possible permutations, 2^4 possible orientations, (5!/2)*(2^4)=60*16=*960*.


----------



## pijok (Oct 21, 2013)

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/L5E


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 24, 2013)

How about a ZooZoo method for ZZ+Roux? xD

Step 1: EO (NOT EOLine, just EO)

Step 2: <R,L,U,D> rouxblocks, this step is quite fun

From here there are 2 alternatives:

Step 3: COLL (40 algs) + one adjacent swap and one opposite swap, to give 42 algs in total
Step 4: LSE (with an EO skip, yay!)

or 

Step 3: LSE (again with an EO skip)
Step 4: ZBLLs for all edges relatively solved (84 algs), thanks TDM

Not good for speed, but is quite a fun method. After solving the first block, second block could be solved with <L2,U,D> moves, which would be fun to do  I will post example solves later. Just something random I thought of. Feel free to add example solves!


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> Step 4: Solve the pure corner twists, 7 algs


When did you solve CP? Also this isn't ZZ (it doesn't have an EOLine), it's just EORoux with no M/Rw during F2B.

My ZZ variant (which _does_ have an EOLine): ZZ-1 (because it's like a square-1). Again, just a fun method which I invented because I don't have a square-1 yet but they look cool.

1- EOLine on left (cube is now <R,U,D>)
2- Cubeshape (i.e. orient corners and place the two edges that go in R. They don't have to permuted correctly) (can now be solved with <R2,U,D>, just like a square-1)
3- CO (separate corners into U and D layers)
4- EO (I usually use M' U2 M and x (R2 U2)3 x' for this, but it can be done with <R2,U,D>)
5- PUL (permute U layer. I'm generating <R2,U,D> algs for this now)
6- PDL (permute D layer. Do the last R2 in step 5 as an Lw2 and then permute the new U layer.

You can get parity in this method, either in one layer caused by the two R edges being swapped before steps 5 and 6 (use (R2 U2)3 for this), or parity in both layers (use M2 U2 M2 or / (-6,0) / (-6,0) / (0,6) / (0,6) / (0,6 /) for this). I've done some example solves already.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 24, 2013)

Why do you need step 4 if EO is done in step 1?


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Why do you need step 4 if EO is done in step 1?


It's the same EO you would do on a square-1 (i.e. separate edges into their correct layers).


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 24, 2013)

TDM said:


> When did you solve CP? Also this isn't ZZ (it doesn't have an EOLine), it's just EORoux with no M/Rw during F2B.



Uh oh, that's a mistake, my bad 
When did I call it ZZ? I just gave it such a name because it combined elements from both Roux and ZZ...

How many ZBLLs are there for all edges-relatively-solved cases?


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> Uh oh, that's a mistake, my bad
> When did I call it ZZ? I just gave it such a name because it combined elements from both Roux and ZZ...
> 
> How many ZBLLs are there for all edges-relatively-solved cases?


You didn't call it ZZ, but I wouldn't really say it has elements of ZZ if it's got EO in it. More methods than just ZZ have an EO step.

I'm guessing:
7 OCLLs (8 including O, but O+H usually gives about the same number of algs as the other sets).
12 CPs (4 Ua perms, 4 Ub perms, 2 E perms, one X perm, one S)
7*12=84, including solved.

EDIT: More accurate calculations.
6*12=72
For the H OCLL, we have 2 for each A perm, two for E, one for X and one for S. 2*2+2+1+1=8
For the O OCLL, 1 for each A perm, one for E, one for X and one for S.
2*1+1+1+1=5
72+8+5=85, including solved.

The estimate was close.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 24, 2013)

TDM said:


> You didn't call it ZZ, but I wouldn't really say it has elements of ZZ if it's got EO in it. More methods than just ZZ have an EO step.
> 
> I'm guessing:
> 7 OCLLs (8 including O, but O+H usually gives about the same number of algs as the other sets).
> ...



Not just EO, even the 2 3x1x2 blocks are ZZ... well ZZ as well as Roux. But then the name doesn't matter, so forget that

Thanks for the number!


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2013)

I was doing an example solve with your method:

L2 R F' B' U R U B U B2 R2 B2 L B2 D U F' U' R U'

x2 // Inspection
F' R' U R F' // EO
R2 D' R / U R' U' R U R' U' R // RBlock
M2 U' L2 U L U' L' / L' U' L U M2 U' M2 L' U L // LBlock
R U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 // UL+UR
U2 // Force possible LSE case
M2 M' U2 M // L4E
U2 R U2 L' U R' U' R L U' R' U R U2 R' U // ZZLL


You have to do COLL first (your first alternative to steps 3+4). If you do LSE then CLL, you'll have to end with ZZLL unless corners are permuted correctly.
Oh and you can't solve the second block with <L2,U,D> unless LF and LB are solved (or swapped).


----------



## AHornbaker (Nov 4, 2013)

NCR (No Cube Rotations) Method for the 3x3 

Beginner Method:
1.) Left Roux block
2.) BD + 8EO
3.) Right Block
4.) COLL
5.) PLL

Advanced Method:
1.) Left Roux block
2.) EOF2L <R,r,U,M>
3.) OLS (WV,SV,EJF2L)
4.) PLL
________________________________________________________________

Pros:
-No cube rotations/regrips
-Good move count 
-Easy to pick up, lots of room for growth
-Small algorithm investment (for beginner method)

Cons:
-Largely intuitive

Notes:


Spoiler



This method is a sort of mesh between all the popular methods today (Roux, Petrus, ZZ, CFOP). However, the thing that makes this method unique is the freedom of EOF2L, which can be done conveniently with no cube rotations or regrips. This way, the solver can move pieces faster and focus in only one area. This also makes it easy to transition from any method, using the former method's F2L as a base for EOF2L. The only downfall to this step is the amount of thinking that must be done. It is a large part of the solve and is highly intuitive, which can lead to slower solves than its algorithm-based counterparts. 

The Roux block can easily be memorized during inspection and executed within the first couple seconds of the solve. Here the most thinking intensive part of the solve begins, diving right into EOF2L. This includes solving EO, DF/DB edges, and part of the right block. Beginners may find it easier to solve one edge and use the 8EO algs for reference until they master 2-gen EO. An advanced solver should be able to determine the orientation of all edges instantly (like Petrus or ZZ). An even more experienced solver may be able to orient the edges in conjunction with solving a block, or alternatively solve blocks carefully to influence EO. Personally, I orient the D edges first, then solve the rest and place the D edges. One can become proficient in recognition for EO and block building if they stick to one color scheme (ie. always white on D). 

The EOF2L step is all just a big setup for OLS. If the edges are oriented and the solver has a good look-ahead, they can achieve an OLL skip every time. This has a noticeable difference in move count than inserting the pair, then doing COLL. For an advanced user, I suggest learning Winter/Summer Variation as well as EJF2L. Between these three sets, there are 70 algs (excluding mirrors for BR slot). Also, I have outlined which set is ideal for all EOF2L pair cases to help enhance look-ahead. 

The last step is PLL, which I personally believe is underrated. In contrast to 2GLL, it solves the permutation of not only the edges, but also the corners at a low cost of moves. I realized that PLL is almost always a better choice than CP when it comes down to move count and an efficient solve (sorry ZZ-d). Plus, if you started as a CFOP user, you already have this alg set mastered. 

To sum up, I think this method has a lot of potential. It is easy to pick up from another method, and gives a lot of room for growth and individuality (once people can get over the fact that a lot of the solve is intuitive). It offers a good move count and can be executed very fast. NCR may even have potential for one-handed solving. Most solves I have done fall around 55 STM. Overall, I think that NCR can be as fast as the top methods for people willing to become experienced with it. 

Move Count:
Roux Block: ~8 STM
EOF2L:	?
OLS: 14.33 STM (by occurence)
PLL: 11.8 STM

8 + (?) + 14.33 + 11.8 = 34.13 + (?)

Therefore, your move count will vary greatly on how efficient you are at EOF2L. Usually, I average around 20 moves for this step, which yields a total of about 55.


Alg/Recog Sheets: 


Spoiler



8EO if BD edge is solved, use chart to determine case: 
F2L cases with Edges Oriented optimized for each OLS set: 
OLS Alg Sets: 
Build your own PLL set: http://algdb.net/Set/PLL 

Notes:


Spoiler



-F2L cases are not organized in a certain order
-To determine WV/SV case, look at the corners in the order specified. A corner's orientation is a 0 if it is oriented correctly (up or down), a 1 if it is one turn clockwise from oriented correctly, and 2 if it is one turn anticlockwise from correct orientation. Do the alg backward for clarification
-The OLS recog scheme may seem dumb, but it lets you identify any case without AUF
-**None of these pictures are mine, most algs arent either and were compiled from different sources.


----------



## UberStuber (Nov 4, 2013)

This is cool.

For EOF2L I like:
building a 1x2x2 block
EO with a mix of roux and FUF'
DB and DF
Build last pair for OLS

What do you consider the end of the EOF2L Step (for movecount)? I get ~15-18 moves if I consider EOF2L done when all Edges are oriented and only one F2L slot is left (pair not yet setup).


----------



## AHornbaker (Nov 5, 2013)

UberStuber said:


> This is cool.
> 
> For EOF2L I like:
> building a 1x2x2 block
> ...



I messed around with doing EO by making a 1x2x2 and using R, r and U moves, it worked OK, but nothing too special. Usually I can get the EOF2L step in under 20 moves so 15-18 sounds about right. EOF2L is done when you have oriented all edges and with one slot open. 

I count pairing the last slot part of OLS because i recognize 1 of 20 F2L cases with the edges oriented (20 out of 42 cases) and with that case determine whether the shortest solution for solving that pair will end up with either WV, SV, or EJF2L. With this in mind, i constructed a weighted (by occurence) average moves for pairing + OLS alg which comes out to be 14.33 STM. I just added the alg/recog sheets to my original post, go check them out. The one on this post is low quality


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 5, 2013)

What about:

2x2x3 on DB
EO in that orientation
solve 1 front F2L pair and build another front F2L pair on U
insert pair while solving CO and CP (~130 algs)
EP5 as on http://athefre.110mb.com/Step5.html

in STM, this would be extremely efficient (~45 STM)


----------



## TDM (Nov 5, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> What about:
> 
> 2x2x3 on DB
> EO in that orientation
> ...


I was already thinking of something similar to this for FreeFOP, except instead of orienting edges after the 223, I'd do as you did until the last step, orient them at the same time as placing the last F2L edge using M and U, and end with EPLL. An alternative which had less algs was to only orient corners during the last F2L pair (WV/SV) and finish with PLL instead. I don't know how efficient either of these would be though.


----------



## AHornbaker (Nov 6, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> What about:
> 
> 2x2x3 on DB
> EO in that orientation
> ...



The only criticism I have is solving the front block with F moves seems pretty awkward. I had another idea on how to work with EP that would only add 6 moves on average outlined here: Phasing + OLS
Would be a lot faster to do RUR'U' than recognize another alg, but taking in CO, CP, and EP is a lot in one step. I think it might be viable but apparently it wasnt too popular.

I was working on EOCP a while back and never finished it. I was working on breaking it up into two different steps, ie. (change CP only, change CP and 2 edges, change CP and 4 edges, change only 2 edges). I have CP down, but the number of EO cases is overwhelming from an alg perspective. There are 6 unique CP cases: 1 solved, and 5 different unsolved cases. I wont go into detail because it is complicated, but the CP changes every U or F move you make. So you have 6 unique CP cases and 64 unique CP cases for a grand total of 384 unique EOCP cases. The thing i really need help with is a viable recog system so I can cut down on the cases. From there I can manage and make algs myself. 

Some things on recog and cases:


Spoiler



Edges:
1= UB, 2= UR, 3= UF, 4= UL, 5= FL, 6= FD, 7= FR

*EO Cases (64)*
*0 Edges Misoriented (1)*
*2 Edges Misoriented (21)*
0 on U
L- (5,6) (6,7)
Line- (5,7)
1 on U- (1,5) (1,6) (1,7) (2,5) (2,6) (2,7) (3,5) (3,6) (3,7) (4,5) (4,6) (4,7)
2 on U
L- (1,2) (1,4) (2,3) (3,4)
Line- (1,3) (2,4)
*4 Edges Misoriented (35)*
1 on U-  (1,5,6,7) (2,5,6,7) (3,5,6,7) (4,5,6,7) 
2 on U
L- (1,2,5,6) (1,2,5,7) (1,2,6,7) (1,4,5,6) (1,4,5,7) (1,4,6,7) (2,3,5,6) (2,3,5,7) (2,3,6,7) (3,4,5,6) (3,4,5,7) (3,4,6,7)
Line- (1,2,5,6) (1,3,5,7) (1,3,6,7) (2,4,5,6) (2,4,5,7) (2,4,6,7)
3 on U- (1,2,3,5) (1,2,3,6) (1,2,3,7) (1,2,4,5) (1,2,4,6) (1,2,4,7) (1,3,4,5) (1,3,4,6) (1,3,4,7) (2,3,4,5) (2,3,4,6) (2,3,4,7) 
4 on U- (1,2,3,4)
*6 Edges Misoriented (7)*
3 on U- (1,2,3,5,6,7) (1,3,4,5,6,7) (1,3,4,5,6,7) (2,3,4,5,6,7) 
4 on U- (1,2,3,4,5,6) (1,2,3,4,5,7) (1,2,3,4,6,7)


EOCP could potentially be even more efficient:
1.) 2x2x3 on BD
2.) EOCP
3.) Front block
4.) 2GLL (CO/EP)


----------



## Cheese11 (Nov 7, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> What about:
> 
> 2x2x3 on DB
> EO in that orientation
> ...



Efficient yes, but I think the recognition would suck.


----------



## Joël (Nov 8, 2013)

Hello everybody,

I had this idea for a new substep for a beginners method a while ago. I don't know if it exists already, of if it has a name. It's meant to be a *small improvement to the basic beginners LBL method*, a bit like working corners, except this one doesn't reduce movecount, but it makes the moves more comfortable. I succesfully taught a collegue of mine (who already knew a basic LBL method), in a few minutes. He picked it up rather well, and got results (better times) quickly. You only need 2 algs, and they are quite easy to mirror to solve pairs from to different slots.

With the standard LBL method, you'll solve the bottom layer corners oriented correctly, this results in 4 F2L pairs that are not really that nice. So I would suggest solving F2L like this:

1. Cross
2. Solve bottom layer corners, without caring about orientation, maybe even preferring the wrong orientation (=TFL? Twisty First Layer?). Ideally, this should be done with L, U and R without rotating the cube.
3. Solve 4 F2L pairs using moves like RUR'U' RUR', RU'R'U RU'R', and mirrors to solve the same cases for FL, BL and BR slots. In a case where the edge is already in the slot, do one of the two algs to insert a dummy, and use the alg that will keep the corner unoriented. (=TF2L?)


Pro's:
- Placing the corners is easier. Having a first layer corner 'upside down' (D face sticker on U face) is now the easier case.
- More comfortable 2-gen algs for the pairs, resulting in less rotations during 2nd layer.
- A _small_ step from standard LBL towards solving pairs.

Con's:
- 2 more algs to learn


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 10, 2013)

elrog said:


> ^
> That Roux variation sound pretty similar to a variation of Waterman that Waterman himself proposed. You solve the first layer minus an edge followed by CLL. I've tried it out before. I always try to insert an edge for the second Roux block whole solving the top corners.
> 
> 
> ...



Uhm. How do you do M?


----------



## elrog (Nov 10, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Uhm. How do you do M?



With a 57mm cube I use either one of my pinkies to push the bottom side of the BD edge up. On my 50mm cube, I will do a single M move the same way, but if I have 2 Ms in a row, (separated by a U move of course) I will do the first M move the way I have already described and for any consecutive M moves afterwards I will bring my other pinkie forward and push the FD edge back.


----------



## thesolver (Nov 16, 2013)

Hey guys,
Just thought of a concept for 5x5 and above.
Here it is.

Solve the first 8 edges using freeslices.
Put the 8 edges on the top and bottom.
Then use some algs to solve the remaining 4 edges. Probably would take around 10 to 30 algs.
Please tell me if someone has already developed this idea before or if any of you already use this.


----------



## BoBoGuy (Nov 16, 2013)

thesolver said:


> Hey guys,
> Just thought of a concept for 5x5 and above.
> Here it is.
> 
> ...



Otherwise known as...*bum bum bum* REDUCTION!


----------



## Suratha (Nov 18, 2013)

*A (New?) Petrus method variant:Rotten 2x2x2 block*
Step-1:Solve the 2x2x2 block;the corner can be twisted-so fewer moves than normal 2x2x2.
Step-2:Finish 2x2x3.
Step-3:Get all the wrong edges to the top layer(0-3 moves).If six edges are wrong,get four on top.We can solve the twisted corner and edge orientation using a single alg and finish the F2L.If there are no wrong edges,finish the F2L and do CLS or CPLS(fewer cases because the corner is in place).
Step-4LL or 2-gll.
Questions: 
i)Is this exists anywhere else? If yes,please forgive me.If no,give some opinions about this variant.
ii)Will it be faster than the normal Petrus method?


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 18, 2013)

BoBoGuy said:


> Otherwise known as...*bum bum bum* REDUCTION!



He's talking about solving all four edges at once. With algs.


@thesolver: I don't know how good this would be. I feel like the last four edges would always have to be the same, which would limit the effectiveness of the first eight edges. Could be possible, though.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Nov 18, 2013)

thesolver said:


> Hey guys,
> Just thought of a concept for 5x5 and above.
> Here it is.
> 
> ...



You'd almost certainly have to do y2/x2 for recognition, which would be slow. Also there are 10 cases for last 2 edges, so I think there's be a lot more than 30 algs for last 4 edges. I could be wrong on that though.


----------



## cubingboss (Nov 24, 2013)

*New Method*

I thought of this new method, but I am not sure how well it will work. 
Step 1: Orient all edges
Step 2: Make a 1x2x3 block
Step 3: Make a 1x2x3 block in the middle layer
For this step it does not matter what side it is made on but you must place it on the bottom
Step 4: Make a 1x2x3 blcok on the side that is left
Step 5: Do last layer however you want if you have the F2L matched up
If not Solve the corners. Then finish the left and right side. 
I will try to upload a walkthrough of this so I can show better how this works. 
If you have any suggestions please tell me.


----------



## Ollie (Nov 24, 2013)

so...a less efficient version of Petrus?


----------



## TDM (Nov 24, 2013)

cubingboss said:


> I thought of this new method, but I am not sure how well it will work.
> Step 1: Orient all edges
> Step 2: Make a 1x2x3 block
> Step 3: Make a 1x2x3 block in the middle layer
> ...


If you swap steps 2 and 3, that's ZZ with NMLL.


----------



## cubingboss (Nov 24, 2013)

It's sort of petrus and roux ish.


----------



## Phillip1847 (Dec 1, 2013)

This idea is (in my mind) very simple, and rather obvious perhaps: 
1. EO
2. F2l however you like - last slot
3. Insert last slot while simultaneously permuting the already oriented edges.
4. L4C(thanks tnfeliks)

Just for fun, I created some algs for step 3 + example solve. Recognition is a pain. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iT8xk068YPDTgfRRoG_jGugdVxGC3eIDyZ_O8LUFXes


----------



## Bunyanderman (Dec 1, 2013)

Phillip1847 said:


> This idea is (in my mind) very simple, and rather obvious perhaps:
> 1. EO
> 2. F2l however you like - last slot
> 3. Insert last slot while simultaneously permuting the already oriented edges.
> ...


Step 4 would need to be zbll, the edges would get un-permuted if you used regular cases.
Step 3 would be inefficient, might as well put the last pair in, and permute after. Even then oll/pll would do the job for you.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Dec 1, 2013)

Phillip1847 said:


> This idea is (in my mind) very simple, and rather obvious perhaps:
> 1. EO
> 2. F2l however you like - last slot
> 3. Insert last slot while simultaneously permuting the already oriented edges.
> ...



So basically phasing+ZZLL for cases where edges are permuted. L4C is the real name for step 4. It's on the wiki.


----------



## Phillip1847 (Dec 1, 2013)

Yes, except you always phase the entire thing.
I guess its inefficient. The shortest "alg" is 4 moves long and the longest one is 9.
Just for fun, I actually found the algorithms and recog. Its in the original post.

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## elrog (Dec 3, 2013)

To me, this seems kind of life a simplified Heise last slot. This is also what I did intuitively while building up to Heise. Heise is more efficient because you solve another corner while doing it ending with L3C, but its not good for speedsolving.

I have merged my next post with this one to fix a bug.

[FONT=&amp]I was trying to think of an easier system for recognizing CLL. I don't really like the standard CLL recognition which is why I have not learned any form of CLL yet. I thought about learning CLL using hyperorientation which also allows for non-matching CLL, but then I realized you had to recognize the orientation case along with where the right and left colors are, meaning that if you want to recognize for non-matching CLL, you're going to have 2 corners that have a top color different than the other two and it really messes things up.

I then thought to recognize CLL using only 2 adjacent colors. You could pick these colors by always looking for 2 particular adjacent colors, or just by looking at a single corner (such as the top left) and seeing where the other stickers are that match its 2 colors (not counting the top color). So essentially, you recognize the CLL case with 4 stickers. You will need to distinguish which color is which when finding the two adjacent colors (the corner that had both colors you’re looking for doesn’t count). I would recommend looking for the right/left side sticker first on the corner that shares both. If you ever move on to non-matching CLL, you will want to know if your corner is a left or right sided corner (unless of course, you always use the same corner and it is always on the opposite side of the cube from what you do your setup move on; for example, you always use the blue/red/white corner which is on your left side and you only have your block/corners off by R moves). If your doing non-matching CLL, you must remember to substitute in your new adjacent color.

This sounds great, but the biggest drawback (in my opinion) is the fact that you may have to look at another side (such as the back side) to see a sticker you need to see (keep in mind that you should actually just AUF, not do a rotation). This is also true of standard CLL recognition though, and you can already know without having to look at another side if you saw the corner you were looking for and tracked it (though you can only do this if you always pick the same 2 adjacent colors).

One other thing some people may see as a problem is the fact that you have to learn multiple recognition cases for each algorithm. I am completely fine with this because it just means you also are recognizing the angle you are looking at the case from so you’ll know how to AUF. If someone added up all the different angles to recognize PLL from 2-sides, you’d have a lot more than 21. It will also be easy to remember the recognition cases because you only need to remember the orientation of a single corner + 2 more stickers. There are, however, 162 different possibilities for the placement of the stickers you’re looking for.

I calculated the 162 like this: If you always use the top left corner, it has 3 orientation. One of its matching stickers will be on one of the other 3 corners at any of 3 different orientations. The last sticker you’re looking for will be on either of the 2 remaining corners at any of 3 different orientations. This gives you 3 x (3x3) x (2x3) = 162. Now this may seem odd because if you take the 42 CLL cases and multiply by 4 for recognizing from any of the 4 corners, you get 42 x 4 or 168. This means that you either have 6 cases that are unrecognizable without more information, some CLL cases look the same from multiple corners, or a combination of the two. I’m fairly sure that this is just some cases looking the same with different corners (the H orientation case with corners permuted is an example of this and accounts for 2 of the 6).

You still may have different top colors for non-matching CLL recognition and you may have to find the color that is the equivalent of a colors adjacent color rather than that color itself. I also think that you would want to always pick the same two adjacent colors for non-matching CLL.[/FONT][FONT=&amp][/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp] 
I’d like to know if you think I’ve made any mistakes and any thoughts you have about this method of CLL recognition. Name suggestions perhaps?[/FONT]


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 7, 2013)

elrog said:


> I was trying to think of an easier system for recognizing CLL. I don't really like the standard CLL recognition which is why I have not learned any form of CLL yet. I thought about learning CLL using hyperorientation which also allows for non-matching CLL, but then I realized you had to recognize the orientation case along with where the right and left colors are, meaning that if you want to recognize for non-matching CLL, you're going to have 2 corners that have a top color different than the other two and it really messes things up.
> 
> I then thought to recognize CLL using only 2 adjacent colors. You could pick these colors by always looking for 2 particular adjacent colors, or just by looking at a single corner (such as the top left) and seeing where the other stickers are that match its 2 colors (not counting the top color). So essentially, you recognize the CLL case with 4 stickers. You will need to distinguish which color is which when finding the two adjacent colors (the corner that had both colors you’re looking for doesn’t count).
> 
> ...



sounds alot like this TCLL http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?44438-TCLL-New-2x2-Method


----------



## elrog (Dec 7, 2013)

TCLL is a kind of CLL that orients some of the bottom corners at the same time as orienting and permuting the top corners. What I came up with is not a kind of CLL. It is a recognition system for CLL.


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> TCLL is a kind of CLL that orients some of the bottom corners at the same time as orienting and permuting the top corners. What I came up with is not a kind of CLL. It is a recognition system for CLL.



Well then what you're saying now is a method that would be used for Learning CLL if i'm correct.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> I thought about learning CLL using hyperorientation which also allows for non-matching CLL



This is a very common misconception. Hyperorientations is no better for non-matching blocks than the standard CLL recognition. At least you see the reason why.

The only developed recognition that works for non-matching blocks without issue is linked in my signature.

Could you provide images for your idea?


----------



## elrog (Dec 8, 2013)

I followed some links from your signature and got to this: https://sites.google.com/site/athefre/



From what I can tell, this is like hyperorientation, but it accounts for a R2 rotation. To do a non-matching block (or a pair of corners) that is off by a 90 degree turn makes you end up with 3 stickers that are the color that your left side pieces should be on top and the same situation for the right. This means that you should recognize the left and right stickers before recognizing the orientation pattern. This is very doable and is by far the best method for non-matching CLL recognition, though I think it would be hard to get used to.



I would like to point out that if one were to do TCLL or something of the sort, you could not use just the top layer to recognize the case using my recognition system. You would need to know how the bottom is oriented. This isn’t really a big deal though.



I was having trouble with the spoilers when I tried to add the images to my first post on this topic, so I will remake them and add them here later.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> This means that you should recognize the left and right stickers before recognizing the orientation pattern. This is very doable and is by far the best method for non-matching CLL recognition.



You almost have it. The first step is to recognize the left and right side stickers as you said. But after that, you look in a set place for matching stickers, not for the U color orientation. Just as easy, and sometimes even easier than the popular CLL recognition.


----------



## elrog (Dec 10, 2013)

I was thinking about how RoFL actually makes shorter solutions that standard CLL even though less is solved (this was actually a long time ago before RoFL, but I dismissed the idea thinking it would make the PLLs longer). I was wandering how effectively this concept could be applied to PLL. When doing OLL, rather than solving the orientation of the last layer, you could turn it into some specific OLL case that produces shorter PLLs. You would want to pick a case that has some symmetry such as the H COLL. You would essentially double the number of PLLs (though its not a big deal because there's only 21 of them), but you would have shorter OLLs and probably PLLs aswell. You may even be able to use the same OLL algorithm for more than one OLL case, which is a plus. The OLL recognition would be the exact same, just different algorithms. The PLL recognition would be a little different, but it would be easier to recognize it from the front/right/top view because you actually have more information showing.


----------



## UberStuber (Dec 10, 2013)

I think it'd be about the same or worse. If you orient everything to an H case, you end up with 40 algs averaging 13 (PLL is 11.8). I think the symmetry actually makes H cases a little harder to recognize edge permutation.


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

Did you create algorithms and find their average? If so, couldn't you do that for a lot of different OLLs to find the best one. The H case was just an example btw.


----------



## Suratha (Dec 17, 2013)

*A (New?) Petrus method variant:Rotten 2x2x2 block*
Step-1:Solve the 2x2x2 block;the corner can be twisted-so fewer moves than normal 2x2x2.
Step-2:Finish 2x2x3.
Step-3:Get all the wrong edges to the top layer(0-3 moves).If six edges are wrong,get four on top.We can solve the twisted corner and edge orientation using a single alg and finish the F2L.If there are no wrong edges,finish the F2L and do CLS or CPLS(fewer cases because the corner is in place).
Step-4LL or 2-gll.
Questions: 
i)Is this exists anywhere else? 
ii)Will it be faster than the normal Petrus method?


----------



## elrog (Dec 17, 2013)

As far as I know, this has not been proposed before. It seems like it could be pretty good. I think it could be faster than petrus for speedsolving, but I'm not sure about it being better for FMC. I have a couple questions through. I am a fan of making 2x2x3 blocks by starting with a 1x2x3. You could do this, but start of with a 1x2x3 with a corner misoriented.

How did you come up with the O-3 moves to move the edges to the top layer? I'm assuming you didn't count the AUF before the algorithm, but you still can have situations that require more than 3 moves.

Also, how did you come up with one algorithm? Would you not need one for having 2 misoriented adges, one for 4, and one for 6? You would also need their inverses for the corner being flipped the other way.


----------



## Suratha (Dec 17, 2013)

Sorry.That was not one alg.I need to know the number of cases.That 0-3 moves,I just took my cube and did some moves to get all wrong edges on top and I got all 0-3 moves.So I put 0-3;Sorry if that is wrong.


----------



## elrog (Dec 17, 2013)

Well, getting the misoriented edges to the top never takes more than 2 moves (will be 1 move most of the time) with 2 misoriented edges, but it can take up to 6 moves with 4 misoriented edges (this won't happen often). With 6 misoriented edges, no moves are necessary before the algorithm. You also won't need to AUF if you have 4 edges wrong.

You would need 6 algorithms to flip the corner and orient the edges if you plan on doing CLS or CPLS when edges are oriented.

It would be handy to be able to take advantage of using a misoriented corner, but don't do it if it is easier to just use one that is oriented. If you don't use a misoriented corner, just continue with regular Petrus.


----------



## TDM (Dec 17, 2013)

elrog said:


> As far as I know, this has not been proposed before.


It has. By the same person, in the same thread, less than a month ago.

I can see no advantage to using this method instead of normal Petrus. How does the movecount compare to Petrus? If we knew that, that'd be more helpful.


----------



## notfeliks (Dec 18, 2013)

So this is just raw thought and I've barely acted on it at all, but suppose we finish our F2L and we end up with all four corners oriented and edges in any orientation and permutation. Could we, in ZBLL style, use one alg to solve the rest of the LL?

Of course even if this is plausible, it would be difficult to recognize cases and also much less useful than ZBLL as it is probably a fair bit less common to finish your F2L with CO than it is with EO.

anyway I have neither the means nor knowledge to make anything come of this on my own so I will offer it up for criticism from the community.

Not sure how many algorithms it would have but I'm guessing around 250, including mirrors. 

If this has already been proposed by someone earlier then I apologize.


----------



## Suratha (Dec 18, 2013)

I have come up with algorithms and cases that are 

needed for the variant that I posted earlier.These algs 

are for 2x2x3 on the left and twisted corner in the 

left and can be mirrored to 2x2x3 on the right and 

twisted corner in the right.
Keep the 2x2x3 in left(R & U sides are unsolved)or 

right(L & U sides are unsolved) but keep the twisted 

corner in the front.
Get the wrong edges to the top layer with as few 

moves as possible.
If 6 edges are wrong,then put the oriented edge in 

the BR or LR depending on where you've kept your 

2x2x3.(Left-BR ,Right-BL)
Twisted Corner-Bottom color facing front:
2 wrong edges:
i) Opposite: F U2 R2 U' R2 U R U2 F' (Front & Back)
ii)Adjacent: R2 F U2 F' R' F R2 U2 F' (Front & Right)
4 wrong edges:
i) R2 F U2 R' F R2 F' U2 F'
6 wrong edges:
i) F U2 R' F R2 F U' F2 U' F' (BR edge is oriented)
Twisted corner-Bottom color facing left:
2 wrong edges:
i) Opposite: F2 U R F' R2 F' U' R F2
ii) Adjacent: R F U2 R2 F' U F U F'
4 wrong edges:
i) R F U2 F R2 F' R U2 F'
6 wrong edges:
i) F R U' F2 U' F' R2 F' U2 F' (BR edge is oriented)

Example solve:
1) Scramble: B2 D2 U2 L U2 B2 R' D2 U2 B2 R2 B 

U2 R D' B L2 D B2 D2 L' R'
Normal Petrus:
2x2x2: R U' F2 B2 L F2 (6 moves)
2x2x3: U2 B' D L' U' L' D' (7 moves)
Orient all the edges: F U2 F2 L F (5 moves)
Remaining F2L: U2 L' U L' U' L2 U L2 (8 moves)
OLL: U' R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' (12 moves)
PLL: U R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' U (16 

moves)
Total: 54 moves.
Rotten 2x2x2: x2 y U2 R2 U' R' (4 moves)
2x2x3: y U2 R U R2 U2 B' R2 (7 moves)
Bring bad edges to the top: y' U' L' (2 moves)
Twist the corner and orient all edges: L2 F' U2 F L 

F' L2 U2 F (9 moves)
Remaining F2L: U L2 U2 L2 U' L' (6 moves)
OLL: L U2 L' U' L U' L' (7 moves)
PLL: R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' (14 moves)
Total : 49 moves
This variation of Petrus will be useful if you have a twisted corner with fewer moves than oriented corner.I don't know exactly the movecount difference between these two.


----------



## Suratha (Dec 20, 2013)

notfeliks said:


> So this is just raw thought and I've barely acted on it at all, but suppose we finish our F2L and we end up with all four corners oriented and edges in any orientation and permutation. Could we, in ZBLL style, use one alg to solve the rest of the LL?
> 
> Of course even if this is plausible, it would be difficult to recognize cases and also much less useful than ZBLL as it is probably a fair bit less common to finish your F2L with CO than it is with EO.
> 
> ...


ZBLL has 7 sets excluding PLL and this would have 7 sets(I am not sure) but the number of algorithms will be as high as ZBLL.


----------



## TDM (Dec 21, 2013)

Suratha said:


> ZBLL has 7 sets excluding PLL and this would have 7 sets(I am not sure) but the number of algorithms will be as high as ZBLL.


You sure? I thought it'd be 72 cases for adj edge flip and opp edge flip, 22 for no edges oriented and 21 for all oriented (total = 187).


----------



## Suratha (Dec 21, 2013)

TDM said:


> You sure? I thought it'd be 72 cases for adj edge flip and opp edge flip, 22 for no edges oriented and 21 for all oriented (total = 187).


I am sure that the case count will be as high as ZBLL.Because you would have 4 sets in adj edge flip case because for the same corner case you will have the front and right edges oriented,right and back edges oriented,back and left edges oriented and front and left edges oriented and similarly for opposite edges case you will have Front and back edges oriented and left and right edges oriented.


----------



## TDM (Dec 21, 2013)

Suratha said:


> I am sure that the case count will be as high as ZBLL.Because you would have 4 sets in adj edge flip case because for the same corner case you will have the front and right edges oriented,right and back edges oriented,back and left edges oriented and front and left edges oriented and similarly for opposite edges case you will have Front and back edges oriented and left and right edges oriented.


Nope. The 72 for each case covers every possible AUF for each PLL; by rotating how you view the cube you're only repeating cases. For no edges oriented, because it can be rotated and the orientation of the LL stickers will always look the same, you only have one case for each PLL, plus one for solved PLL which is why there are 22 cases.


----------



## Suratha (Dec 21, 2013)

TDM said:


> Nope. The 72 for each case covers every possible AUF for each PLL; by rotating how you view the cube you're only repeating cases. For no edges oriented, because it can be rotated and the orientation of the LL stickers will always look the same, you only have one case for each PLL, plus one for solved PLL which is why there are 22 cases.


I already posted this idea earlier and some have disagreed with me and I don't understand your explanation. http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...-New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page9


----------



## notfeliks (Dec 21, 2013)

Sample case and alg, supplied by cube explorer:

The case is a Ga perm, headlights on B and the UF and UR edges flipped. This case is selected randomly.

Headlights on B:

L F' L F2 R' F R F2 L2 

Very nice alg, move optimal, 3-gen and definitely fingertrick-able. Also if we do an x rotation and perform:

L D' L D2 R' D R D2 L2

we have an alg strangely reminiscent of A-perms. I'm quite liking this.

Second sample, also randomly selected:

Rb perm with swapped corners on R and UF/UR edges flipped.

F R' F' U R U2 R U2 R' U R' U2 R U

Apart from the sledgehammer sort of trigger at the start, we have a 2-gen algorithm, and very similar to a typically alg used for the normal Rb perm.

I'm starting to really like this concept.


----------



## TDM (Dec 21, 2013)

Suratha said:


> I already posted this idea earlier and some have disagreed with me and I don't understand your explanation. http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...-New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page9


You can also view it as 8 orientation cases, but then you only include each PLL once.


----------



## rybaby (Dec 30, 2013)

I have thought of a new 4x4x4 method, which combines Yau, Waterman, K4, and Reduction.
1. Solve opposite centers.
2. Build a 1x3x4 block 
3. Solve the last 4 centers without breaking up the two centers or the block.
4. Rotate so the block is on D, with the open side of the D face at F.
5. Pair up a dedge and place it in DF.
6. Use chain edge pairing to solve the rest of the dedges.
7. Solve two corners on D to make the layer complete aside from 1 dedge (this makes the next steps easier, but making a full layer could be faster in some cases).
8. Solve opposite corners with CLL.
9. Rotate so the almost completed layer is on D. Now fill in edges on R using the keyhole on the L face.

Last steps:
Method 1:
1. Solve the last R/L edge while fixing orientation parity (if necessary).
2. Permute the Middle edges while fixing permutation parity (if necessary).

Method 2 (simpler):
1. Solve the last edge on R/L.
2. Orient Middle edges.
3. Permute middle edges.
4. Fix any parity that remains.

The last few steps can be played around with and altered depending on the situation.


----------



## cygorx (Feb 26, 2014)

*FOPP Method?*

Recently I've thought of an interesting way to solve the 3x3 cube. It's not spectacularly efficient, but I think it is worth sharing. It solves corners ("pillars") first, and then permutes the edges around the cube. I have named it the FOPP Method (tentatively) because the steps are of this order:

F2L pairs (first two layers) [side edges/corners only; no cross]
OLLC (orient last layer corners)
PLLC (permute last layer corners)
PE (permute edges)
The premise of the method was intuition; the ability to recognize the patterns very quickly, so that your execution time is your only substantial limit. Having the F2L in the beginning seriously advanced my look ahead speed and pattern recognition after a bit of pratice. I will try not to have a massive wall of text, but I will attempt to organize and explain each step. I will accept any criticisms, as this is a heavy work-in-progress.

*Overview*


Spoiler



The FOPP method contains four essential parts. Restating: *F*2L, *O*LLC, *P*LLC, and *P*E. It is a corners-first method, so there is no introductory cross, unlike CFOP. Most of the algorithms were not developed by me, and none of the algorithms were directly developed by me. I utilize 2-look Fridrich PLL algorithms, as well as Ortega OLL algorithms. Cube Explorer 5.01 aided me in the development of my edge flipping algorithms; however, they were optimized (just how optimal are they?). So, in the most basic form: You solve F2L pairs intuitively, use very short Ortega algorithms to orient the LL corners, use 2-look PLL algorithms to orient the corners, and use intuition, edge-flipping algs, and more 2-look PLL algorithms to permute the edges.

This is not a tutorial. This is a brief overview of the method.



*Intuitive F2L*


Spoiler



As in the Fridrich method, we pair up pieces and insert them. However, there is a massive benefit to solving this first. When we pick our scrambled cube up and begin inspecting it, we can start seeing into the first two or three or four F2L pairs. We do not have to worry amount messing up the bottom layer, so we can perform F moves to insert pairs without performing an F' afterward, for example. Other moves that are useful are found in the <l, r, d, L, R, D, M> group. I recommend you grab a cube, scramble it, and insert try inserting F2L pairs without the cross. If you practice the Fridrich method, you may find it confusing at first. After a bit of practice, you should begin to perceive the efficient ways of pairing and inserting.
An immediate weakness to this is that there are certain pair edges on the bottom layer; it can be difficult to look at the front edge pairs and the bottom layer for specific pieces at first. I suspect, with practice, the pairs will become easier and much quicker.



*Algorithmic OLLC*


Spoiler



I grabbed the Ortega 2x2 algorithms for OLL and implemented them in my method for orienting the corners. Basically, after solving the F2L pairs on bottom, we look at the top layer, select a case, and perform an algorithm with about 6 to 8 moves to make all the corners face in their solved orientation. You could, alternatively, use the Fridrich 2-look OLL algorithms for this, though they are less efficient. The only algorithm that I have changed is the H-Orientation algorithm, which cannot be performed with desired results on a 3x3. It mixes the middle layer. Perform the following algorithm first instead:

Twizzle linkF (R U R' U') (R U R' U') (R U R' U') F'

This step is also quite efficient.



*Algorithmic PLLC*


Spoiler



For PLLC, I simply used 2-look Fridrich PLL algs. Using the E-Permutation and CW Corner 3-cycle, I managed to create a somewhat efficient method of rotating the corners around. I suspect there is a faster way of getting them in the correct place, as, again, the edges need not be preserved. 
If anyone can find such an algorithm, please tell me. I have been working on it for a while and have nothing worth sharing.
The pattern recognition is the exact same as in Fridrich: If you have two oriented corners in the correct position, put them in the back and perform a CW Corner 3-cycle. Otherwise, perform an E-Perm.

Here I will address two possible changes about the method.

I suspect that using 1-look PLL could benefit this, but for now 2-look will suffice as I have only recently began work on the method.
I think putting PLLC before OLLC could make this more efficient. That is, using a very basic cyclical algorithm or something similar to place the corners, then orient them using modified Ortega algorithms. Repeated algorithms, however, are filth. I will look into this.




*Intutive + Algorithmic PE*


Spoiler



This is the step in which we move the edges all around the cube. We first permute the bottom layer edges using <M, U> moves. For any correctly oriented edge, we can orient it vertically with its bottom layer slot and perform an M' U2 M to insert it. For any incorrectly oriented edge, perform a U M' U' M. This solves the bottom layer. We now use Fridrich PLL algorithms to move the edges around so that they are in the right position, though not necessarily the right orientation. When we have finished, we must flip certain edges as a "parity" problem. We can utilize one of three algorithms:
Z-Translation: F2 R' D' U F' L2 U2 L2 F D U' R F2 U2
XZ-Translation: F R' F' R' F2 L D R D' L' R' F2 R2
Orientation (special case, special name): L' R B2 L2 U2 L2 B' L2 U2 L2 B2 L R' U'
The Z-Translation flips two opposite edges. The XZ-Translation flips two adjacent edges. Orientation flips all edges on a face.

Note the discomfort of these algorithms. I doubt that I could ever obtain sub-1 on the Orientation algorithm. This is, I think, one of the primary weaknesses of the method.



*Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses & Observations*


Spoiler



Note that the method contains as many steps and exactly as many algorithms as the Fridrich method. Nevertheless, the move count is slightly less.

STRENGTHS

Quick pattern recognition
Most of the algorithms can be quickly performed
Not many algorithms to memorize; mostly intuitive
Optimized for look ahead
Not very difficult to learn when properly presented
F2L as a first step is effective

WEAKNESSES

PE algorithms are uncomfortable, slow and annoying
May take some time to get quick
Last layer can be tricky
Although the pattern recognition is easy, bad presentation of the method may lead to initial confusion
Bottom layer edges can be hard to look for
Some who are used to Fridrich F2L will have a difficult time transitioning



Thanks for reading. As previously stated, criticisms welcome. I really want to hear your opinions.

(Yes, this is a legitimate, non-troll thread, unlike my first thread when I may have come off as ignorant. I apologize.)


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 26, 2014)

Good thinking! Not very efficient, but lots of room for improvement.

Look into PCMS.

It's a more efficient version of the "same" method.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 26, 2014)

Step 2 and 3 should be one step. Step 4 isn't very good for speed.


----------



## tx789 (Feb 26, 2014)

step 2 and 3 can be combined into CLL it only has 42 cases.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Feb 26, 2014)

Sorry. Lots of people use this. It's called columns first or PCMS. 

It's fun to do pairs, cross edges, oll, pll also.


----------



## cygorx (Feb 26, 2014)

tx789 said:


> step 2 and 3 can be combined into CLL it only has 42 cases.


This was suggested to me by someone else as well. Again, the main goal was pattern recognition, so I tried limiting the amount of cases. Thanks!



mDiPalma said:


> Good thinking! Not very efficient, but lots of room for improvement.
> 
> Look into PCMS.
> 
> It's a more efficient version of the "same" method.


Wow, I had no idea someone had already thought of this. Thank you. It is very similar indeed. Do you think it is a good idea to try to continue, even if someone has already made something similar?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 26, 2014)

Yeah, people have tried columns first before (my variant: http://mzrg.com/rubik/methods/col3/). There are definitely better pure edge flip algs than what you have (for instance, U (M'U)3 U (MU)3 for your "Z-Translation") but you should almost never need to do pure edge flips. PLLs for the last edges are also not recommended. Essentially, you need to take much more advantage of your freedom to move the M slice.


----------



## cygorx (Feb 26, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Yeah, people have tried columns first before (my variant: http://mzrg.com/rubik/methods/col3/). There are definitely better pure edge flip algs than what you have (for instance, U (M'U)3 U (MU)3 for your "Z-Translation") but you should almost never need to do pure edge flips. PLLs for the last edges are also not recommended. Essentially, you need to take much more advantage of your freedom to move the M slice.


I had done some research but I didn't really find anything with columns first, but wow. Apparently it's pretty notorious. I see what you mean, I think I just thought an interesting way to do step 4 with slices, but it is similar to PCMS, a little.


----------



## sameer26726 (Mar 1, 2014)

*I have invented a new method to solve Rubik's 3x3*

I NEED HELP..... how should i patent it.. i mean i want my method to be included in speedsolving wiki  can anyone help


----------



## Stewy (Mar 1, 2014)

sameer26726 said:


> I NEED HELP..... how should i patent it.. i mean i want my method to be included in speedsolving wiki  can anyone help



do you have an example?


----------



## notfeliks (Mar 1, 2014)

A few months ago in this thread I posted an idea I had for a 1LLL subset; similar to ZBLL, only instead of edges oriented, it's corners oriented. I generated a few random cases and a majority of them had very usable algs.

Unfortunately, I do not have a good way to generate algs, so what I am requesting is someone capable of this. If the subset becomes popular, I will be happy to attach both our names to it. Thanks.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Mar 1, 2014)

sameer26726 said:


> I NEED HELP..... how should i patent it.. i mean i want my method to be included in speedsolving wiki  can anyone help



*Stop worrying about getting credit for your method.* I already answered this question on facebook. If the method is any good, you will get the credit you deserve. Make an explanation of the method, and if people think it's good enough, it will get on speedsolving wiki. That said, the odds that you actually invented a new method that is good and has not already been thought of is very low. Do not worry about patents.


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 2, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> A few months ago in this thread I posted an idea I had for a 1LLL subset; similar to ZBLL, only instead of edges oriented, it's corners oriented. I generated a few random cases and a majority of them had very usable algs.
> 
> Unfortunately, I do not have a good way to generate algs, so what I am requesting is someone capable of this. If the subset becomes popular, I will be happy to attach both our names to it. Thanks.



I'd be happy to help out as long as the case number is under 500. Would you be able to calculate that number first?


----------



## Renslay (Mar 2, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> If the method is any good, you will get the credit you deserve. Make an explanation of the method, and if people think it's good enough, it will get on speedsolving wiki.



The Hoya method is a popular and fast method and was invented months/years ago, yet still not a single note about it on the wiki. Just saying.


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Mar 2, 2014)

Renslay said:


> The Hoya method is a popular and fast method and was invented months/years ago, yet still not a single note about it on the wiki. Just saying.



Although I do feel that Hoya deserves a mention on the wiki, I wouldn't say that it's a revolutionary method. It's just a slight variation of redux.


----------



## TDM (Mar 2, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> I'd be happy to help out as long as the case number is under 500. Would you be able to calculate that number first?


((2^3)*4!*4!)/(2*4) = 576
Reasons for each number:
2^3: EO
4!: EP
4!: CP
2: Parity
4: AUF


Clarkeeyyy said:


> Although I do feel that Hoya deserves a mention on the wiki, I wouldn't say that it's a revolutionary method. It's just a slight variation of redux.


I wouldn't say that Yau is a revolutionary method. It's just a slight variation of redux.


----------



## Clarkeeyyy (Mar 2, 2014)

TDM said:


> I wouldn't say that Yau is a revolutionary method. It's just a slight variation of redux.



I agree.


----------



## JKNK (Mar 5, 2014)

Hey guys, i thought of a 4x4 method . It's called Hoyau, a mix between hoya and yau. You create one center and put 3 edges in like in yau. Scince you have no top, it's really easy. After this you make the top center and finsih the cube like yau with 3-2-3 edge paring. My times reduced about 15 seconds.


----------



## notfeliks (Mar 5, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> I'd be happy to help out as long as the case number is under 500. Would you be able to calculate that number first?



As calculated by TDM, 576 (taking his word for it). Is this still acceptable?


----------



## Logiqx (Mar 5, 2014)

cygorx said:


> I had done some research but I didn't really find anything with columns first, but wow. Apparently it's pretty notorious. I see what you mean, I think I just thought an interesting way to do step 4 with slices, but it is similar to PCMS, a little.



Here's another discussion CF discussion for you - http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?37600-Columns-First-underestimated-method


----------



## Renslay (Mar 5, 2014)

Clarkeeyyy said:


> Although I do feel that Hoya deserves a mention on the wiki, I wouldn't say that it's a revolutionary method. It's just a slight variation of redux.



I did *not* say it's a revolutionary method. It is a method. Or a variation, if you prefer; but I think saying Hoya and Redux is nearly the same is like saying CFOP and Petrus is nearly the same.

Moreover, there are many things on the wiki which is not a revolutionary method, or not even a method (like the Winter Variation).


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 5, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> As calculated by TDM, 576 (taking his word for it). Is this still acceptable?



Given that it's 576 cases, I think we would need to figure out what all of the cases are before I commit to being willing to generate cases. We can figure this out by PM without clogging up this thread for others.


----------



## TDM (Mar 5, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> Given that it's 576 cases, I think we would need to figure out what all of the cases are before I commit to being willing to generate cases. We can figure this out by PM without clogging up this thread for others.


I'm beginning to think I may have made an error, but I'm struggling to see where. I've included AUF for both the EO and the PLL you'd get by flipping edges; this should mean there are actually 4 times less cases. 576/4 equals 144. But if I recalculate, I can either say that for each of 22 PLLs, there are 8 possible edge flips leaving with me with 176 cases, but if I say that for each of 4 edge flips there are 72 PLLs I have 288 cases... can someone else please help me out here?

btw, all three of these numbers seem very low to me. 576 looks closer to what it should be, but as that is 72*8 I know that I must have repeated some cases... :confused:

(this post was originally supposed to be me explaining what all the cases are, but that didn't happen xD)


----------



## JKNK (Mar 5, 2014)

Anyone like my hoyau method idea


----------



## TDM (Mar 5, 2014)

JKNK said:


> Anyone like my hoyau method idea


Wouldn't the U layer centre be much harder to do? Also, as (if I understand correctly) this method is designed to make the three cross edges easier to pair... but isn't it easier to pair them as you usually do with Yau?


----------



## notfeliks (Mar 6, 2014)

Time to put my pathetic high school mathematical skills to the test!

I think you need to include AUF for only edges or only corners but not them both, as one can change cases while the other stays the same, to create a different case. There are also cases where the algs would have already been found, such as ELL with all corners permuted, that we wouldn't have to calculate. What I mean:

6 CPLL cases: One adjacent swap, one diagonal swap, Aa, Ab, E, X/solved. (X would technically be an ELL case, but as ELL would be a substep of this substep (substepception?!), we'll include it.)

6*(ELL cases including parities = 4!*4 = 96) = *576*, what TDM came up with.

Doing it the other way around (with edges fixed instead) obviously just yields the same result.

However, out of these 576 cases, we can subtract a few that don't need to be calculated, namely PLL and ELL cases.

576 - 25(ELL) - 21 (PLL) = *530*

So there are 530 cases that need an algorithm to be found. Again, this doesn't seem right... maybe someone more advanced will lend their assistance. 

Edits in red.


----------



## JKNK (Mar 6, 2014)

TDM said:


> Wouldn't the U layer centre be much harder to do? Also, as (if I understand correctly) this method is designed to make the three cross edges easier to pair... but isn't it easier to pair them as you usually do with Yau?



It's a little easier with hoyau because you can use any center expect the white for edge pairing the 3 cross edges. The only down side is a little harder yellow center which you can do just as fast as the regular one if one cross edge doesn't block it. Maybe ill do an example solve (im barely sub 2 so ill suck)


----------



## TDM (Mar 6, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> However, out of these 576 cases, we can subtract a few that don't need to be calculated, namely PLL and ELL cases.
> 
> *576 - 25(ELL) - 21 (PLL) = 530*
> 
> So there are 530 cases that need an algorithm to be found. Again, this doesn't seem right...


The bit in blue isn't right. You have to take away 72 (one for each PLL that you've counted in the 576) and then add 21 because there are 21 PLLs. Same thing with ELL: subtract 48 (because 12 EP cases*4 EO cases=48... again, I don't know if this is right) and then add 29 for the number of ELL cases. In addition, you can do -72+22 for each of the 4-flip cases. I may try to calculate this by counting the cases rather than trying to simplify it to a few calculations.


JKNK said:


> It's a little easier with hoyau because you can use any center expect the white for edge pairing the 3 cross edges. The only down side is a little harder yellow center which you can do just as fast as the regular one if one cross edge doesn't block it. Maybe ill do an example solve (im barely sub 2 so ill suck)


Sorry, I was wrong with 3 cross edge pairing: they're the same... at least I think so. Please could you list the substeps out on separate lines to make it clearer what your method is? I can't quite understand your explanation.

Edit:
Here's what I got:
PLL: 22
PLLEF: 22
Opposite flip: 72
Adjacent flip: 72
Total = 188
... that also doesn't seem right, but now I really can't see where I've gone wrong.


----------



## JKNK (Mar 7, 2014)

TDM said:


> The bit in blue isn't right. You have to take away 72 (one for each PLL that you've counted in the 576) and then add 21 because there are 21 PLLs. Same thing with ELL: subtract 48 (because 12 EP cases*4 EO cases=48... again, I don't know if this is right) and then add 29 for the number of ELL cases. In addition, you can do -72+22 for each of the 4-flip cases. I may try to calculate this by counting the cases rather than trying to simplify it to a few calculations.
> 
> Sorry, I was wrong with 3 cross edge pairing: they're the same... at least I think so. Please could you list the substeps out on separate lines to make it clearer what your method is? I can't quite understand your explanation.
> 
> ...



Step 1: Make a center

Step 2: Put in 3 cross edges (you can use the u layer and if you know hoya this will be really easy and you can use the left and right centers so its easier than hoya or yau)

Step 3: Solve the opposite center (this well be easy, the only con is that you'll have to move the d layer but only once)

Step 4: Solve the remaining centers without messing up the cross edges

Step 5: put in the reaming edge and finish with 3-2-3 edge paring.

Step 6 Finish the Cube like a 3x3

If anyone is still confused just say so and i'll make an example solve


----------



## TDM (Mar 7, 2014)

JKNK said:


> Step 2: Put in 3 cross edges (you can use the u layer and if you know hoya this will be really easy and you can use the left and right centers so its easier than hoya or yau)


It won't be easier than Hoya or Yau? I find Yau edge pairing is more efficient than Hoya, so having the option to do either doesn't help. I can't see the advantage. There's no disadvantage though.


> Step 3: Solve the opposite center (this well be easy, the only con is that you'll have to move the d layer but only once)


You won't have to move it only once? What if the four U layer centre pieces are on F, L, B and R?

From what I've understood, this is just Yau but with the U layer centre done in a different place (that makes it harder to do).


----------



## JKNK (Mar 7, 2014)

TDM said:


> It won't be easier than Hoya or Yau? I find Yau edge pairing is more efficient than Hoya, so having the option to do either doesn't help. I can't see the advantage. There's no disadvantage though.
> 
> You won't have to move it only once? What if the four U layer centre pieces are on F, L, B and R?
> 
> From what I've understood, this is just Yau but with the U layer centre done in a different place (that makes it harder to do).



It is actually easier scince you can use the all centers expect for the d layers and in most cases you only have to move the d layer once

Is there anyway someone could generate algorithms for a 1- look last layer?


----------



## TDM (Mar 7, 2014)

JKNK said:


> It is actually easier scince you can use the all centers expect for the d layers and in most cases you only have to move the d layer once


What is? You don't specify what you're talking about here: cross edges or U layer centre? Please could you give some example solves?


JKNK said:


> Is there anyway someone could generate algorithms for a 1- look last layer?


Cube Explorer.


----------



## notfeliks (Mar 8, 2014)

TDM said:


> The bit in blue isn't right. You have to take away 72 (one for each PLL that you've counted in the 576) and then add 21 because there are 21 PLLs. Same thing with ELL: subtract 48 (because 12 EP cases*4 EO cases=48... again, I don't know if this is right) and then add 29 for the number of ELL cases. In addition, you can do -72+22 for each of the 4-flip cases. I may try to calculate this by counting the cases rather than trying to simplify it to a few calculations.
> 
> Sorry, I was wrong with 3 cross edge pairing: they're the same... at least I think so. Please could you list the substeps out on separate lines to make it clearer what your method is? I can't quite understand your explanation.
> 
> ...



This is an annoying problem. Any progress on the brute force method?


----------



## JKNK (Mar 8, 2014)

TDM said:


> What is? You don't specify what you're talking about here: cross edges or U layer centre? Please could you give some example solves?
> 
> Cube Explorer.




Ill make an example solve video and can you help me with the 1 look ll algorithms


----------



## TDM (Mar 8, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> This is an annoying problem. Any progress on the brute force method?


The last bit of my post was the brute force method. I went through every PLL case and determined how many times each one was counted for each EO case using rotational symmetry. I thought that it'd be more accurate than using a formula and having the chance of missing something out, but of course it gave me my lowest result so far.
After thinking some more, there are fewer EO cases than CO cases, so maybe there should be fewer cases than ZBLL. Maybe this is actually right?



JKNK said:


> Ill make an example solve video and can you help me with the 1 look ll algorithms


Ty. Unfortunately, I don't know a fast way of making algs for every single case: Cube Explorer requires each case to be input one at a time (unless there's something to make this possible I don't know of). However, there are some links at the bottom of the wiki page to lists that people have already created, so you shouldn't need to generate your own.
Out of interest, why do you want these?


----------



## notfeliks (Mar 8, 2014)

TDM said:


> Here's what I got:
> PLL: 22
> PLLEF: 22
> Opposite flip: 72
> ...



Hang on. Aren't there only 36 PLL cases with an opposite flip? Adjacent can have UF/UR, UR/UB, UB/UL and UL/UF but opposite can only have UF/UB and UL/UR. This brings the total down to 152.

I can't believe I didn't spot that earlier.


----------



## JKNK (Mar 8, 2014)

TDM said:


> The last bit of my post was the brute force method. I went through every PLL case and determined how many times each one was counted for each EO case using rotational symmetry. I thought that it'd be more accurate than using a formula and having the chance of missing something out, but of course it gave me my lowest result so far.
> After thinking some more, there are fewer EO cases than CO cases, so maybe there should be fewer cases than ZBLL. Maybe this is actually right?
> 
> 
> ...



I just thought it would be a good idea for a 1 look ll. I mean it will reduced time down since the last layer takes about 4 seconds or less for world class solvers.


----------



## TDM (Mar 8, 2014)

JKNK said:


> I just thought it would be a good idea for a 1 look ll. I mean it will reduced time down since the last layer takes about 4 seconds or less for world class solvers.


... It's not a good idea. Even ZBLL is not a good idea. There are too many cases, and even if you do learn all of them, you'll have trouble recognising which case is which and remembering the alg to use in every solve; because there are so many you will almost never see the same case twice, so you won't be able to practise what you know. You'll then forget everything and will have difficult ever doing the LL in one look, even if you know all the algs, except for the cases that are _very_ easy to recognise (e.g. r U R' U' r' F R F').


notfeliks said:


> Hang on. Aren't there only 36 PLL cases with an opposite flip? Adjacent can have UF/UR, UR/UB, UB/UL and UL/UF but opposite can only have UF/UB and UL/UR. This brings the total down to 152.
> 
> I can't believe I didn't spot that earlier.


Yeah sorry, that was stupid of me. But I counted 40 for opposite flip:
Ua, Ub: 2+2=4
H, Z: 1+2=3
Aa, Ab: 2+2=4
E, F: 2+2=4
Ga, Gb, Gc, Gd: 2+2+2+2=8
J, L: 2+2=4
Na, Nb: 1+1=2
Ra, Rb: 2+2=4
T, V, Y: 2+2+2=6
4+3+4+4+8+4+2+4+6=39, plus one for solved permutation = 40.
If I'm right, that leaves 156 cases, or 155 that aren't a LL skip. A lot less than the 576 I originally calculated.


----------



## notfeliks (Mar 9, 2014)

TDM said:


> Yeah sorry, that was stupid of me. But I counted 40 for opposite flip:
> Ua, Ub: 2+2=4
> H, Z: 1+2=3
> Aa, Ab: 2+2=4
> ...



That sounds about right. ZBLL has 177 cases not counting mirrors and inverses and this has slightly less, so it's a reasonable answer.

Thanks for your help. When supercavitation finishes alg generation, I'll be sure to give you credit.


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 9, 2014)

I just manually generated every single case (algs will follow ASAP) and came up with 160 cases:

Ua: 8
Ub: 8
H:4
Aa: 8
Ab: 8
Z: 6
E: 6
Ja: 8
Jb: 8
Ra: 8
Rb: 8
Ga: 8
Gb: 8
Gc: 8
Gd: 8
Na: 6
Nb: 6
T: 8
Y: 8
V: 8
F: 8
Solved: 4

Where are the 4 extras?


----------



## TDM (Mar 9, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> That sounds about right. ZBLL has 177 cases not counting mirrors and inverses and this has slightly less, so it's a reasonable answer.
> 
> Thanks for your help. When supercavitation finishes alg generation, I'll be sure to give you credit.


Ty, but you don't have to... I wouldn't say that I've helped much. All I've done is count cases, and even that's taken me quite a few attempts.


supercavitation said:


> Where are the 4 extras?


N perms, like H perms, have a rotational symmetry of 4, and therefore are only counted once for each EO case. The four extras are 2 in each N perm.


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 13, 2014)

Thanks, TDM! Having regained my access to the internet, algorithm generation will begin tonight.


----------



## JKNK (Mar 14, 2014)

hey guys, i invented a new method. i dont have a name yet but here are the substeps.

Do first to layers but make it look exactly like a pll case ( if you dont know what i mean just do f2l then x2 with t perm or any other)
Do the last layer untill you get to pll then solve the whole cube in one step. 

Pros: easier f2l if you can use ur head. you don't have to look at the bottem when doing doublepll 
Cons: maybe hard for beginners to do f2l.

if your confused i'll put an example solve. Also anyone want to help me get the algorithms. i think there are about 300, but like me most people would do tperm f2l so it drops it down to 84 and if you move the d or u layer, its 21


----------



## Phillip1847 (Mar 14, 2014)

I personally don't think this is terribly viable, but I'll post it anyway.
An LS/F2L method + 1LLL (watch this get slammed by Kir)

Step 1: 
The goal is to complete the entire F2L, with a solved 2x2 block in the LL.
There are multiple approaches, but the easiest way I found was to create the last pair, attaching a 2x1 to an edge, and inserting the last pair using 3 move regular inserts or a sledge, depending on which one preserves the 2x1. There isn't always a 2x1, but there often are 3 move ones.
If there are no oriented edges, I orient some first, because it is difficult(personally) to orient edges while preserving the pair and the 2x1.

This step was much harder than I thought it would be, because I kept making the 2x2 block and trying to preserve it while making the last pair.

Step 2: 
Why make a 2x2 block? To cut down LL cases.
If I calculated correctly, there are 9 corner orientation cases(Solved, La, Lb, Ta, Tb, Ua, Ub, S, AS), 2 edge orientation cases (solved, 2 flip), and 6 PLL cases(solved, V, Aa, Ab, Ja, Jb).
This means there are 9 * 2 * 6 = 108 LL cases.
1/2 are ZBLLs. The other 1/2 need to be generated. I have made some, but they are not pretty: R' U R U2 L' U R' U' L U l R U' R' U; l' U2 l F' l' U2 l r U' R' U M; etc.


Spoiler



Example solve:
D B2 R2 U2 B2 D' B2 U2 F2 U F' R F' R2 B' R' B' U2 R U R' U' R U' R'
L U' R U R' // pair
U L' U L U2 L' U2 // Fix back pair, solve 2x2
R2 F2 R2 U2 B2 L2 B' L2 B' U2 R' F' R //LL
Click


Well, thats it. To explain the corner orientations, there are 2 Ls, where 1 of the 2x2 blocks is solved, but the other isn't. Same with T and U.


----------



## notfeliks (Mar 15, 2014)

Phillip1847 said:


> I personally don't think this is terribly viable, but I'll post it anyway.
> An LS/F2L method + 1LLL (watch this get slammed by Kir)
> 
> Step 1: BBLS
> ...



This is an interesting idea, but I think it would be better as an opportunistic subset instead (like ZBLL), where you only do the 1LL if you have the 2x2x1 and you know the case.





JKNK said:


> hey guys, i invented a new method. i dont have a name yet but here are the substeps.
> 
> Do first to layers but make it look exactly like a pll case ( if you dont know what i mean just do f2l then x2 with t perm or any other)
> Do the last layer untill you get to pll then solve the whole cube in one step.
> ...



I don't see this as being viable. Piece recognition during F2L would be unnecessarily hard, and I would be willing to bet that any single PLL case would be better than an alg that solves two.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 15, 2014)

Phillip1847 said:


> I personally don't think this is terribly viable, but I'll post it anyway.
> An LS/F2L method + 1LLL (watch this get slammed by Kir)
> 
> Step 1: BBLS
> ...



BBLS: Sorry, the name is taken [wiki]BBF2L[/wiki]. It's a viable method. I like the idea. Are you saying permuted or just oriented. 

22LL is also a thing but with 2 2-cycles. More info on meep's site. The algs are on Michael Gottlieb's site (Tripod page)

So naming is used but it is a nice idea. Kinda like CFOP version of tripod.


----------



## Phillip1847 (Mar 15, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> BBLS: Sorry, the name is taken [wiki]BBF2L[/wiki]. It's a viable method. I like the idea. Are you saying permuted or just oriented.
> 
> 22LL is also a thing but with 2 2-cycles. More info on meep's site. The algs are on Michael Gottlieb's site (Tripod page)
> 
> So naming is used but it is a nice idea. Kinda like CFOP version of tripod.



Hey, I found the LL algs. http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/L1/ece.htm
bit outdated, hehe
Can't find anything on meeps site, but I took a look at Gottlieb's site.
Definitely permuted and oriented, if just oriented there would be over 3x as many algs.
Personally, I know almost all of the La subset, and have experimented a decent amount with the last slot part, which I have no idea what to call.

Rarely, there are very difficult cases, where getting the 2x1 is too lengthy.
Similarly, sometimes you will get the back 2x3 solved. This is a time to do an x and apply an alg, as from a different reference point, you have a LL alg.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Mar 20, 2014)

JKNK said:


> hey guys, i invented a new method. i dont have a name yet but here are the substeps.
> 
> Do first to layers but make it look exactly like a pll case ( if you dont know what i mean just do f2l then x2 with t perm or any other)
> Do the last layer untill you get to pll then solve the whole cube in one step.
> ...



That sounds a little like Ortega for 3x3.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 20, 2014)

New Method Idea

1. 2x2x3 with FD (Either blockbuilding or cross with 2 pairs)
2. Insert two pairs ignoring orientation (Usually 3 or 4 moves)
3. Solve one pair and orient all edges
4. Orient corners (EJF2L)
5. PLL

Decent method. Algs are alright.


----------



## GG (Apr 1, 2014)

*GGLL (new idea)*

So... this is an idea, and I want to know if it could be faster than CFOP (only the OP bit tho)


Cross - F2L - (ZBLL///OLLCP - EPPL) 


after f2l either using ZBLL or OLLCP depending on whether the cross comes up or any other case... 
I understand that in order to correctly know ´how to recognize and execute roughly 750 algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, could it be faster than CFOP?

OPINIONS PLEASE?


----------



## Amress (Apr 1, 2014)

Well, it would be faster to use ZBF2L to guarantee the cross on top and then use ZBLL. Even this would require too many algs. The number of algs you would need to learn to use GGLL is ridiculous, like you said. In my opinion, it isn't worth it. Recognition would be extremely difficult too. Just my opinion.


----------



## notfeliks (Apr 1, 2014)

In theory, yes, it could be faster than OLL>PLL, but in practice, the number of algs required would be ridiculously huge that it would be practically impossible to retain them all, and practice them regularly, like you would do with OLL and PLL. Not to mention the recognition - that would take a fair chunk of time in a solve as well.

Also, for such a raw idea as this one, please post here next time: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?40975-The-New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/


----------



## GG (Apr 1, 2014)

Thanks for the replies!  
I am still quite a noob and I'm just thinking of stuff to do, after learning full pll recently it dawned on me that after I've finished learning all 57 oll's I'll run out of stuff to learn, then it occurred to me that I should learn coll later, 
another cool idea is ZBF2L and COLL and EPLL, 
Not sure if that would be faster than F2L, OLL and PLL tthough
Opinions? xD


----------



## kunparekh18 (Apr 1, 2014)

gg dude, gg

Seriously speaking, this has already been proposed, so it isn't a new idea.


----------



## GG (Apr 1, 2014)

I don't know I'm a noob xD
But seriously, would it be faster? Cause if it would then I'll stop learning OLL and switch right over.

I think I was describing VH method..
I will go and decide whether to learn CFOP or VH. Please somebody help me.
*DECISIONSSS *(


----------



## Bindedsa (Apr 1, 2014)

This is not VH, VH is CFOP where you orient the edges with your 3 move insert and COLL. Anyway, If you want to learn this you will need OLL.


----------



## Coolster01 (Apr 1, 2014)

I understand that in order to correctly know how to recognize and execute roughly 43 quintillion algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, it would be faster than CFOP and ZB, right? Because if it is I'll just stop learning those algs and switch right over now.


----------



## yoinneroid (Apr 1, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> This is not VH, VH is CFOP where you orient the edges with your 3 move insert and COLL. Anyway, If you want to learn this you will need OLL.



He is referring to the ZBF2L and COLL and EPLL in post #4 which is simply non-intuitive VH


----------



## scottishcuber (Apr 1, 2014)

GG said:


> So... this is an idea, and I want to know if it could be faster than CFOP (only the OP bit tho)
> 
> 
> Cross - F2L - (ZBLL///OLLCP - EPPL)
> ...



You can't just combine 2 already existent LL methods, put your name on it and pass them off as your own idea...they already existed so you have no claim over them.


----------



## GG (Apr 1, 2014)

scottishcuber said:


> You can't just combine 2 already existent LL methods, put your name on it and pass them off as your own idea...they already existed so you have no claim over them.



Sorry, unexperienced cuber here, no need to be harsh!
After about an hour of researrch I have decided to go ahead and learn full cfop first (I already know half of oll and full pll anyway) ;
and then learn full COLL and see if I am faster using VH.
The only real reason I'd like to test out VH is to see if it could be faster than cfop... I'd love to be different from all cfop users (no offense!!), but I don't really feel like learning roux or petrus XD
It would be cool to say : no! I use VH .
I'm a bit stupid but I'd like to experiment with it once I know full cfop.
At least then I'll have something to fall back on if I suck at VH


----------



## brian724080 (Apr 1, 2014)

Coolster01 said:


> I understand that in order to correctly know how to recognize and execute roughly 43 quintillion algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, it would be faster than CFOP and ZB, right? Because if it is I'll just stop learning those algs and switch right over now.



Yup, just wait, in a few years, the top speed-cubers will be one-looking 3x3s


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 1, 2014)

This is silly.


----------



## GG (Apr 1, 2014)

Nobody gets sarcasm nowadays. Kirjava, I knew you would be here but I imagined you'd have more negative input  (jk you're awesome) 
I'm in the middle of learning oll's and after that I'll learn VH (intuitive VH and COLL) just to know more stuffs, cause otherwise Ill get bored,
Seriously though, I wasn't honestly proposing memorizing all 750 algorithms, for that there is ZB, I was just wondering if it would work *(HYPOTHETICALLY!!)*
I just really want there to be something faster than cfop.


----------



## pipkiksass (Apr 1, 2014)

Coolster01 said:


> I understand that in order to correctly know how to recognize and execute roughly 43 quintillion algorithms is insane, but technically speaking, it would be faster than CFOP and ZB, right? Because if it is I'll just stop learning those algs and switch right over now.



Lol! If this forum only had an emoticon that could encapsulate how much I love this post...


GG said:


> just really want there to be something faster than cfop.



There's plenty faster than CFOP. For example ZZ + ZBLL, or ZBF2L + ZBLL. As Coolster's post implies, however, the more you try to do with a single alg, the more permutations there are, and so more algs and cases to recognise. 

The joy of CFOP is that it reduces hundreds of LL cases into a handful of algs. That's the trade off: ease of use vs.efficiency.


----------



## GG (Apr 1, 2014)

I get it, I don't know why but i saw that some girl had learnt like 270 ZBLL'S and thought it would be fun to join in; 
fact of the matter is, cfop is only faster because recog is so easy, thanks everyone for helping me get through my "mid-OLL" crisis.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 1, 2014)

GG said:


> Kirjava, I knew you would be here but I imagined you'd have more negative input



There's no point giving more input really, it's more just discarding it. 

Anyhoo, I do like the idea of meta steps or systems - but they are very difficult to get right, and it's tricky trying to guess if they are at all even viable.


----------



## pipkiksass (Apr 1, 2014)

It's not 43 quintillion algs if you consider mirrors and inverses!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 2, 2014)

GG said:


> So... this is an idea, and I want to know if it could be faster than CFOP (only the OP bit tho)
> 
> 
> Cross - F2L - (ZBLL///OLLCP - EPPL)
> ...



Yes, technically speaking, it could be faster than CFOP. You know what else could, technically speaking, be faster? 1 look last layer. Or 1 look 3x3 solves. Or optimal 3x3 solutions.

EDIT: wow, ninja'd by 2 different people. *facepalm*


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Apr 2, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Yes, technically speaking, it could be faster than CFOP. You know what else could, technically speaking, be faster? 1 look last layer. Or 1 look 3x3 solves. Or optimal 3x3 solutions.
> 
> EDIT: wow, ninja'd by 2 different people. *facepalm*



That's not even ninja'd. It was hours before. Ninja'd is like seconds or a few minutes. 

I don't actually understand what the idea is? OLLCP and EPLL?


----------



## Phillip1847 (Apr 2, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> That's not even ninja'd. It was hours before. Ninja'd is like seconds or a few minutes.
> 
> I don't actually understand what the idea is? OLLCP and EPLL?



If cross on LL = true:
1 look with ZBLL
Else:
2 look with OLLCP + EPLL

When playing around with skewb, I found it really easy to attatch 3 adjacent centers to 3 adjacent corners(or layer -1corner + 2 centers).
Would you be able to make anything out of this? How many cases for the rest(Not terribly familiar with skewb CO rules)?


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 2, 2014)

GG said:


> I get it, I don't know why but i saw that some girl had learnt like 270 ZBLL'S and thought it would be fun to join in;
> fact of the matter is, cfop is only faster because recog is so easy, thanks everyone for helping me get through my "mid-OLL" crisis.



By the time you've learned all the OLLs and practised CFOP enough to be decently fast, you'll have forgotten about this thread and learned that F2L is where you should invest your time to get faster.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 4, 2014)

Just curious as to whether anyone uses the following method.
1. Solve DL and DR with adjacent centres. M slice centres don't matter (2.9 moves).
2. Solve F2L pairs, with free use of the M slice (24.1 moves).
3. Solve DF and DB, and M slice centres (5.2 moves).
4. Finish with OLL/PLL or LL of your choice.

Advantages and reasons I find this appealing:-
1. Step 1 is very short and simple, so planning first pair during inspection is easier (compared to cross).
2. F2L pairs are solved in <URrLlM> with no rotations and no F or B moves.
3. Because the M slice is unrestricted, pair solutions are slightly shorter on average (24.1 versus 27.5 for CFOP).
4. Step 3 is <MU> and based on a few common patterns/triggers, so can be faster TPS than cross, which typically involves several faces. 
5. It's easier to look ahead into OLL because the corners aren't changed by step 3.

The only disadvantage I can see is that lookahead is a little harder because you have to be aware of what's in DF and DB while solving pairs.

Regarding move counts, I tried both this and CFOP against the same 12 scrambles, and that's where the estimates above come from (it's only a small sample set, I know). Counts are in STM. Total F2L move count was 32.2 for this method, compared to 33.7 for CFOP. Effectively, cross, which averaged 6.2 moves, was replaced by 8.1 moves for steps 1&3, but that 2-move increase was offset by the more efficient pairs.

Clearly the small decrease in move count isn't enough of an advantage in itself, but move count doesn't appear to be worsened either, so I'm wondering if the other advantages listed above make this worthy of further exploration. I'm considering documenting the F2L cases/solutions.

Thoughts, anyone?


----------



## TDM (Apr 4, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Just curious as to whether anyone uses the following method.
> 1. Solve DL and DR with adjacent centres. M slice centres don't matter (2.9 moves).
> 2. Solve F2L pairs, with free use of the M slice (24.1 moves).
> 3. Solve DF and DB, and M slice centres (5.2 moves).
> ...


Why not replace steps 1 and 2 with Rouxblocks?


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 4, 2014)

TDM said:


> Why not replace steps 1 and 2 with Rouxblocks?


Because blockbuilding is hard. This is just a variant of F2L pairs so follows the same principle - higher move count than blockbuilding but easier to lookahead and spam TPS.


----------



## TDM (Apr 4, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Because blockbuilding is hard. This is just a variant of F2L pairs so follows the same principle - higher move count than blockbuilding but easier to lookahead and spam TPS.


If you're looking for easy lookahead and spamming TPS, I'd have thought CFOP would be easier. Also, blockbuilding isn't hard for everyone, just people who don't use blockbuilding methods as their main method, plus maybe a few others (although that does mean it's hard for most people. I'm just saying it won't be for everyone).


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 4, 2014)

TDM said:


> If you're looking for easy lookahead and spamming TPS, I'd have thought CFOP would be easier. Also, blockbuilding isn't hard for everyone, just people who don't use blockbuilding methods as their main method, plus maybe a few others (although that does mean it's hard for most people. I'm just saying it won't be for everyone).


Yeah I know about CFOP and Roux. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the idea above. Have you tried it?


----------



## TDM (Apr 4, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Yeah I know about CFOP and Roux. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the idea above. Have you tried it?


I haven't tried it yet, but I know from trying to look ahead with Roux that I won't be very good with this method. I do my second block almost the same as this (make pair 1, DR edge, insert pair, pair 2), and I can't look ahead at any point. For a CFOP user, it's much harder because the edges can be in so many places. You also have to regrip for stage 3 and then back again for stage 4, which doesn't help.


----------



## Renslay (Apr 5, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Because blockbuilding is hard.



No, it's not. It's just different than F2L.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 5, 2014)

Renslay said:


> No, it's not. It's just different than F2L.


I find it hard, as do many others, but this is beside the point. If I wanted to learn Roux, I'd learn Roux rather than cluttering up the "ideas" thread.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 28, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Just curious as to whether anyone uses the following method.
> 1. Solve DL and DR with adjacent centres. M slice centres don't matter (2.9 moves).
> 2. Solve F2L pairs, with free use of the M slice (24.1 moves).
> 3. Solve DF and DB, and M slice centres (5.2 moves).
> ...



Finally got round to preparing some example solves (only F2L transcribed below, LL is just OLL/PLL).

1. B2 R2 F' L2 B' D2 F' R2 F2 L2 R2 U R' B' F' D B L D L D2

y' x2
B R u // DL/DR
U2 L U' L' l' U' L
U' r' U' R
U M U2 R U' R'
L U L' U L U' L'
U' M2 U2 M // DF/DB = 31 total

2. U' R2 F2 D F2 D L2 U' L2 R2 F' L D' R2 U B2 L' U' F D' 

y2 x'
F2 R' // DL/DR
B L' U' L
[L] U L' U' l U L'
r M' U' R'
U' M' U' r' U R
U' M' U M' // DF/DB = 27 total

3. L2 F' U2 B' U2 B2 R2 B' R2 U2 F L' B D' F' D' B D R U2

y2
B D R // DL/DR
U' M U2 R U' R'
M2 U L' M U' L
U l U L'
R' M' U R
U M' U M U M2 // DF/DB = 29 total


----------



## Costa (Apr 30, 2014)

*An interesting last layer alternative?*

Instead of going with classic Oll and Pll i thought this:

-Last pair of f2l inserted like VHLS so all of my edges are oriented (http://www.cubewhiz.com/vh.php) 16algs without mirros

-COLL 42 algs

-EPLL which are U,H and Z perms

This alternative will increase the probability of skips A LOT( from 1/216 to 1/27 the oll for example) and wil leave you with a simple fast epll


So yeah my question is: whats better between this or normal oll-pll and WHY?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 30, 2014)

This is called VH and it sucks.


----------



## Raviorez (Apr 30, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> This is called VH and it sucks.



Why should it sucks? 
For me it seems a pretty good variation


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Apr 30, 2014)

You still need to know full PLL in case you get an OLL skip.


----------



## Renslay (Apr 30, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> You still need to know full PLL in case you get an OLL skip.



Technically, no, you don't. J-PLL or Y-PLL as COLL, and then U- Z- or H-PLL as EPLL. That means you didn't have (or forced) a skip. Just sayin'...


----------



## jorgeskm (May 9, 2014)

*Idea: Last pair + Last layer*

Hi! I Spanish and my English isn´t good.
The fist step is oriented all the corners of last layer while you put the last pair. For this, there are four main cases.


















All F2L's finish with this pair.

For each case there are 27 cases of orientation corners. But a lot of are mirror cases. I have generated cases of first pair:

L' U2 R U' R' U2 L (7)
R U' R' (3)
L R' F R F' L' (6)
R D R' U' R D' R2 (7)
y' R2 F R F' R (5)
R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U R' (11)
R U R' U' R U' R' (7)
R U' R' U R U2 R' (7)
F' R U2 R' U2 R' F R (8)
R' F R2 U R' U' R U R' U' F' (11)
R' F R2 U R' U' F' (7)
R' F R F' R' U' R U' R' U2 R (11)
R U' y R U R' U' F' (7)
y R' F R U' R' F' R (7)
R' F R F' (4)
Lw R U' R' U F' Lw' (7)
R U2 R' (3)
R' F' R U2 R U2 R' F (8)
Lw U F' U' Lw' (5)
R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R' (11)
R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R (9)
F' U' F U' R U' R' (7)
R U' B U' B' R' (6)
(R U' R' U)x2 R U2 R' (11)
R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R (9)
R U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 R (9)
(R U R' U')x2 R U' R' (11)

The algs are very good. And the average moves are in this cases 7,18 (if I haven´t mistake).
I suposse the other 3 cases (choosing good cases) will have average moves sub 8. At least the average moves of the four cases should be sub8.

*Last layer*

Now, we have to solve the last layer with one alg. There are 156 cases. But, 21 are PLL's, other is the last layer solved, other algorithm of BLD, some ELL's.
Removing these, 12x cases have to learn. They are a lot of cases, but wait for the comparison with Fridrich.

The best of thes 156 cases is that the recognition is very easy. All the corners are oriented, and in 94 of 156 cases, 2 edges adjacent will be oriented.
Imagine that you recognize this case for R-F.




You have a lot of information with this. And this OLL has a probability of 72/156. If we add the 22 cases (all corners oriented and all edges oriented):
72+22=94.

The others are easy to recognize too:










*Last layer CFOP vs This Method*
*CFOP:*
Put the pair: 3 movs.
OLL: 10 movs.
PLL: 12,5 movs.
This are good algs not optimal algs.

*In total, 25,5 movs.*

*This method:*
Put the pair: 8 movs.
The rest: *?* movs. 
If the rest are less than 14 movs, *the total would be sub 22*.

I don´t know how many average movements would be the final, but I think that less than 14 moves can be (search good algs)

3,5 movs equals (aproximately) 0,5 seg in Feliks, Mats, Alexander,...

And this aren´t many algs as ZBLL, RLS (or VLS),...


----------



## TDM (May 9, 2014)

jorgeskm said:


> long post


This has already been thought of. Also, not every pair finishes as you said; for example, I sometimes finish my F2L with D R U' R' D' or l F' R U' R' U l'.


----------



## jorgeskm (May 9, 2014)

TDM said:


> This has already been thought of


I just saw this explanation. He/She explains the idea simply, without say number of algorithms,...
But I explain some things, adventajes, comparison with CFOP,...



TDM said:


> Also, not every pair finishes as you said; for example, I sometimes finish my F2L with D R U' R' D' or l F' R U' R' U l'.


These are special cases and most people don't use this.


----------



## TDM (May 9, 2014)

jorgeskm said:


> I just saw this explanation. He/She explains the idea simply, without say number of algorithms,...
> But I explain some things, adventajes, comparison with CFOP,...


A lot of that has been discussed in later posts, not just the original suggestion. Also I have seen this idea discussed multiple times, and everything has probably been covered already.


> These are special cases and most people don't use this.


I know, especially the second, but those are just examples. People use lots of different algs after learning F2L intuitively to speed up their F2L (although some disagree, arguing it makes lookahead harder, but my second alg has the same effect as F' U F U' R U' R' and the first isn't complicated).


----------



## caters (May 18, 2014)

*OLL, PLL to solve whole cube*

Is it possible to do OLL and PLL of white layer and then OLL and PLL of each middle side to solve the whole cube so that the yellow side is solved at the same time the middle sides are solved?

If so than that means these as advantages:
less algorithms
get to sub-20 and sub-15 and sub-10 faster than with normal CFOP because you practice a particular algorithm at least once and these OLL and PLL algorithms are not the main factor into being slow in CFOP

It also has disadvantages:
You do the same process for 5 sides instead of 1 which means for someone who is very good at OLL and PLL 5x time in OLL and PLL in normal CFOP

However in the long run it is more advantageous than regular CFOP and probably would get you at those speeds in LBL much faster.


----------



## GuRoux (May 18, 2014)

caters said:


> Is it possible to do OLL and PLL of white layer and then OLL and PLL of each middle side to solve the whole cube so that the yellow side is solved at the same time the middle sides are solved?
> 
> If so than that means these as advantages:
> less algorithms
> ...



i'm not really understanding what you are proposing, can you show an example solve.


----------



## caters (May 18, 2014)

Well I have not had any success so far because I have not yet found a way to do OLL and PLL of the 4 middle sides without messing up the white but still getting the same outcome.


----------



## Bindedsa (May 18, 2014)

caters said:


> Is it possible to do OLL and PLL of white layer and then OLL and PLL of each middle side to solve the whole cube so that the yellow side is solved at the same time the middle sides are solved?
> 
> If so than that means these as advantages:
> less algorithms
> ...


This would not work, the reason we are able to do LL algorithms is because we solved the other two layers and all of the last layer pieces are in the last layer.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (May 18, 2014)

caters said:


> Is it possible to do OLL and PLL of white layer and then OLL and PLL of each middle side to solve the whole cube so that the yellow side is solved at the same time the middle sides are solved?



This seems to be closest to L2L, which requires more algorithms than CFOP, if I remember correctly. Look up L2L4 or L2Lk.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 18, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> This seems to be closest to L2L, which requires more algorithms than CFOP, if I remember correctly. Look up L2L4 or L2Lk.



It really is different but I can see why you would say its similar.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (May 18, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> It really is different but I can see why you would say its similar.



I realise they're by no means the same method, but it's the most similar method that's feasible - that I knew of (in terms solving one side, solving another side separately and having the rest of the cube done once you've finished).


----------



## caters (May 18, 2014)

The OLL and PLL of white and middle sides is supposed to work like this:

Get all white pieces in top layer

Orient and permute them

Get all green pieces on green side

Orient and permute them(orientation messes up white, permutation fixes white)

Do the same for the other 3 middle sides

Yellow and every other color is solved with less algorithms than CFOP and you solve much faster.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (May 18, 2014)

I understood what you meant, but as Bindedsa suggested, there are more possibilities for OLL and PLL if the rest of the cube isn't solved. Also, according to speedpicker's analysis, OLL/PLL is about 38% of the average CFOP solve, so doing OLL/PLL 3 or more times in a solve would generally be slower than a full CFOP solve, not accounting for the extra time taken to put all the white pieces into the white layer, the green pieces into the green layer, and so on.


----------



## applemobile (May 18, 2014)

caters said:


> The OLL and PLL of white and middle sides is supposed to work like this:
> 
> Get all white pieces in top layer
> 
> ...



How do you get all the green pieces to the right side without disturbing the already made side? Not to mention pairity. Stupid method is stupid.


----------



## GuRoux (May 18, 2014)

caters said:


> The OLL and PLL of white and middle sides is supposed to work like this:
> 
> Get all white pieces in top layer
> 
> ...



the method seems very inefficient and definitely not as good as cfop.


----------



## Dane man (May 23, 2014)

*New method. 3 step LL with 25 algorithms.*

I was working on the creation of a method a while back, that reduced the LL solve to 3 steps or less, using only 25 algorithms for memorization. Though certain recognition steps might require more time to get used to, they should bring major benefits to cubers trying to get below 30sec. 

After developing the method, and memorizing only the few parts of it that I found easiest and most important to apply, I had shaved my time down from 50-55 sec to 35-40sec. That's a good 15 seconds difference with only half of the method in use. (I used to use a 4 step LL that could in uncommon cases become 5, 6, or a frustrating 7 steps depending on the scramble. Not very effective, hence the desire for a new method with few algs to memorize)

The theory behind the method is that the edge orientation and permutation could be done in one step with very few algs required for memorization (15 in total). The corners are done in two steps, orientation (6 algs) and permutation (4 algs).

Putting together this method, I was looking at all the possible combinations of LL positions with respect to the edges, then corners, and finding one effective algorithm for each of them. The algorithms I chose for each situation were chosen because of the possible speed achievable with them, and not because of the number of moves (meaning that if an 11 move algorithm's time was able to be reduced effectively enough with the simplest/quickest finger-tricks as opposed to an 8 move algorithm that could not, then the 11 move algorithm was chosen). Any redundant position solves (mirrors, rotations, reversed order of effects, and even cube orientations) have been discarded, requiring that recognition be more specific no matter the LL rotation; also because of this, a quick rotation of the last layer may be required (or removed from the first step) before beginning an edge algorithm, and a cube reorientation might be required before a corner orientation. You can also perform a simple cube reorientation before any algorithm if you feel your finger-tricks will be more optimal with certain sides. I encourage the exploration of possible new finger-tricks (for example U R' L can be done with one swift movement holding the U side by it's edges).

I will put the algorithms here, but I do not yet have a clean way of presenting exactly what they do, which I am working on getting images for and will add in an edit soon. In the meantime, you can experiment to see what each one does.

_A bracketed {U} move at the beginning of some algorithms is left for a more organized understanding of what the algorithm does. These can (and should) be excluded when the orientation of the U layer is appropriate._


Spoiler: Edge algs



(_F_ = flip, _S_ = switch(trade), _SF_ = switch-flip)
Opposite two-edge combos. (8 algs) 
(_front and right edges - back and left edges_)

_F-Ø_
R' F R U2 F' U' F' U F2 U2 F'

_S-Ø_
{U} <apply the first half of the 5th case corner orientation algorithm: R U R' U R U2 R' as seen below>

_SF-Ø_
F2 R U R2 F R F’ U L F L’ U2 F2

_SF-S_
F R U R' U' F2 L' U' L U F

_SF-SF_ (you can choose, I found both to be equally effective)
1 - R' F R F' U2 R' F R F2 U2 F
2 - F R' F' R U2 F R' F' R2 U2 R'

_F-F_
R U B' U' R' U R B2 U B' U' R' U

_S-F_
F U2 F' U2 F' L F L' U 

_SF-F_
{U} L' B L B' U2 B' U R' U R B

_S-S_ (Equal to opposite edges being switched, just rotate once)
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' U2

Opposite edge combos (2 algs)
(_front and back edges_)

_F_
F U F' U F U' R U' R' F'

_SF_
R U' R' F' U F R U R2 F R F'

_S_ (see _S-S_ in Opposite two-edge combos)

Merges (5 algs)
(_front and right edges - right and back edges_)

_SF-S_
{U'} R U B U' B' R' U 

_F-S_
{U} F' U' L' U L F

_S-SF_
R' U' R U R B' R' B

_F-SF_
F' L' U' L U F U'

_S-F_
{U} B U B' U' B' R B R'





Spoiler: Corner Orientation algs



Based on the orientation of the LL color faces. x means it's correctly oriented. (6 algs)

```
_
|
|   _
```
F U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 R U R' F' 


```
_  _

_  _
```
R B' R B R2 F R' F' R F' U2 F U2

```
_
x
_   |
```
R' U L U' R U L' U'

```
_
    x
|   _
```
L U' R' U L' U' R U (Simply a mirror of the above. Also, can be solved by using the above algorithm twice after U')

```
_
    x
_   x
```
R U R' U R U2 R' (then mirror it) L' U' L U' L' U2 L


```
x  |
x  |
```
(The same as above, simply perform a Z' reorientation first. Or if you're talented with the down layer: D R D' R D R2 D' making 26 algs in total)

```
_
x
|  x
```
L' U' L' U R U' L U R' L (These last two moves can be replaced with a slice move, or the last three with an odd finger-trick)





Spoiler: Corner Permutation algs



(4 algs)

Three-corner trade clock-wise (the three corners are the two back corners and the front right corner)
(X) R' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 (X’) (or if you don't want to reorient and can do the Front and Back layers well enough: R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2)

Three-corner trade counter-clockwise
(X) R2 D2 R U R' D2 R U' R (X') (literally just backwards of the first one. Without reorientation: R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R)

Left to right (and vice-versa)
R2' U R' d' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' F U' F2 

Cross (front right trading to back left, and front left trading to back right. Equal to trading all edge pieces to opposite sides.)
L2 R2' U L2 R2' U2 L2 R2' U L2 R2' (I recommend that this be modified with slice moves to: M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2)



This method isn't designed to be a professional/competition solving speed method, but is simply meant to be a method for beginner-intermediate cubers to be able to get almost 30 second times (if not faster) using only a small handful of algorithms. It also isn't designed to be a static orientation method, though it can be adapted to that if your fingers are talented enough, and that does shave many precious seconds off. This method is meant to be adapted to the needs and the skill of the cuber using it, so any use of reorientation, finger-tricks, and solve recognition methods are up to the cuber.

As opposed to other methods I looked at the cases and algorithms required in other combinations. Specifically the following cases:
*-Common method*: CLL(avg moves 10)+ELL(avg moves 11) = 42+29 = *71 algorithms (avg moves 21)*. Out of the question for my goal of few algorithms.
*-Common 3step/3-Look method*: 2-Look OLL(avg moves 9+10)+PLL(avg moves 12) = 9+10+21 = *31 algorithms (avg moves 31)*. Good, but still too many algorithms (21) requiring very difficult recognition techniques. The recognition skill required for the final step to be effective serves as an impediment to speed and simplicity of learning and executing the method.
*-This method*: LLEF(avg moves 8)+OCLL-EPP(avg moves 10)+CPLL(avg moves 9) = 15+6+4 = *25 algorithms (avg moves 27)* with only a 6 move difference from CLL+ELL, and there are only 5 algorithms requiring a somewhat tricky recognition stage (the edge "merges").

So at the sacrifice of 6 extra moves (let's say it takes about two seconds to do that, to be modest) and one extra (and simple) recognition pause (lets also say about two seconds), _we're talking about a 4 second difference_ between CLL+ELL and this method. So in terms of simplicity and benefit, this is, theoretically, a very effective method to achieve fast times. So... yeah. Any input is appreciated.

If you want to come up with possible names for it, go ahead, I'm considering them ;P. I personally am thinking about naming it the Bauer-LL (because it used to be only 24 algs until I realized that one was missing.)

Thanks!


----------



## elrog (May 23, 2014)

The first step in this method is LLEF and the last is CPLL. The middle step is a new one, but all of the algorithms in it would be part of L4C.

If your interested in making pictures, check out Visual Cube.
To make images on speedsolving forum use insert image from URL using this - * http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/extensions/algdb/vcube/visualcube.php?fmt=gif - and adding more on the end to modify it.
Here is a page that tells you what you can add to modify it

If you want a place to test things out, check out Sandbox.

I think Bauer-LL is a fine name, but I don't know what Bauer has to do with 24. Good luck!

* - I tried removing the hyperlink from this, but whenever I saved the change it put it back. If you add more to the end of this without removing the link first, it will keep the current link.


----------



## Dane man (May 23, 2014)

@elrog
I suspected there was something already for the first and last steps, and the middle step can also be found here: OCLL-EPP

But the efficacy of this method is in the speed achieved with the number of algorithms required for memorization, especially since one or more algorithms can apply in one or more cases with small modifications. I split the corner algorithms into two parts because doing it in just one step requires substantially more algorithms for memorization. And for me at least, the algorithms chosen are optimal for the finger-tricks I find to be the fastest.

And thanks for the image link, I'll use that.


----------



## supercavitation (May 23, 2014)

This seems like a reversed 3-look version of CLL-ELL (LLEF-2-look COLL); with 24 algorithms, this could have a lot of potential for people who want to ease their way into CLL-ELL.

The Edge step (LLEF) could probably be improved (check out ELL algs, basically the corner preserving version of what you've made), though it's . If you allow for slice turns, the entire step can be made 2-gen. Not saying that you should replace all of the algorithms (or even that you should replace any of them), but you should definitely take a look. 

Your CO algs are all non-permuting OCLLs, but when I tried them, your U, T and H case algs (6th, 5th, and 2nd, to any for whom that didn't make sense) didn't work. Someone let me know if I didn't execute them correctly, but I tried them multiple times each.

Your CP algs are pretty good (that E-perm is nice, and the slice move H-perm is the common alg, as far I know).

The proposed name is great.

Overall, seems like as soon as those CO algs are fixed, this could be a pretty good system! If I just messed up my execution, then my apologies, and it is already a good system.


----------



## Dane man (May 23, 2014)

@supercavitation
Thanks for pointing out those mistakes. I have since corrected them. That was my fault.

And yes, if you have your own algs with the same effect that are more comfortable for you, then go ahead and use 'em instead.


----------



## goodatthis (May 27, 2014)

*The CAP Method- Cross After Pairs*

So this method is very similar to CFOP- except for one big difference- the cross is done (or at least most of it) AFTER the F2L pairs are put into place. In short, this method fixes or lessens one of CFOP's biggest problems- the Cross-F2L transition. 

In this method, there are 5 (technically 6, but one is regular CFOP) positions you can create a partial cross in. They are as follows:

No cross edges
One cross edge
Two adjacent cross edges
Two opposite cross edges
Three cross edges
Four cross edges (regular cross)

At the start of the solve, you can pick what variant or position you want to use based on the given situation, and you build that partial cross while building your F2L pairs. The real benefit of this method is that you do not have to worry about your cross that much, you can go straight into building your F2L pairs, and you can see much farther into your solve than normal because of this. There are also less restrictions, so you can blockbuild much more freely.

So here are the sub steps:

1. Partial Cross (one of the above positions)
2. Building/insertion of F2L pairs 
3. Insertion of Cross Edges
4. Normal LL, just like CFOP

PART ONE: Partial Cross

So a partial cross is just a CFOP cross with a few less cross edges in place. It allows for several things that a full cross does not, such as:

Less moves to create
Better look ahead into F2L stage
More freedom to blockbuild
Partial crosses already formed happen much more often than full crosses, so you could have a "cross skip"

Since there are 5 types of partial crosses you can make, you have more choice in what you want to do. Perform this scramble with your cross color on D, and try to figure out what kind of cross you want to make, or what would be the most efficient. B2 L2 B2 L' F2 L U2 L D2 R2 U B' F2 U' F D F' U' L D2 U

Usually, a 2-edge partial cross is the best to make, and they can almost always be made with 3 moves or less. If you do L F D , you just created a partial cross. This is the Adjacent edges partial cross. So now follow this walk through to see how you would go about the F2L pair stage.

Part 2: F2L pairs 

First Pair: y R U' (building) R d' R (insert)

This pair was able to be built much more efficiently than if we had cross edges there. The insertion is also only one move, compared to CFOP's 3 move insertions. The only bad part about this was that moving an edge in the D layer can be an adjustment from CFOP, and recognition is slightly harder, since not all edges are in the U and E layers.

Second pair: already built, to insert do U' R U2 R' notice that we also created the third pair, by using a different insert. This is a good example of how there is more freedom to multislot or blockbuild in this step.

Third pair: U' L' U L 

Simple insert.

Last pair: This is made very similarly to a regular CFOP pair, except when the edge in in a spot where the cross edge should be, in this case you would simply insert the cross edge to get the other one out. U L U2 L' U2 L U L'

Part 3: cross edges insertion


Okay, now here is the most different step in the whole method from CFOP. Here you use the M slices to insert the cross edges. The edge in position UF needs to go into its proper cross slot down below. To do this, you would do: U M' U' M 

2nd cross edge: In this case, the edge is flipped in its position. If we do a y and then a U, notice that both the edges in UF and DF are flipped, so you could use some sort of pure flipping alg to flip them both, and cause an all edges oriented OLL. But for our purposes, we will ignore that. This does open up a neat pathway towards new "last slot" algs. (ZBLCE?) So let's undo that U and we'll do a U'. 

So next we will do the following: M' U' M U M' U2 M and that puts our last cross edge in place. 

Part 4: OLL/PLL

This is the exact same as regular CFOP, so T-OLL- Sexy-sledge, then we have an H perm, so M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2.

So to recap, in case you missed a few moves:

Partial Cross: L F D
F2L 1: y R U' R d' R
F2L 2: U' R U2 R'
F2L 3: U' L' U L
F2L 4: U L U2 L' U2 L U L'

So as you can see, our F2L was very move- efficient, at only 24 moves. If we add on the other steps (counting M slices as one move), it would total to be 42 moves. I'm not going to deny that this was a lucky scramble, because it was, but in the end, this is about as efficient as CFOP, but the cross insertion is really fast, and look ahead is much better.

Pros and Cons vs CFOP 

Pros
Better look ahead from inspection
More freedom to blockbuild during F2L 
Cross edge insertion becomes more like distinct cases, and last slot methods can come into play
Transition from CFOP is minimal, and easy to get good at
Several ways to go about making your cross
LL stays exactly the same
M slices are used (could be either)
Slightly more move efficient

Cons
The freedom in the F2L stage could be slightly harder to recognize if you're not good at blockbuild ing
Cross insertion may require rotations
M Slices are used (could be either)
I'm a little biased.


I know this is kind of incomplete, but I'll come back and work on it later. For now, ask questions if you don't understand something! Please don't criticize me, I can't really say I'm done yet!

Also, I haven't found any evidence of this being done before, but if it has, I have come up with everything I have written here on my own.

Also, "CAP" method is likey to be changed.


----------



## TDM (May 27, 2014)

> In short, this method fixes or lessens one of CFOP's biggest problems- the Cross-F2L transition.


But don't you have to do a F2L-cross transition? Also the cross-F2L transition isn't a problem if you look ahead during cross...

Your example solve was also very lucky; you won't get two solved pairs in most solves.
And your F2L was 35 moves, not 24.

Also, PCMS.


----------



## supercavitation (May 27, 2014)

I tried your solution twice before I finally tried inputting it move by move into jarcs. Here's the cube I was left with (for obvious reasons, I performed neither the OLL nor the PLL): 

Other than that, TDM ninja'd me with my main concerns about the method.

EDIT: Solve works fine, I messed up by hand, and jarcs doesn't accept d turns as d or Dw. My apologies for the confusion.


----------



## TDM (May 27, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> I tried your solution twice before I finally tried inputting it move by into jarcs. Here's the cube I was left with (for obvious reasons, I performed neither the OLL nor the PLL): View attachment 4147


What I got.


----------



## supercavitation (May 27, 2014)

The mistake was mine, I missed that the d' was a wide turn when performing the solve by hand, and jarcs apparently refuses to perform down wide turns.


----------



## TDM (May 27, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> The mistake was mine, I missed that the d' was a wide turn when performing the solve by hand, and jarcs apparently refuses to perform down wide turns.


Yeah, it doesn't even allow Dw. You have to write it as a normal turn and a rotation.


----------



## supercavitation (May 27, 2014)

For some reason, it allows Uw, Fw, and Rw, but not Dw, Bw, or Lw.


----------



## Hypocrism (May 27, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> So this method is very similar to CFOP



So why don't you make the focus on blockbuilding- and instead of just blockbuilding pairs, blockbuild two pairs on the left and insert the edge while you're doing it?
Then you could blockbuild the two pairs on the right and their edge.
Then I reckon you could solve the corners, and the rest can be done with MU

...

Point is, if you're going to make variants, don't just make them less efficient versions of things that exist!


----------



## ryanj92 (May 27, 2014)

mns112 said:


> I have an idea why not do the F2l before the cross and then insert the edges with U M' U' M and M' U2 M the we can top it off with {OLL, PLL}, {CxLL,EPLL} or ZBLL



already exists, except you solve corners before cross edges
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PCMS

also i don't like the partial cross idea, it's like PCMS but with less freedom (my favourite thing about PCMS), and you eliminate a transition but replace it with a more difficult f2l, because you can now have f2l edges on the bottom (i mean you can untrap them as you insert pairs but you may as well be doing freeFOP at that point)


----------



## goodatthis (May 27, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> already exists, except you solve corners before cross edges
> http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PCMS
> 
> also i don't like the partial cross idea, it's like PCMS but with less freedom (my favourite thing about PCMS), and you eliminate a transition but replace it with a more difficult f2l, because you can now have f2l edges on the bottom (i mean you can untrap them as you insert pairs but you may as well be doing freeFOP at that point)



I think it can be a pain at first to untrap edges, but it actually can be useful if you have a corner that would be paired up when you bring the M slice that contains the edge up. And as far as the partial cross goes, I see it as an easy way to provide a little bit of structure to the solve and reduce the chances of a F2L edge winding up in its place.


And in regards to Hypocrism's post, I would argue that it has roughly the same efficiency, and that block building is slower than making pairs, and it would be like what ryanj92 said, you might as well do freefop.

Thanks for voicing your concerns.

EDIT: added YouTube video, you won't get nearly as much information, but it might be easier to visualize. Also, I didn't know that the camera was that shaky until way after I recorded it. Sorry. 

Just click the link on the left for my YouTube channel.


----------



## Hypocrism (May 28, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I think it can be a pain at first to untrap edges, but it actually can be useful if you have a corner that would be paired up when you bring the M slice that contains the edge up. And as far as the partial cross goes, I see it as an easy way to provide a little bit of structure to the solve and reduce the chances of a F2L edge winding up in its place.
> 
> 
> And in regards to Hypocrism's post, I would argue that it has roughly the same efficiency, and that block building is slower than making pairs, and it would be like what ryanj92 said, you might as well do freefop.
> ...



I don't see how solving two pairs and then an edge is more efficient than solving them all at the same time, in about 7 moves (isn't it 7ish? I'm not a roux-er). It's probably more fingertrick friendly and move efficient to solve the block rather than pairs, especially since you see all the first one in inspection but I doubt lookahead is realiable enough to solve a comparable number of pieces as pairs.

In addition, lookahead is ruined when edges can be where the cross is meant to be. Now if you suggested a partial cross where you complete 4 edges, but some of the edges can be yellow, that's something I can be interested in...


----------



## goodatthis (May 28, 2014)

Oh, I see. You thought this was a variant of Roux. This is actually a variant of CFOP. I never intended for it to be more efficient than Roux. Also, what you're saying about finger tricks and look ahead- the fastest solvers in the world (and slower) can develop excellent fingertricks and look ahead with CFOP, that's the main reason why it is so dominant over blockbuilding methods. Feliks is rumored to be able to see ahead to his second pair during inspection. That through a four piece cross, which can take up to 7 moves, plus another pair. That right there is reliable lookahead. CFOP is known best for it's lookahead. If you tried doing SpeedBLD with Petrus, you would be tracing and tracing for much longer than with CFOP.

Also, how is lookahead ruined? You have a small chance that pieces will be there anyway, because you have 4 pairs and a few edges (at most 2) where they can be. So you could still theoretically look ahead to your second pair during inspection.

Also, your idea about the yellow edges, that's basically the exact same thing I'm suggesting except its likely to take more moves, so lookahead into F2L would be harder. It may be good as a crossover into a fuller form of my method, similar to keyhole vs full F2L.


----------



## Hypocrism (May 28, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Oh, I see. You thought this was a variant of Roux. This is actually a variant of CFOP. I never intended for it to be more efficient than Roux. Also, what you're saying about finger tricks and look ahead- the fastest solvers in the world (and slower) can develop excellent fingertricks and look ahead with CFOP, that's the main reason why it is so dominant over blockbuilding methods. Feliks is rumored to be able to see ahead to his second pair during inspection. That through a four piece cross, which can take up to 7 moves, plus another pair. That right there is reliable lookahead. CFOP is known best for it's lookahead. If you tried doing SpeedBLD with Petrus, you would be tracing and tracing for much longer than with CFOP.
> 
> Also, how is lookahead ruined? You have a small chance that pieces will be there anyway, because you have 4 pairs and a few edges (at most 2) where they can be. So you could still theoretically look ahead to your second pair during inspection.
> 
> Also, your idea about the yellow edges, that's basically the exact same thing I'm suggesting except its likely to take more moves, so lookahead into F2L would be harder. It may be good as a crossover into a fuller form of my method, similar to keyhole vs full F2L.



No, I know it's a version of CFOP, but it takes away all the good parts of CFOP and incorporates just a few of the less promising aspects of roux. It's clearly less efficient than Roux because you solve the pairs on their own and then insert extra edges. It requires rotations, and you don't have a consistent structure because the empty cross edges will be in different places. This means you have to think during the solve which is never good. It doesn't keep the M slice entirely free, and so makes solving the LL edges a lot slower than it would be if you just did Roux.

Now on lookahead, you missed the point. CFOP lookahead is simple because cross is simple, you get plenty of time TO lookahead, and once cross is done then it reduces pairs into known cases. A partial cross isn't simple because you first have to choose which edges to use in your cross and how many (an extra step), you don't have a full cross foundation to work on, and the basis of CFOP just falls apart. Add to that the fact that you don't get all the edges out of the bottom layer in the first step (the main strength of CFOP) and this just doesn't work. Then if you have a partial cross you need to use MUM' to get the edge there out, adding three moves and the time taken to find the edge, when you could have just inserted it with a single flick when you're doing an efficient full cross.

The yellow edge is an entirely different concept to a partial cross method, it is like non-matching Roux blocks would be to CFOP. You'd always have a complete cross, so the problems I've pointed out don't come into effect. If you don't complete a full cross, there's no point in doing CFOP.


----------



## Tao Yu (May 28, 2014)

Here's a roux F2B variation I thought up of:

I actually used it some time ago to "cheat" roux, as I was bad at blockbuilding at the time.

*Method*
I am assuming that you use a white cross.

*1.* Solve two opposite white cross edges. In the other two positions, place any two edges that are not from the middle layer (so you can place any yellow or white edges). 
*2.* Insert all 4 white F2L pairs. This is the purpose of placing the non-middle layer edges in the cross; it allows you to do F2L as normal without looking for edges in the bottom layer.
*3.* The F2B should now be solved, finish the solve using normal roux.

This is definitely sub 10 able. The question is: is there any point in using this over roux?

One thing that I like about this is that the first step doesn't require a lot of moves, and allows for a lot of freedom. It is often very easy to see your first pair.

Here's an avg12 I got using this (complete solves). This is faster than my roux avg12 PB (10.69), but I'm not sure if it would be faster in the long run. I wouldn't say this is an accurate representation of what I average though.

Average of 12: *10.46*
1. 9.81 R2 D2 R' U2 B2 U2 L' F2 U2 F2 R2 U' F D' U' L B2 F D B' 
2. (12.64) F2 R2 B2 U' B2 U' L2 U2 R2 D R2 F U R2 B L U2 B' F2 U2 R 
3. 10.69 L' B2 U2 B2 R U2 L' U2 L' D' F' U R B R' D2 B U R' 
4. 10.77 L D2 B2 R' U2 F2 R' B2 D2 U2 R2 F U' L' B R2 D' F' U R' U' 
5. (8.89) F2 D F2 R2 D R2 U L2 U2 L2 D' L R' D R' B' D2 R D2 U2 
6. 10.61 U' L2 F2 D' L' F R B D2 L D R2 D2 L2 D' R2 F2 D' B2 U' 
7. 10.82 U R2 D2 F2 R2 B2 D' B2 L2 D2 F2 L U2 B' R2 U R2 D R' D 
8. 9.91 U2 L' U2 L U2 R' U2 B2 F2 R D2 F' R D' R' B' U' L D' F' 
9. 10.38 B' D2 R2 F2 L2 F' R2 F' U2 B2 R B R2 U B2 R F' L2 B' D2 
10. 10.39 F2 U' R2 B2 D2 B2 D' U2 R2 F2 L F' R' F' U' L B2 L R' U' 
11. 10.30 L2 D U2 B2 U' R2 U2 F2 R2 U F2 L' D F L2 U' B R' U L' U2 
12. 10.95 L2 R2 B2 U2 R2 B' U2 F2 R2 U2 F' D L2 R' U' L2 U F' U F D' 

I'd be interested to see how fast CFOP users would be able to solve F2B using this method. Could it possibly be faster than traditional roux F2B? Like with Feliks' F2L?


----------



## Renslay (May 28, 2014)

Tao Yu said:


> Here's a roux F2B variation I thought up of:
> 
> I actually used it some time ago to "cheat" roux, as I was bad at blockbuilding at the time.
> 
> ...



Same disadvantage as CFOP: cube rotations (or d moves, F moves, whatever) during F2L/F2B.

The F2B seems much, much less efficient than the regular way. Higher movecount and less fingertrick-friendly.


----------



## Tao Yu (May 28, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Same disadvantage as CFOP: cube rotations (or d moves, F moves, whatever) during F2L/F2B.
> 
> The F2B seems much, much less efficient than the regular way. Higher movecount and less fingertrick-friendly.



Those disadvantages have never slowed down CFOP though. 

But now that I think of it, you might as well do normal CFOP. Having CMLL + LSE after F2L probably isn't much better than OLL/PLL.


----------



## TDM (May 28, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Same disadvantage as CFOP: cube rotations (or d moves, F moves, whatever) during F2L/F2B.


You could use the M slice to change edge's orientations...


Tao Yu said:


> Those disadvantages have never slowed down CFOP though.


They have done. CFOP isn't slower than other methods, but it definitely isn't faster than ZZ/Roux either.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (May 28, 2014)

TDM said:


> You could use the M slice to change edge's orientations...



You'd have to replace the D edge that this brings into the U layer with another non-E-slice edge, so it's not as useful an option as with Roux.


----------



## goodatthis (May 28, 2014)

Hypocrism said:


> No, I know it's a version of CFOP, but it takes away all the good parts of CFOP and incorporates just a few of the less promising aspects of roux. It's clearly less efficient than Roux because you solve the pairs on their own and then insert extra edges. It requires rotations, and you don't have a consistent structure because the empty cross edges will be in different places. This means you have to think during the solve which is never good. It doesn't keep the M slice entirely free, and so makes solving the LL edges a lot slower than it would be if you just did Roux.
> 
> Now on lookahead, you missed the point. CFOP lookahead is simple because cross is simple, you get plenty of time TO lookahead, and once cross is done then it reduces pairs into known cases. A partial cross isn't simple because you first have to choose which edges to use in your cross and how many (an extra step), you don't have a full cross foundation to work on, and the basis of CFOP just falls apart. Add to that the fact that you don't get all the edges out of the bottom layer in the first step (the main strength of CFOP) and this just doesn't work. Then if you have a partial cross you need to use MUM' to get the edge there out, adding three moves and the time taken to find the edge, when you could have just inserted it with a single flick when you're doing an efficient full cross.
> 
> The yellow edge is an entirely different concept to a partial cross method, it is like non-matching Roux blocks would be to CFOP. You'd always have a complete cross, so the problems I've pointed out don't come into effect. If you don't complete a full cross, there's no point in doing CFOP.



Okay first, can you try to do something other than ruthlessly shoot it down and repeat things I've already said? 

1. Yes, I said it's less efficient than Roux. You don't need to repeat that.
2. You have only six places where your cross edges can be. (If you do a 2 edge cross) 
3. The LL edges are solved using OLL/PLL, not any other way. The LL edges have nothing to do with this method.
4. Did you really just say that half a cross is harder than a full cross? If you see 2 edges, it is ridiculously simple to just make a cross out of them. 4 moves max. There is literally no intuition involved in placing 2 edges on the D layer. Besides, I've already said that 2 edges adjacent to each other is the best. And it does not make it any harder if you do not have cross edges in place to know where your pairs should go, you should just know the color scheme. Plus you have the centers. 

Honestly this isn't even constructive criticism, this is downright disregarding any possible idea. Here's what you should do: Try it. Try using it. I've done like 10 solves using this method and I've gotten easily 35 seconds. I normally average 25. Off of no practice. 

Just because you don't like my method in general, for whatever reason (which you're entitled to) don't start coming up with fallacious arguments to support that claim. (Like how a partial cross is more complicated than a full one) As I said, there's kinks to be worked out, and if this method is just not for you, just stop telling me how it won't work and how I'm wrong. Okay? Thank you, I've kind of lost my patience at this point.


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 28, 2014)

Tao Yu said:


> *Method*
> I am assuming that you use a white cross.
> 
> *1.* Solve two opposite white cross edges. In the other two positions, place any two edges that are not from the middle layer (so you can place any yellow or white edges).
> ...



this method has been invented almost as much as the belt method and it is stupid.


----------



## TDM (May 28, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> You'd have to replace the D edge that this brings into the U layer with another non-E-slice edge, so it's not as useful an option as with Roux.


I meant with Tao's suggested method, not with CFOP.


----------



## Hypocrism (May 28, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Okay first, can you try to do something other than ruthlessly shoot it down and repeat things I've already said?
> 
> 1. Yes, I said it's less efficient than Roux. You don't need to repeat that.
> 2. You have only six places where your cross edges can be. (If you do a 2 edge cross)
> ...



I'm not meaning to attack you, just point out potential weaknesses in an interesting idea.

1) You did say that this was as efficient and faster than CFOP pairs. I don't think will end up as efficient, or as fast, as a normal CFOP pairing, because of the problem of having the hidden edges in the D layer. This makes it difficult to look ahead, requires more partial rotations, and makes getting to those edges difficult, hence lengthening the pair solution.

2) I think choosing between 6 potential 2-pieces crosses will take longer than having your cross end-point predetermined as in CFOP! Then the time taken for choosing between them limits the depth you can look into the solve. Plus there are the extra 3-piece crosses. And if you don't take the time to choose a good first cross, you lose some of the positive things about this idea such as the likelihood of being able to take advantage of block-building opportunities for 2x2x1 blocks.

3) I understand that, but surely it would be better if you did solve them in the way of Roux-that's the problem, it would be more efficient to solve the LL edges as you also place the last cross edges. And that's best done with the corners already solved. Putting the cross pieces in at the stage you've suggested actually seems to make the LL worse than leaving them out because it restricts your moveset more. The best option for a partial cross seems to me to be using opposite cross pieces, enabling the use of M-moves for F2L and potentially LL, and then you really are just doing a Roux variant.

4) I mean that the difficulty of a partial cross comes a little bit from choosing which one to do, and mostly from the problem of look ahead into pairs. It's much easier to look into a solve when you're seeing what the state will be after cross than after cross+1 pair, mainly because solving a pair breaks up what you already have in a way that your cross doesn't. It affects a lot of pieces and makes "look-into" difficult. (I don't know if there's a term for looking into your solve before starting, so I'm going to call it "looking-into".)
In a similar way, if you start looking-into your partial-cross F2L, you'll have a lot of trouble looking past the first pair, because it's more difficult to look-into the solve when you're doing pair-solving moves than it is to look-into a cross solution. Add to this the problem of F2L edges in the first layer and it makes lookahead even more difficult than that.
Also I didn't say anything about colour scheme or having problems knowing where the pairs go. At least I don't think I did. If I did then your response is valid.

I really don't want to discourage you, so how about thinking about this: the idea of not completing your cross fully has potential if the aim is to complete a later CFOP step more efficiently than it would be done if you inserted the edge straight away. Maybe that's a more promising way to take the partial cross idea?

Also well done with getting good times. The skills from CFOP are likely transferrable to this method so it makes a change from the regular grind, some people benefit from switching method briefly to start improving again. I know my speed improved when I spend a while doing ZZ instead. If you get really fast, I'll eat my words about the method!


----------



## ryanj92 (May 29, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> 2nd cross edge: In this case, the edge is flipped in its position. If we do a y and then a U, notice that both the edges in UF and DF are flipped, so you could use some sort of pure flipping alg to flip them both, and cause an all edges oriented OLL. But for our purposes, we will ignore that. This does open up a neat pathway towards new "last slot" algs. (ZBLCE?) So let's undo that U and we'll do a U'.



The 'last slot' algorithms for this already exist! 
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/L5EOP

ultimately, i think the only interesting case for this method is two adjacent cross edges solved (maybe three? i think saving moves would be more hassle than it's worth in this situtation)
if you have two opposite edges solved, it basically becomes what Tao Yu described a few posts ago which has been suggested and tried many times to not much success
one cross edge can be either ignored (especially if ignoring it gives you easier pairs) or made into a two edge case easily



goodatthis said:


> Honestly this isn't even constructive criticism, this is downright disregarding any possible idea. Here's what you should do: Try it. Try using it. I've done like 10 solves using this method and I've gotten easily 35 seconds. I normally average 25. Off of no practice.


but so many very similar things get suggested here all the time, and they haven't worked
i'd definitely try and a few hundred solves and then tell us your opinion - 10 solves doesn't tell us anything useful  of course your times won't be -that- far from normal, because you're doing the same LL!


----------



## notfeliks (May 29, 2014)

I've used this idea in a few solves, getting times below average. I think it's pretty decent. Just a slight variation on CFOP that I like to call pseudo-cross.

Only when it's convenient to do so at the start of a solve, you solve the cross in such a way that two of the adjacent edges are swapped (they can be solved with M2 U2 M2). Otherwise, if it's not really convenient to do so, then you just solve the cross and proceed with the solve as normal.

Then at any point throughout F2L or OLL, you can change a case you don't like and correct the cross at the same time by doing M2 U2 M2.

If you like all of the cases and end up at PLL, then your solve is most likely going to have been pretty fast anyway, and the quick M2 U2 M2 trigger followed by PLL isn't going to slow you down all that much. Alternatively, you can learn some case control and PLL cases with the two cross edges swapped, but that's probably not really worth it.

Here's an example solve: 

(Scramble with blue on top and white in front for a white cross)

B2 U2 B2 D L2 D' L2 B2 R2 U2 F D' B L' F2 D R2 U2 F2 R2

x' y
L' F D // Pseudo-x-cross(!)
U' L' U2 L y' R' U' R // F2L 2
R U' R' U2 y' R' U' R // F2L 3
U' L' U' L U' y' F R' F' R // F2L 4 + edge control
U R U R' U R U2 R' // OLL
U y M2 U2 M2 // Fix cross + case control
R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U2 // PLL

PLL was influenced on that solve by fixing the cross in such a way that the orange bar was preserved which forced an easy PLL - in this case a J-perm.

Advantages:

Not something you have to use on every solve
Can make a cross much easier
You can avoid a case you don't particularly like

Disadvantages:

You might have to rotate the cube back so that the swapped edges can be swapped again (ie they are at DL/DR instead of DF/DB) which slows you down a bit
You might have to slow down to notice cases you can change
Initial pair placement might be slightly confusing with the out of place edges
Probably not usable for OH because of the M-slices


Thoughts? Does anyone else already use this?


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (May 29, 2014)

Daniel Sheppard used it in the finals of the UK Championships last year: http://cubesolv.es/solve/1796


----------



## TDM (May 29, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> Daniel Sheppard used it in the finals of the UK Championships last year: http://cubesolv.es/solve/1796


I don't think that was on purpose 

Also, notfeliks, 


10461394944000 said:


> this method has been invented almost as much as the belt method and it is stupid.


----------



## notfeliks (May 29, 2014)

TDM said:


> I don't think that was on purpose
> 
> Also, notfeliks,



Several things:

I never said that I "invented" this. I said it was an idea that I used on occasion, which I put forward, and then proceeded to ask if it was already in existence in the last line of my post.

This is not a "method", nor did I claim it to be so.

Why is this stupid? I put forth ample evidence to invite constructive criticism and you reply by spitting in my face. If you are going to spit in my face, at the very least do it in a way that makes you look like less of a complete joke and more like someone deserving of an ounce of respect.

I apologise if this as already been proposed before, but that does not call for a complete lack of respect.


----------



## TDM (May 29, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> Several things:
> 
> I never said that I "invented" this. I said it was an idea that I used on occasion, which I put forward, and then proceeded to ask if it was already in existence in the last line of my post.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I'll admit that whilst the idea of that post was relevant, it may have been a bit harsh. It wasn't worded as I would put it, and I apologise.

However, if you do search this thread, it has been mentioned more than once, and generally, the extra substep increases your time by more than you would save by not including it. You'd have to think more during PLL, and as you said, you may have to do unnecessary rotations. It would be better to do a normal cross in many situations, and there you'd have to remember whether you'd done it or not. You'd have to be very careful to not accidentally miss this or do an M2 U2 M2 when you had a normal cross. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages and, as well as for a couple of other reasons I can't remember that have been said before (if you'd searched you'd have found them), it would be better to use normal CFOP most of the time.


----------



## Hypocrism (May 29, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> I've used this idea in a few solves, getting times below average. I think it's pretty decent. Just a slight variation on CFOP that I like to call pseudo-cross.
> 
> Only when it's convenient to do so at the start of a solve, you solve the cross in such a way that two of the adjacent edges are swapped (they can be solved with M2 U2 M2). Otherwise, if it's not really convenient to do so, then you just solve the cross and proceed with the solve as normal.
> 
> ...



I can see it being useful to form a pseudo cross if there's a REALLY easy F2L following a short p-cross, but for use consistently I doubt it (then again if I'm reading you right, it doesn't seem like you intended it for that anyway!)

Just be careful it doesn't devolve into one of the CFOP variants of roux, where you're solving your pseudo cross, doing F2L, CLL and then solving LSE


----------



## notfeliks (May 29, 2014)

TDM said:


> Sorry, I'll admit that whilst the idea of that post was relevant, it may have been a bit harsh. It wasn't worded as I would put it, and I apologise.
> 
> However, if you do search this thread, it has been mentioned more than once, and generally, the extra substep increases your time by more than you would save by not including it. You'd have to think more during PLL, and as you said, you may have to do unnecessary rotations. It would be better to do a normal cross in many situations, and there you'd have to remember whether you'd done it or not. You'd have to be very careful to not accidentally miss this or do an M2 U2 M2 when you had a normal cross. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages and, as well as for a couple of other reasons I can't remember that have been said before (if you'd searched you'd have found them), it would be better to use normal CFOP most of the time.



Thank you. A few things though: You would only have to 'think' about what to do if you were inexperienced using psuedo-cross. No-one that is sub-20 thinks about what F2L, OLL or PLL case they're solving as they're doing it, so with sufficient practise this becomes the same. On the occasional solve I do with this, I don't forget about or screw up the pseudo-cross. And yes, it would be better to do a normal cross in most situations, but this is, after all, a use-when-convenient substep.


----------



## TDM (May 29, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> Thank you. A few things though: You would only have to 'think' about what to do if you were inexperienced using psuedo-cross. No-one that is sub-20 thinks about what F2L, OLL or PLL case they're solving as they're doing it, so with sufficient practise this becomes the same. On the occasional solve I do with this, I don't forget about or screw up the pseudo-cross. And yes, it would be better to do a normal cross in most situations, but this is, after all, a use-when-convenient substep.


I see what you mean; you'd use it differently to how I was thinking about it i.e. you would only use it occasionally. I was thinking more of using it all the time. If you only use it occasionally, it would probably be something you'd remember when solving.
Also wouldn't a normal cross be useful 50% of the time?


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (May 29, 2014)

TDM said:


> I don't think that was on purpose



I think it was - this post certainly suggests so to me.

Also, Ben's comment was in response to Tao Yu's post, not notfeliks's.


----------



## TDM (May 29, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> I think it was - this post certainly suggests so to me.
> 
> Also, Ben's comment was in response to Tao Yu's post, not notfeliks's.


Well if it's 50% lucky then it wasn't entirely on purpose, but it is hard to determine what he meant by that post.

And I know his comment was meant for Tao's post, but it still applied to notfeliks' too: it was something that had been suggested several times before and had a few obvious disadvantages.


----------



## notfeliks (May 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> I see what you mean; you'd use it differently to how I was thinking about it i.e. you would only use it occasionally. I was thinking more of using it all the time. If you only use it occasionally, it would probably be something you'd remember when solving.
> Also wouldn't a normal cross be useful 50% of the time?



If you only solve on one colour, then yeah, probably. I'm CN though, and I only go into this if there's not an obvious 4-5 cross on one side and a 2-3 pseudo-cross on another.


----------



## TDM (May 30, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> If you only solve on one colour, then yeah, probably. I'm CN though, and I only go into this if there's not an obvious 4-5 cross on one side and a 2-3 pseudo-cross on another.


I still think if you had no preference it would be 50/50, but I don't know how to prove it.


----------



## notfeliks (May 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> I still think if you had no preference it would be 50/50, but I don't know how to prove it.



What you are missing is the move count proportion that makes forming a psuedo-cross advantageous. If you have a 5 move normal cross with decent finger tricks, and a 4 move psuedo cross with decent finger tricks, you are obviously going to go for the normal cross (unless there's some other advantage, but that's unrelated). The cross move count or resulting F2L needs to be greatly better to justify using a psuedo-cross over a normal cross, hence the disproportionate use of it in solves, and especially CN solves.


----------



## TDM (May 30, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> What you are missing is the move count proportion that makes forming a psuedo-cross advantageous. If you have a 5 move normal cross with decent finger tricks, and a 4 move psuedo cross with decent finger tricks, you are obviously going to go for the normal cross (unless there's some other advantage, but that's unrelated). The cross move count or resulting F2L needs to be greatly better to justify using a psuedo-cross over a normal cross, hence the disproportionate use of it in solves, and especially CN solves.


So you're saying this method _is_ worse than normal CFOP, unless the pseudo-cross is much easier?


----------



## notfeliks (May 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> So you're saying this method _is_ worse than normal CFOP, unless the pseudo-cross is much easier?



Yes, absolutely; the only real advantage (besides weird skips and slight F2L improvements if you notice them) that the pseudo-cross provides is that it will be much easier to make when you decide to use it.


----------



## Logiqx (Jun 9, 2014)

Every now and then I enjoy solving with a variety of the methods which are already known to the community.

I was pondering alternatives to the first three stages of Petrus a few days ago (2x2x2, 2x2x3 and edge orientation). The goal was to come up with something finger-trick friendly and to avoid the move restrictions imposed after building a 2x2x2.

I came up with the idea below and did a dozen or so solves to see if it might have any merit. I found it to be quite enjoyable and I think it could be pretty quick in the right hands.

I've trawled this thread looking for anything similar and couldn't find anything. My apologies if it has already been proposed elsewhere on the forum.

1: Block build a 2x2x1 on left side (LDB) using whatever moves seem best, aiming for 4 moves
2: Block build a 2x2x1 on the opposite side (RDB) using rRMU moves, aiming for 8 moves or less
3: Orient the remaining 8 edges (typically you'll have 4 bad edges). Modified recognition due to a pending rotation!
i) Place 2 oriented edges in FL + FR using FU moves, occasionally using M' to flip edges
- 25% of the time FL and FR are already oriented so it's no moves... Yay!
- 25% of the time FU and FD are already oriented and it's just an F or F'... yay!
ii) Orient the remaining 6 edges using MU moves (L6E cases in Roux)
- The "Moo" case seemed to crop up a lot for me but I might have been lucky!
4: Place DB edge whilst solving M-slice centres (i.e. 2x2x3 block at the back) using MU moves, typically 3 or 4 moves

Rotate (y') so the 2x2x3 is on the left and finish the solve as per Petrus or ZZ...
5: Finish the F2L using RU moves (i.e. Block build 2x2x1 and insert final F2L pair)
6: Complete the Last Layer using whatever you know - edges already oriented (i.e. OCLL + PLL or COLL + EPLL)

Advantages:
Step 1: Planning the first 2x2x1 is really easy, even for block building newbies. Ok for "zero inspection" event?
Step 2: Ability to track during the first 2x2x1. Advanced solvers should be able to plan part of it during inspection.
Step 3: Orienting the 8 edges is easy. After FL and FR it's basically the Roux cases but slightly modified recognition.
Step 4: This can be merged into step 3 in the same way that Roux solvers can place UL an UR during orientation.
Step 5: Building a 2x2x1 block can be done efficiently (move count) and is finger-trick friendly (RU moves).
Step 6: You can use the well known algorithm set(s) such as PLL so there isn't anything new to learn.

Tips:
Step 1: Try to be colour neutral for U and D (e.g. white/yellow on top/bottom, neutral for sides)
Step 2: You still have a lot of freedom during the second 2x2x1 and you can even use an F move if it is desirable
Step 3: This is intuitive so you should be able to find your own algorithms and shortcuts
Step 4: Ditto
Step 5: Take advantage of the visibility prior to rotation. LS extensions (e.g. WV) can be used to influence the LL.
Step 6: Spam!

Personally, I find this to be quite a fun way to get to the latter stages of Petrus and ZZ, utilising Roux techniques. It focuses on the 2-dimensional block building of Roux + ZZ, rather than the 3-dimensional block building in Petrus. Edge orientation uses the Roux-style (MU moves) but is a little earlier than Petrus + Roux but nowhere near as extreme as ZZ.

I'm wondering what more experienced / knowledgable solvers make of it. If nothing else, I hope it is a fun variation!


----------



## elrog (Jun 9, 2014)

I have done this before and it is quite fun for doing something different. The way I did it was basically the same thing, but slightly different.

I would not do F moves at all. If the LF and RF edges are oriented and the DB edge is not one of them, I'd place DB while orienting the remaining edges. If that is not the case, I would use M and U moves (and sometimes R moves) to orient UL and UR and make sure neither of them is the DB edge. I would then do an x' rotation and orient the remaining edges while solving the DB (now DF) edge. You would also then do a y rotation instead of a y' rotation (assuming you are right-handed).

For speed, I think it can be good, but I don't think it is groundbreaking. If someone were able to plan both blocks, plan to have LF and RF oriented, and plan to keep DB out of the LF and RF position all during inspection, I think this could be a great method. I think going that far is pushing it though.

EDIT: Oh, and don't forget to solve the centers while you orient the edges and place the DB edge.


----------



## Logiqx (Jun 9, 2014)

elrog said:


> I have done this before and it is quite fun for doing something different. The way I did it was basically the same thing, but slightly different.



I figured someone must have played around with this idea. I like your trick of rotating around the x-axis in some scenarios.



elrog said:


> For speed, I think it can be good, but I don't think it is groundbreaking. If someone were able to plan both blocks, plan to have LF and RF oriented, and plan to keep DB out of the LF and RF position all during inspection, I think this could be a great method. I think going that far is pushing it though.



That was my general conclusion. It's a fun method and pretty efficient but it doesn't improve on the "big four".



elrog said:


> EDIT: Oh, and don't forget to solve the centers while you orient the edges and place the DB edge.



I've got that in step 4, just hiding amongst the rest of the text.

Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## elrog (Jun 10, 2014)

Logiqx said:


> I've got that in step 4, just hiding amongst the rest of the text.


I wasn't meaning that you left it out. I accidently left it out of my post.


----------



## RatJelly (Jun 10, 2014)

I want to preface this proposed synthesis of two methods by saying 1. I haven't been cubing long and 2. I primarily solve using Roux but SUCK at block building. I only have a PB of 30 seconds and average of 10 is generally around 40 seconds. In my 40 second solves a full 30 seconds is used for building the F2B which is quite frustrating for me since the rest of my solve is much more fluid and quick. Here is what I've come up with to help reduce my times/improve the F2B. So far I have reduced my F2B to 23 seconds but my overall times have gone up since I switched to COLL from CMLL and my execution isn't quite there.

Method: Roux and ZZ synthesis (RouxZZ if it needs a name 

Step 1: Use inspection time to locate bad edges

Step 2: EO (edge orientation) + line except place the line pieces at DL and DR instead of DF and DB for ZZ. 
-advantage: allows solving of F2B like ZZ F2L with no cube rotations and helps a bad block builder like me recognize pairs. Since all edges are oriented there are only specific cases/locations on the cube where edges can pair up. Additionally, in contrast to Roux this allows both the R and L blocks to be solved simultaneously which increases the chances you can find a good pair. For the second 1x2x3 block it allows you to easily solve U layer corner pieces with the D stick facing up which is harder to do in standard Roux. 
-disadvantage: F, B, and M slice now have restricted movement unless its an F2, B2, or M2. But this can also be an advantage i.e. edge piece you want to pair is on D layer, since all edges are oriented you know without having to think that you have to pair with its corner piece diagonally up in the U layer w/ an M2

Step 2 alternative: just EO without placing the line.
-advantage: this allows for solving the F2B more like Roux was intended to be solved, L or R 1x2x3 block first then the other. Corner edge pairs, an edge paired with the center sticker, and corner paired with DL/DR are all viable block building options. Focus for look ahead can be geared towards a smaller set of pieces. 
-disadvantage: Reduced to doing one 1x2x3 block then the other. If necessary for block building restricted to F2, B2, M2, r/r'2, and l/l'2

Step 3: F2B/ZZ F2L whichever step 2 you pick

Step 4: U layer corners solved using COLL to maintain proper edge orientation
-advantage: forces initial step 5 skip in Roux (in regular Roux this is would be a step 4a skip) since your edges are already oriented

Step 5 (just finish solving Roux style): Solve UL and UR edges to complete L and R sides, permute the rest of the M slice aaaaaaand your done. 

Let me know what you guys think, I'm interested to hear more seasoned cubers take on this. Still not fully used to all the notation so hopefully you can all follow this. I haven't done a move count to see how it actually compares to Roux, but to me the real advantage is easier F2B since all the edges are oriented, the step 4a skip is a nice addition. Even if its not viable as a speed solving method I enjoy it cause I can actually look ahead much better vs standard Roux. 

PS- In case they are on here, just wanted to say thanks to Waffle and Donovan for their Roux tutorials and to Phil for his ZZ tutorial!


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 10, 2014)

RatJelly said:


> Let me know what you guys think, I'm interested to hear more seasoned cubers take on this. Still not fully used to all the notation so hopefully you can all follow this. I haven't done a move count to see how it actually compares to Roux, but to me the real advantage is easier F2B since all the edges are oriented, the step 4a skip is a nice addition. Even if its not viable as a speed solving method I enjoy it cause I can actually look ahead much better vs standard Roux.



I'm not super seasoned, but I'll give some feedback. I think this is an interesting concept for solving, but just not great as a speed solving method. You're using your inspection time for orienting edges, which means you're doing your first block on the fly. Seasoned Rouxers can do the first block blindfolded and efficiently, so EO is definitely not a benefit there. The move restrictions to preserve oriented edges will definitely hurt your move count for first and second blocks. Using COLL instead of CMLL hurts your move count a bit too in some cases. Your skip of 4a isn't really a skip since you had to orient those edges earlier anyway.

This sounds like a fun way to practice EO, but not really efficient, as the EO step is very unnecessary once you are comfortable with block building, and one of the greatest advantages of Roux is the move freedom allowed during block building.


----------



## supercavitation (Jun 10, 2014)

That sounds like this: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11536-Stachu-Korick-s-New-Method-)

It's a decent method, and the pros and cons have been explained pretty well there (I know he says to use WV, but he also says that COLL works as long as EO is maintained).


----------



## RatJelly (Jun 10, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I'm not super seasoned, but I'll give some feedback. I think this is an interesting concept for solving, but just not great as a speed solving method. You're using your inspection time for orienting edges, which means you're doing your first block on the fly. Seasoned Rouxers can do the first block blindfolded and efficiently, so EO is definitely not a benefit there. The move restrictions to preserve oriented edges will definitely hurt your move count for first and second blocks. Using COLL instead of CMLL hurts your move count a bit too in some cases. Your skip of 4a isn't really a skip since you had to orient those edges earlier anyway.
> 
> This sounds like a fun way to practice EO, but not really efficient, as the EO step is very unnecessary once you are comfortable with block building, and one of the greatest advantages of Roux is the move freedom allowed during block building.



Thanks for your input. I see what you mean about it not really being a "skip" since you had to orient earlier. Your post brings up a point about perspective too. I wrote my post more as a variation of Roux. While the move count might be higher than Roux, I wonder how it compares to ZZ. If you look at it from the perspective that this is ZZ to start with the ability to utilize the M slice and finishing with Roux. The ability to use the M slice could be considered an advantage in ZZ rather than looking it as an M2 restriction in Roux. Maybe I'm just trying to hard to justify using it hah. anyway, thanks for analyzing it for me and thanks for your suggestions a couple months ago in the Roux thread, you really helped me out when I first started cubing.


----------



## RatJelly (Jun 10, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> That sounds like this: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11536-Stachu-Korick-s-New-Method-)
> 
> It's a decent method, and the pros and cons have been explained pretty well there (I know he says to use WV, but he also says that COLL works as long as EO is maintained).



Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to explain. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Never thought of doing M U2 M' type moves, that helps a lot.


----------



## GuRoux (Jun 10, 2014)

RatJelly said:


> Thanks for your input. I see what you mean about it not really being a "skip" since you had to orient earlier. Your post brings up a point about perspective too. I wrote my post more as a variation of Roux. While the move count might be higher than Roux, I wonder how it compares to ZZ. If you look at it from the perspective that this is ZZ to start with the ability to utilize the M slice and finishing with Roux. The ability to use the M slice could be considered an advantage in ZZ rather than looking it as an M2 restriction in Roux. Maybe I'm just trying to hard to justify using it hah. anyway, thanks for analyzing it for me and thanks for your suggestions a couple months ago in the Roux thread, you really helped me out when I first started cubing.



through the few solve i have tried, i think it has better movecount than zz, probably close to regular oux.. It's kind of weird because it restricts you from doing F moves which i almost always use in the first block. Also, i'm not sure if you can do this as color neutral as most roux solvers are. I think most zz user can only start on around 2 positions, which adds extra constrictions and limits. As dedub said, you'll need some stellar lookahead for the first block. Also, I'm not a fan of the inability to use Ms and r for the second block and using coll. i think for pros there is better recognition and a more move efficient eo usually. For speed, it's probably just better to pick zz or roux.


----------



## elrog (Jun 10, 2014)

I am going to compare this method (with a slight) variation to ZZ.

When doing EO, you should solve the line by placing two opposite U-layer edges in place of DF and DB, but you should keep the D center color on D.

Through the solve, the method is the exact same as ZZ (with COLL/EPLL) until the last step.
1 - bad EO line / regular EO line
2 - Left block
3 - Right block
4 - COLL
5 - second half of L6E / EPLL

In the first step, you have 2 lines to choose from, but this will only help if you normally have extra time to look for another option. For the last step, L6E is shorter than EPLL, and more intuitive. Of course, with time/experience, intuition and algorithms become the same thing (to a certain extent). You would just learn EPLL as algorithms and L6E as intuition.

While this seems slightly better than ZZ as shown here, I think ZZ with OCLL/PLL is slightly better for 2H than the ZZ variant I compared it to here. I won't compare this directly to ZZ with OCLL/PLL because that comparison is not as easy to make. Also, I can't see L6E being better than EPLL for OH because EPLL can be solved using only R and U.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 16, 2014)

Just a quick question. I like Roux, but am just coming to it out of CFOP really just to do some practice with M, M' and M2 fingertricks. So I came up with a weird hybrid that I like to use when practicing which consists of these steps:

1) Solve two opposite cross pieces only, and leave the 'line' (EOline without the EO) on bottom, with the solved edges at LD and RD extending to the centers on the L and R faces.

2) Do f2l with no cube rotations, by doing EO with M or M' turns. So if the edge requires a cube rotation to place it, move the edge to UF or UB, and use M or M' to place it at the opposite position on U, and then do the f2l insertion with the newly oriented edge.

3) Roux from here on out with just M and U turns.

Not sure that this is any faster than Roux, but could be a useful way for people too accustomed to CFOP to get used to the system.

And so the question is, is this a thing? Like a method some people use? Or just a bad idea


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 16, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> Just a quick question. I like Roux, but am just coming to it out of CFOP really just to do some practice with M, M' and M2 fingertricks. So I came up with a weird hybrid that I like to use when practicing which consists of these steps:
> 
> 1) Solve two opposite cross pieces only, and leave the 'line' (EOline without the EO) on bottom, with the solved edges at LD and RD extending to the centers on the L and R faces.
> 
> ...




Cyoubx made a rotationless F2l video once and he did this, and called this a 'stupid version of Roux'.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 16, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Cyoubx made a rotationless F2l video once and he did this, and called this a 'stupid version of Roux'.



link? i tried finding it but to no avail


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 16, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> link? i tried finding it but to no avail



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js1LZscj18A


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 16, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Cyoubx made a rotationless F2l video once and he did this, and called this a 'stupid version of Roux'.



He said that on the basis that it's "inefficient" but it's no more inefficient than regular CFOP F2L. If you can solve F2B faster as a series of short, fast inserts of pairs despite the higher move count, compared to block building, why not?


----------



## TDM (Jun 16, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> Just a quick question. I like Roux, but am just coming to it out of CFOP really just to do some practice with M, M' and M2 fingertricks. So I came up with a weird hybrid that I like to use when practicing which consists of these steps:
> 
> 1) Solve two opposite cross pieces only, and leave the 'line' (EOline without the EO) on bottom, with the solved edges at LD and RD extending to the centers on the L and R faces.
> 
> ...


You should search before posting. This was most recently suggested two weeks ago.
You also forgot CMLL.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 16, 2014)

I feel like this method has to have been thought up already, but I've been playing around with it on 4x4. It's basically a combo of Roux and Yau. (Rau Method?)

First, solve your LB/RB centers (whichever colors you are most comfortable with)

Second, Build your 4x3x1 LB (First, you should do your DL edge and match with your center, then do the other blocks. Instead of matching an edge and a corner, your matching two edges and a corner, this is actually pretty easy to do as a Rouxer).

Third, use the free U layer to solve the rest of the centers

Fourth, Do the rest of the edges the same way as Yau (except you can only use one face for shifting edges around, because you can't mess with the block you created)

Fifth, Solve the second block, CMLL, and Last Six Edges (plus parity).

It's almost identical to Yau, except I think it's a bit more restrictive about how you move pieces around during edge paring. Any thoughts? I didn't really know how to search for this. I just searched for Yau and Roux, and came up pretty empty.


EDIT: Just found the Stadler Method. Looks interesting, though, that involves doing both blocks and CMLL before centers and edges. I'll play around with that.

EDIT2: Meyer method is apparently exactly how I explained... Why do people want to put their names on EVERYTHING? It's just Roux+Yau.

EDIT3: NM, I guess Meyer came before Yau? I need to research before I post.

EDIT4: Only added this edit for comedic effect.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 19, 2014)

What I'm proposing has been brought up briefly before, but there was another (somewhat heated) discussion going on when this substep was proposed, so it was largely unnoticed.

anyway,
1) Solve the cube up to the last F2L however you wish.
2) Form the last pair (either R U R' or R U' R')
3) Use some technique analagous to Winter/summer variation to solve the last pair and corner orientation.
4) Finish last layer with 1 alg.

I really think this last layer step is superior to ZBLL as there are (a lot) less cases. I'm not sure about recognition though.
What do you think?

EDIT: There has been some discussion about this, but most point to how the CO+LS is problematic, not to the actual LL step.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What I'm proposing has been brought up briefly before, but there was another (somewhat heated) discussion going on when this substep was proposed, so it was largely unnoticed.http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=988761
> 
> anyway,
> 1) Solve the cube up to the last F2L however you wish.
> ...


How hard would CO+LS be, to start could you just use WV+SV, with some better algs that ignore EO?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 19, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> How hard would CO+LS be, to start could you just use WV+SV, with some better algs that ignore EO?



People were saying that not all last slot solving results in a WV/SV pair. There are things like D R U R' D' (well WV can apply to this too.) or R2 U2 R2 U2 R2


----------



## notfeliks (Jun 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What I'm proposing has been brought up briefly before, but there was another (somewhat heated) discussion going on when this substep was proposed, so it was largely unnoticed.
> 
> anyway,
> 1) Solve the cube up to the last F2L however you wish.
> ...



I proposed this idea a while back in this thread, but mainly focused on the LL algs themselves. The completed result didn't end up very successful, but here is the link for the algs (most of them aren't all that good).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zo7jCkXYqHVxRouJwXgG8fJM2cUAjxNQzSHauKLVpCA/


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 19, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> I proposed this idea a while back in this thread, but mainly focused on the LL algs themselves. The completed result didn't end up very successful, but here is the link for the algs (most of them aren't all that good).
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zo7jCkXYqHVxRouJwXgG8fJM2cUAjxNQzSHauKLVpCA/



Ah, I was inspired by your post actually!


----------



## supercavitation (Jun 19, 2014)

I really should have generated those algs on Acube. Recognition is surprisingly easy, especially compared to, say ZBLL. I wrote a description for how to recognize cases on the last page of the document back before we published it.


----------



## elrog (Jul 2, 2014)

I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing *before* opening the spoiler.

The solutions do not include the last layer, but you are welcome to see what the last layers are common.

For scramble 1, your D color during the solve is on the right side when you start the scramble.
Scramble 1: R F' R' F2 U L2 D2 F2 D B2 L2 B2 U' B2 R B R U2 B2 U L D2 U
z' x' U' L2' U2 l' U R U' r2'
u R2 U2' R' u' U' R' U R U R2'
u2' R U R' u R U R' u R U' R' U R U' R'

For scramble 2, your D color during the solve is on the front side when you start the scramble.
Scramble 2: R2 B2 L2 R2 U' R2 U B2 D L2 D2 B' L' B L2 B2 R' B D' L2 U'
u L' u2 r' U2' F2 z
u R U' R' u' R' U' R' E R2
R U R' u R U' R' u R U R' u R U' R' U2 R U R' u'

Scramble 3: D2 L2 B2 U2 B' D2 F' D2 F' D L' F2 R F' D' L U' R U'
y' U' R U R U2' F U L2
u2 R' u' U' R' U R U R2'
u' U2 R' U2' R u' R' U R u



Spoiler: Explanation



In these solves, I did a type of edge orientation. Normally, you would orient edges in relation to an axis, such as in ZZ or HTA. This is different and I'm not sure how to describe it.

You can stay in this orientation by only doing the moves y, y', y2, R, R', u, u', u2, U, U', and U2, you must do an R move before an R' move, and you must not do two R moves in the same direction without the opposite direction R move being between them. 

I have been messing around with staying in the orientation while allowing x2 and z2 rotations. Doing this is much harder. Doing an R2 changes the FR and BR edges from bad to good or good to bad. Doing R or R' changes the orientation of E layer edges differently than it does for U and D layer edges, and I don't know how to describe how it actually works because I am still trying to fully understand it. I am sure I will be able to find much more efficient solutions to edge orientation much quicker after messing around with it for some time. You are welcome to contribute.

Edit:
I added a third scramble and it orients the edges so that they are preserved by the same criteria except for R' coming before R. 
I will add pictures to aid in recognition of bad edges when I get time.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 3, 2014)

elrog said:


> I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing *before* opening the spoiler.


I can't get either solve to work. The first solves F2L but not LL; the second leaves the cube apparently scrambled.


----------



## elrog (Jul 3, 2014)

They are not supposed to solve the LL and I have fixed the mistake in the second solution.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 3, 2014)

elrog said:


> They are not supposed to solve the LL and I have fixed the mistake in the second solution.


Missed that, sorry. I still can't get the second solution to work. The last step messes up the cross. 

Very intriguing though. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you are doing.


----------



## elrog (Jul 3, 2014)

You didn't miss it: I forgot to tell it. Also, the second scramble is working fine for me. I added a third scramble as well.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 3, 2014)

elrog said:


> You didn't miss it: I forgot to tell it. Also, the second scramble is working fine for me. I added a third scramble as well.


You are correct, I was turning E the wrong way. Whoever defined our notation with slices inconsistent to rotations should be fired 

I still can't figure out how this works though.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 3, 2014)

elrog said:


> I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing *before* opening the spoiler.


That's different, but I kinda like it. It seems like a strange "free form" version of performing F2L. And I like how the edges end up oriented... You'll have to explain better how you're doing that (but you said that not even you understand yet, so... yeah). When you figure it out, let me know. It might be useful.

PS: The last move of the third solution should be just u, not u'?



mark49152 said:


> Whoever defined our notation with slices inconsistent to rotations should be fired


I agree. M should spin like R, and E like U. S is fine though.


----------



## elrog (Jul 4, 2014)

Dane man said:


> PS: The last move of the third solution should be just u, not u'?


 I am making mistakes all over the place.

If you have read the first spoiler in my previous post (3 posts ago), this spoiler might help.



Spoiler: Pictures



These first two pictures show the orientations of U layer edges (for the previously discussed subgroup) if you do R before R'.

These are good edges.






These are bad edges.





E layer edges orientation can be determined by this same pattern if you substitute the U layer color in the correct color on the edge. This color can be determined by looking at the E layer centers. I can't find a good way to explain it, so I'll use a picture.

If the E layer edges are in this position:




You should see this:




Or rather, this:




In this case they are all correctly oriented.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 4, 2014)

elrog said:


> I would like everyone to try the example solves and try to figure out what I'm doing *before* opening the spoiler.



Why are you using <R,U,u> instead of <R,r,U> ?


----------



## elrog (Jul 4, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Why are you using <R,U,u> instead of <R,r,U> ?


Well, I was building an F2L which is normally the bottom 2 layers... You could do it with <R,r,U> if that's what you prefer. I do find it easier turn quickly in the <R,r,U> group, but your right hand blocks your view, you will have to rotate for the LL, and at my speed, going slower would probably help me more than TPS.


----------



## FallenCuber (Jul 8, 2014)

*New Method Any Good? (McM Method)*

Hello, before I start off, I just wanted to say that the name of this method (McM Method) had nothing to do with the actual cube. Instead, it is a few of the letters that go into the creator's name. 

Okay, now for the background. I, have been cubing for around 3 weeks, and decided that although solving a Rubik's Cube is fun, I would enjoy getting faster and faster, so I decided to indulge myself into the world of speed-cubing. I started around a 10 days ago, and have been learning the Fridrich Method. The only flaw, is that I've realized I'm much better at memorizing algorithms than doing anything slightly harder than basic intuitively, which was a big no no for F2L! I instead, searched around, only to find this method. So, I have come here to ask if you guys (speed-cubers) think that this method will suit me, or to just keep on pushing Fridrich? Here are the Main plans for the McM Method. The only difference from Fridrich is that the F2L is split into to different steps, full of easy to learn algorithms.

The Method goes in this order:

CROSS (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/w6ncxw44mrjp83x/McManus Method Algorithms for CROSS. (Complete).docx 
OF2L (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntekeg7i1...rithms for OF2L. (Intuitive) (Complete).docx 
PF2L (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0k3c4ztf53rslr/McManus Method Algorithms for PF2L. (Complete).docx 
OLL (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh1jdy2jf... Algorithms for OLL. (2 Look) (Complete).docx 
PLL (URL): https://www.dropbox.com/s/we1q0hnpj... Algorithms for PLL. (2 Look) (Complete).docx


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 8, 2014)

So CFOP with an added step? Might as well do beginner style F2L


----------



## Sweshiman (Jul 8, 2014)

Why not just learn f2l algorithmicaly instead of intuitively if thats what you find hard? However i recommend just practising intuitively, after a white it will become automatic for you, like the cross becomes after a while


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 8, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> So CFOP with an added step? Might as well do beginner style F2L



I want to elaborate on this a bit. You are inserting a pair that really isn't a pair, then using an alg to solve it. I think it would actually be faster/better to use the beginner method of solving the corners then using the two algorithms to place the edges, instead of learning 5 algorithms. There are also plenty of algorithms already existing for F2L if you don't want to learn intuitively.

Here's a good list from badmephisto:

http://badmephisto.com/badmephisto-speedcubing-method.pdf

Also, I think it's a bit silly to add one extra step to an existing method and call it a new method and put your name on it.


----------



## brian724080 (Jul 8, 2014)

This will be much slower than the F2L portion of the LBL method, so there is no point. You just actually try to learn to do F2L, it's not something that you'll get used to in a few days though. However, if you really don't like CFOP, you can look at the three other methods via the link "Choosing a Method" found in my signature. Also, just learning the F2L algorithms in the CFOP method won't get you far, because all the cases assume that all other pairs are solved, yielding little flexibility.



DeeDubb said:


> Also, I think it's a bit silly to add one extra step to an existing method and call it a new method and put your name on it.



This


----------



## Amress (Jul 8, 2014)

You are pretty much solving two pairs just to solve one. I wouldn't try this.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 8, 2014)

FallenCuber said:


> Hello, before I start off, I just wanted to say that the name of this method (McM Method) had nothing to do with the actual cube. Instead, it is a few of the letters that go into the creator's name.
> 
> Okay, now for the background. I, have been cubing for around 3 weeks, and decided that although solving a Rubik's Cube is fun, I would enjoy getting faster and faster, so I decided to indulge myself into the world of speed-cubing. I started around a 10 days ago, and have been learning the Fridrich Method. The only flaw, is that I've realized I'm much better at memorizing algorithms than doing anything slightly harder than basic intuitively, which was a big no no for F2L! I instead, searched around, only to find this method. So, I have come here to ask if you guys (speed-cubers) think that this method will suit me, or to just keep on pushing Fridrich? Here are the Main plans for the McM Method. The only difference from Fridrich is that the F2L is split into to different steps, full of easy to learn algorithms.


That's very interesting. I don't think I would have come up with that. Though, it is missing a few things.

I'd say stick with Fridrich. And if F2L is too hard for you, then you can do beginner method also known as the layer by layer method which is done in two steps (after you do the cross(with edges correctly in place), then do the corners of first layer(also correctly in place), then middle layer edges(also correctly in place) with one of the two algs: R U' R' U' F' U F, or F' U F U R U' R'). It is much simpler and faster.

Looking at this method here, it appears that it'd take up more moves per F2L slot than even the beginner method (layer by layer). If the first step of the F2L is to place the pieces into each slot, then why not place them in correctly (layer by layer) and not have to worry about orienting them in the second F2L step? And it lacks a great deal of explanation, for example, I can only assume that OF2L is placing all the corners and edges in their slots? And why is it called OF2L if it's permuting and not orienting (likewise PF2L)?

Slightly confusing, and definitely takes more moves than the beginner method.

So I suggest learning the beginner method, then going on to learn Fridrich F2L. And you can even learn F2L with algorithms (there are plenty of places that you can find algorithms). If you have any questions about different methods, and algorithms they use, you can head over to the speedsolving wiki as well.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 8, 2014)

Dane man said:


> That's very interesting. I don't think I would have come up with that. Though, it is missing a few things.
> 
> I'd say stick with Fridrich. And if F2L is too hard for you, then you can do beginner method also known as the layer by layer method which is done in two steps (after you do the cross(with edges correctly in place), then do the corners of first layer(also correctly in place), then middle layer edges(also correctly in place) with one of the two algs: R U' R' U' F' U F, or F' U F U R U' R'). It is much simpler and faster.
> 
> ...



or you could just use FreeFOP


----------



## Dane man (Jul 8, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> or you could just use FreeFOP


FreeFOP could be anything for F2L. Even this method falls under FreeFOP. (unless you have a different idea of what FreeFOP is than I do.)


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 8, 2014)

Dane man said:


> FreeFOP could be anything for F2L. Even this method falls under FreeFOP. (unless you have a different idea of what FreeFOP is than I do.)



FreeFOP is unrestricted F2L building imo.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 8, 2014)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> FreeFOP is unrestricted F2L building imo.


Yep, that's it. Even this method falls under FreeFOP then. Kinda like someone asking "What method should I use?" and someone responds "Freestyle" ;p lol


----------



## FallenCuber (Jul 8, 2014)

Hello, thanks everyone for the suggestions which I will definetly look into, but there seem to be a few common misconceptions about my post. The first is that I own this method, but I don't. I was able to get in touch with the creator via email to ask if I was allowed to post this topic onto a forum, to which he gladly said yes. The second is that I do not understand the LBL method. I do, and can execute it easily. The only reason I started this was to ask whether or not you would reccomend this to me, as a possibility. Once again thank you for all of the suggestions! I will definetly be looking at some of the other methods brought to my attention. Thanks!


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 8, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Yep, that's it. Even this method falls under FreeFOP then. Kinda like someone asking "What method should I use?" and someone responds "Freestyle" ;p lol



This style of solving F2L is not unrestricted. Therefore, it is not FreeFOP.


----------



## FallenCuber (Jul 9, 2014)

After looking around at all stated algorithms, and some I found by further searching, I decided to make my own that would suit me. I know this could be a huge mistake, bu I find it fun to experiment, and find breakthroughs in this section of cubing (maybe even more so than solving)! Anyway, I have completed my first working method about an hour ago, it combines a mix of F2L from CFOP, so incase this method is a fluke, I will still have been working on my least favorite CFOP step! I am not ready to reveal it, although as a spoiler I will say that unlike many other methods I've seen (especially main ones) it solves the middle layer in the first step, and does so that it only leaves two more faces to be solved! I thought a 3 (possibly 4) step method would be good, so that's what I've made. I'll reply to this thread with the method once I have it all down on a document. Thanks for the help!!!


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 9, 2014)

FallenCuber said:


> After looking around at all stated algorithms, and some I found by further searching, I decided to make my own that would suit me. I know this could be a huge mistake, bu I find it fun to experiment, and find breakthroughs in this section of cubing (maybe even more so than solving)! Anyway, I have completed my first working method about an hour ago, it combines a mix of F2L from CFOP, so incase this method is a fluke, I will still have been working on my least favorite CFOP step! I am not ready to reveal it, although as a spoiler I will say that unlike many other methods I've seen (especially main ones) it solves the middle layer in the first step, and does so that it only leaves two more faces to be solved! I thought a 3 (possibly 4) step method would be good, so that's what I've made. I'll reply to this thread with the method once I have it all down on a document. Thanks for the help!!!



belt.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 9, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> belt.



GuRoux is refering to the Belt Method:
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt_Method


----------



## Dane man (Jul 9, 2014)

Here I will be introducing two ideas for methods. The first is silly and experimental, the second is a more efficient version and has potential for high speeds.

I had a thought. It's not meant to be a super speedy method, and certainly isn't as fast as the main speed methods, but it can get close. In fact, I just came up with it for the name's sake, just to be fun. Try it out.

I call it the *Diaper Method.*



1-Solve the cross, just as any other cross based method.
2-Solve the middle layer edges while simultaneously placing all of the first layer corners into the last layer. This makes the diaper shape on each side. (0-8 moves per edge HTM)
3-Place the first three corners in the first layer. (avg 7 moves HTM).
4-The last corner will be placed while simultaneously orienting the last layer edges. (24 algs, 14 excluding mirrors. Has an average of 9 moves HTM. The smallest of these algs are used in step 3.)
5-LL as desired starting with already oriented edges.

While it doubles the moves for the F2L to be completed, it also orients the LL edges, allowing for the interesting variations of the LL with edges oriented.

The benefits of this algorithm are that you get the same effect as ZB, but with much fewer algorithms. The cons are that it is complicated and tricky to learn. Not only that, but compared to ZZ, there are algorithms to learn to finish the F2L with the LL edges oriented. Really, not a speed method. Just a fun experimental one.

Algorithms for step 2 are intuitive. Like Fridrich F2L, except half the corners are acceptable and in any orientation.

Algorithms for steps 3 and 4 can be found as a subset of ZBLS (aka ZBF2L). They are only the first eight of each page:
1- First eight of these.
2- First eight of these.
3- First eight of these.
Making 24 in total.

----
*ZBLBL* -This method is more efficient than the Diaper Method, modifying the LBL by inserting the last middle edge while simultaneously orienting the LL edges (only 21 algorithms, with avg of 8 moves HTM). It is also much easier to find and insert the first layer corners, than to insert middle edges while separating corners as in step 2 of the Diaper Method. The algorithms for ZBLBL are found here and here. I recommend you try this method as well.

OLL for these methods is reduced to 7 algorithms if you go that direction (OLL/PLL). Another variation of the LL that could be done (this I'm still developing the algorithms for as well) is where one permutes the edges while orienting the corners. This step has 42 algorithms, but the resulting PLL only needs 4 algs (H, Aa, Ab, E). Though recog for the first step is slightly tricky, it still works once learned. Once I get it fully developed, I'll post it separately.

What do you all think?


----------



## FallenCuber (Jul 9, 2014)

Renslay said:


> GuRoux is refering to the Belt Method:
> http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt_Method



Oh ok, and no it is not the belt, although closely relates to it.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 9, 2014)

Dane man said:


> I call it the *Diaper Method.*
> What do you all think?


Noooo! I practise that one several times a day.

1. Solve the bottom layer as quickly as possible, avoiding pops at all cost.
2. Solve the last layer while trying to prevent the cube from turning itself. Finger tricks come in handy.

Sorry, couldn't resist . (Parents will know what I'm on about.)


----------



## elrog (Jul 10, 2014)

I do think that placing U-layer corners with the edges is a clever way to make keyholing the corners in easier. When you get to the last slot (in the ZBLBL variant), you could solve CO rather than EO with the last edge. I have not made algorithms for the remaining step yet, but I have been thinking about it. It seems like it has a learnable amount of algorithms and would have decent algorithms.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 10, 2014)

elrog said:


> I do think that placing U-layer corners with the edges is a clever way to make keyholing the corners in easier. When you get to the last slot (in the ZBLBL variant), you could solve CO rather than EO with the last edge. I have not made algorithms for the remaining step yet, but I have been thinking about it. It seems like it has a learnable amount of algorithms and would have decent algorithms.


If I didn't place the U-layer corners like that, then the 3rd and 4th steps would be much more complicated and require many more algorithms. I haven't looked at CO as an option, and I don't know how efficient that would be. Gotta search for algs.

The problem with using corners while placing an edge is that the position of the edge has less influence on the position of the corners, giving the corners more possibilities of rotation relative to the edge that needs inserted. This means more algs.


----------



## elrog (Jul 10, 2014)

I think algorithms for CO and placing the last F2L edge have been made and posted on this forum somewhere. I will search for them in a little bit. Also, this would be more algorithms for this step, but the remaining step would be much less algs than ZBLL.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 10, 2014)

From what I can tell, you just want to end the solve with an edges oriented LL without needing to know full ZBF2L.

I think a better way to do this would be to just do 2 look ZBF2L. You could for example, first solve the cross and three F2L pairs, insert the last edge, and then do step 4 from diaper.

You could also pair up the last corner and edge without inserting them, and then insert them using the 16 ZBF2L cases that are applicable.


----------



## elrog (Jul 10, 2014)

I believe solving the pair (after it is paired up) with EO is called VHF2L and it is a subset of ZBF2L.


elrog said:


> I will search for them in a little bit.


 I found it. It is called JJLS. JJLS solves the last slot corner with EO and then the last slot edge with CO. You place the corner and then use the second step in it, but disregard the EO and solve the LL in 1 look with PLL+EO.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 10, 2014)

PLL+EO is COALL (or KLL, MBLL, or whatever else it's been named). I have algs (156 of them) somewhere, but most of them suck. The number is actually smaller than that, though, since, if I remember correctly, it includes both PLL and ELL. It's still a fairly large number of algs.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 10, 2014)

elrog said:


> I found it. It is called JJLS. JJLS solves the last slot corner with EO and then the last slot edge with CO. You place the corner and then use the second step in it, but disregard the EO and solve the LL in 1 look with PLL+EO.


That actually sounds like a brilliant idea because it ends with a 21 alg 1LLL (PLL). Though, I think it better to place the corner while doing CO, and the edge while doing EO to reduce the alg count. I found the link too. Nice idea. Someone should set up an alg set for it.


----------



## elrog (Jul 10, 2014)

The alg counts for the JJLS are 65 and 34 respectively with a 21 alg LL. MGLS is 21 and 104 respectively with a 21 alg LL. If you do intuitive F2L, you can solve a slot, then do OLL and PLL for a 57 + 21 alg LL. 

What I was suggesting it intuitively placing the last slot corner, then the 34 algs from the second step of JJLS (possibly shortened because of not preserving EO), and finishing with a 156 alg LL.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 10, 2014)

elrog said:


> The alg counts for the JJLS are 65 and 34 respectively with a 21 alg LL. MGLS is 21 and 104 respectively with a 21 alg LL. If you do intuitive F2L, you can solve a slot, then do OLL and PLL for a 57 + 21 alg LL.
> 
> What I was suggesting it intuitively placing the last slot corner, then the 34 algs from the second step of JJLS (possibly shortened because of not preserving EO), and finishing with a 156 alg LL.


Ah, Didn't know that CLS was 104 cases. That seems like much. Though, the alg counts for a 1LLL are high, they are the price that needs paid for that efficiency.


----------



## elrog (Jul 10, 2014)

You could also do ELS, orient the 5 corners, and then do PLL+C giving you 21+23+72 algorithms. If you phase while doing ELS, you reduce the number of algorithms for PLL+C down to 33, but increase ELS from 21 to 56. This is the lowest alg count LS+LL I know of (not counting ones with intuitive steps).


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 13, 2014)

What would be the alg count for ELL including both parities? 116? 

Other than things like bad recognition and high alg count, this seems like it's at least worth some thought for 4x4. Yau/CFCE with the E including solution to either or both parities would guarantee a 2 look last layer.

What about OLL including OLL parity and PLL including PLL parity? Is it as simple as being twice the number of OLLs and PLLs?


----------



## TDM (Jul 13, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> What would be the alg count for ELL including both parities? 116?
> 
> What about OLL including OLL parity and PLL including PLL parity? Is it as simple as being twice the number of OLLs and PLLs?


For the first question, either I've missed something, or it's (4!*2^4)/4 = 96... which doesn't look right at all.
I know there are 22 PLLs with parity and 22 without, but I'm not sure about OLLs. Another calculation which could be wrong: ((4!*2^3)*27)/4 = 1296... now that one looks too high :/

tldr: two calculations that are wrong for some reason I don't know (I TRIED), but I know there are 22 PLLs with and without parity, giving 44 total.


----------



## elrog (Jul 14, 2014)

29 - Regular ELL
28 - ELL + OLL Parity
38 - ELL + PLL Parity
36 - ELL + OLL Parity + PLL Parity
*131 - ELL Total

*57 - Regular OLL
54 - OLL + OLL Parity
*111 - OLL Total*

21 - Regular PLL
24 - PLL + PLL Parity
*45 PLL Total
*
4 - Regular EPLL
6 - EPLL + PLL Parity
*10 - EPLL Total*


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 14, 2014)

elrog said:


> stuff


Wow, thanks. I have no idea how you got those, but I'll trust that you know what you're doing.  How about editing alg count for EPLL including PLL parity into that post?


----------



## elrog (Jul 15, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Wow, thanks. I have no idea how you got those, but I'll trust that you know what you're doing.  How about editing alg count for EPLL including PLL parity into that post?



Done.

I found these for ELL + OLL parity by matching each EPLL with each edge orientation pattern and using symmetries to tell how many cases it would require for that specific EPLL. There are 2 cases with EPLL solved, 8 with Ua perm, 8 with Ub perm, 2 with H perm, and 8 with Z perm.

I did the rest in a similar way. OLL + OLL parity was matching each CO with each EO (with OLL parity) and PLL + PLL parity was matching each EPLL (without PLL parity) with either a diagonal or adjacent corner swap.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 15, 2014)

Cubeshape last example solve

(3,-1) / (0,1) / (-3,6) / (2,1) / (-2,-3) / (2,6) / (0,6) / (-2,-1) / (-4,2) / (-2,6) / (1,2) / (-1,0) / (0,-3) / (-2,5) / (-2,-3) / 

edge deisolation:

6,2 / -5,4 / -3,-2 / 0,2 / 1,0

corner orbit resolution (+ reaching selected pairing state)

/ 2,0 / 0,-2 / 4,-2 / 4,0 /

edge pairing (stage needs most improvement)

parity 
/ 2,-4 / -2,4 / 
easy 
4,1 / 1,1 / 1,-1 / -1,-1 /
2-2 cycle 
-3,4 / -4,3 / 1,0 / 1,0 /
3 cycle
-1,6 / 
1,0 / 5,-1 / 1,0 / -1,0 / 0,1 / -5,0 / -1,0 

mini domino esque 2x2x1 pbl

/ -3,0 / 3,-3 / 6,0 / -1,-5


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jul 17, 2014)

*Anouncing a new (2x2) method, STYP!*

Hi, today i will be anouncing my new 2x2 method, STYP wich stands for : Skip The Y Perm!
This methode requires 13 algs (14 if you include a Y perm wich u should not really find in a solve since the point is to skip the Y perm).
Steps:

Step1: solve a layer of any color.

Step2a:in this senario you have an oll alg to do but that is the point of this method ( to learn a bit more 
algs to skip PLL more often/get rid of those stupid Y perms). You have 5cases where you can do an alg and not get a Yperm, for these 5cases you will learn 1 alg (lets say sune as an expample for this entire explaination) you will use that alg at 5/6 cases you can get at a case. To either skip PLL or give you an adjacent swap fpr PLL.

Step2b: in this step is where the second alg for the same OLL comes over, you will learn the complete oposing alg for the alg you already learnd for the case. Example: if you learn the regular sune wich twists 3 corners and does not swap any pieces, you would lear. The alg that does a y perm+twists the 3 corners, in other words of you would setup the first alg and do the 2nd alg it would give you a Y perm.

Step3: do a adjacent swap to solve the cube or do a U/U'/U2 move to solve the cube.

This is more of a beginner method, i could get to 4.5 seconds with this method ( ofcourse not my main methode). Learning just the 12 OLL algs gives you a 1/3 cance on average skipping PLL.

I hope some people might be intrested in this methode ,
Greeting from Antonie!


----------



## kinch2002 (Jul 17, 2014)

tl;dr - Learn the diag CLL cases (and CLL recognition)


----------



## TDM (Jul 17, 2014)

Thread.
Also I think this method has been thought of before quite a few times


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jul 17, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> tl;dr - Learn the diag CLL cases (and CLL recognition)


Yeah in other words .


TDM said:


> Thread.
> Also I think this method has been thought of before quite a few times


Yeah it could, haven't heard of it thought :/. I searced for a thread but didn't remember seeing one like that ...


----------



## TDM (Jul 17, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> Yeah it could, haven't heard of it thought :/.


Me neither, but I thought the disadvantages of it compared to normal LBL made it not good enough to post. Stuff like longer recognition because you're checking CP and CO at the same time, more algs to learn etc. I don't think this method will be very useful, even to beginners, as Ortega is probably faster.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 17, 2014)

I've had an interesting thought. After introducing the Diaper Method and ZBLBL, an idea came to me. I need to work on some of the algs, but here is the basic idea. The parts in gray are not considered part of the method, though they were the original seed of the idea.

*Skipper F2L (SF2L)*

1-While performing F2L, one inserts the first two pairs normally.
2-Insert the corner of the third pair, not worrying about it's edge.
3-Insert the fourth pair using Winter Variation (27 algs). *(This step is incorrect, and has been replaced with the 3rd and 4th steps below.)*
---
3-Insert the fourth pair (edge and corner) without worrying about the orientation of it's corner. (EUOC)
4-Perform CLS (24 algs: CLS: I (and mirror) + OCLL)
--or--
3-Insert the corner of the fourth pair, not worrying about it's edge.
4-Insert the edge of the fourth pair using the second step of JJLS here. (34 algs)

5-Insert the edge of the third pair using ZBLBL algs (Modified to respect corner orientation, 21 algs. I'm still working on making these to see the avg moves.)
6-You are now left with a 1LLL, being just PLL (21 algs).

Comparing to the standard Fridrich(CFOP) OLL/PLL:
avg moves: F2L(6.7*4)+OLL(9.7)+PLL(11.8) = 48.3 HTM
avg moves: F2L(6.7*2)+C3P(~4)+WV(8.07)+ZBLBL(~8.5)+PLL(11.8) = 45.77 HTM *(this is incorrect)*
avg moves: F2L(6.7*2)+C3P(~4)+EUOC(~5)+CLS(~10.5)+ZBLBL(~8.5)+PLL(11.8) = 53.2 HTM
avg moves: F2L(6.7*2)+C3P(~4)+C4P(~4)+JJLS2(~10)+ZBLBL(~8.5)+PLL(11.8) = 51.7 HTM

The number of moves isn't reduced, though, the algorithm count is reduced a little more. (OLL/PLL = 78 algs; CLS/ZBLBL/PLL = 66 algs; JJLS2/ZBLBL/PLL = 76 algs)

The executional downsides to this method is the added recognition of inserting the corners of the third and fourth pairs to prepare for further algorithms, and the standard look-ahead of the last two F2L pairs becomes increasingly complex (not too much though, it just adds looking for 4 piece orientations per pair). The learning con is that it is quite unorthodox, and a good step out of the way of OLL because it replaces it entirely. Other than that, I see this method as being very effective, holding a lot of potential when it comes to speed cubing and even in exploring methods in FMC.

What you guys think?


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 17, 2014)

Antonie faz fan said:


> Hi, today i will be anouncing my new 2x2 method, STYP wich stands for : Skip The Y Perm!


What's so bad about 2x2 Y-perm? It's only 2 moves longer than a T and flows nicely. I'd much rather have that than have to do unoriented CP recognition. Maybe I'm missing something...


----------



## TDM (Jul 17, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> What's so bad about 2x2 Y-perm? It's only 2 moves longer than a T and flows nicely. I'd much rather have that than have to do unoriented CP recognition. Maybe I'm missing something...


Don't use a T perm for 2x2 then  If you compare a Y perm to algs like R' F R F' R U2 R' U R U2 R' and L F' R U2 R' U R U2 R2, Y perms are much slower.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 17, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Comparing to the standard Fridrich(CFOP) OLL/PLL:
> avg moves: F2L(6.7*4)+OLL(9.7)+PLL(11.8) = 48.3 HTM
> avg moves: F2L(6.7*2)+C3P(~4)+WV(8.07)+ZBLBL(~8.5)+PLL(11.8) = 45.77 HTM
> 
> So the number of moves isn't reduced a great amount if at all (I need to make the ZBLBL algs to be sure), though, the algorithm count is reduced a little more. (OLL/PLL = 78 algs; WV/ZBLBL/PLL = 69)


2 things:

Forcing yourself to perform Winter Variation every time actually involves learning 54 algorithms if you can't work out mirrors on the spot, but more importantly, you need summer variation as well unless you want want to wind up performing extra setup moves (R U2 R' or L' U2 L would work, but it increases move count somewhat).

Winter Variation only works once you have the F2L pair setup, so when calculating move count, you can't skip the moves necessary to form the next F2L pair. The insertion of an F2L pair takes 3~4 moves. Let's call it 4 to give the fewest possible moves for setup. That leaves us with another 2.7 moves that need to be added into the move count in order to setup the pair for Winter or Summer Variation. Add that to 45.77, and you get 48.47 moves, or more than standard Fridrich, and based on a quick search through F2L algorithms, the number of moves needed for setup is probably much closer 3.7 (6.7-3) than 2.7. 

Someone yell at me if either of those statements was incorrect.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 17, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> 2 things:
> 
> Forcing yourself to perform Winter Variation every time actually involves learning 54 algorithms if you can't work out mirrors on the spot, but more importantly, you need summer variation as well unless you want want to wind up performing extra setup moves (R U2 R' or L' U2 L would work, but it increases move count somewhat).
> 
> ...



Ah, I see, then my understand of Winter Variation was incorrect. One moment while I modify a few things about my method.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 17, 2014)

Dane man said:


> I've had an interesting thought. After introducing the Diaper Method and ZBLBL, an idea came to me. I need to work on some of the algs, but here is the basic idea.
> 
> *Skipper F2L (SF2L)*
> 
> ...



are you including cross in your average count measurements? because 6.7*4 implies you aren't.


----------



## TDM (Jul 17, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> are you including cross in your average count measurements? because 6.7*4 implies you aren't.


I think he's excluding cross because he is comparing with CFOP, and the cross is the same in both methods. Or he could just have forgotten it, but luckily it doesn't affect what he's trying to say.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 17, 2014)

My post has been updated with correct modifications to the method.



GuRoux said:


> are you including cross in your average count measurements? because 6.7*4 implies you aren't.


I am excluding the parts of the method that don't affect the move count. For example the cross is done the exact same way. And I really could have excluded PLL, but I wanted to show the count from F2L to finished cube.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> Don't use a T perm for 2x2 then  If you compare a Y perm to algs like R' F R F' R U2 R' U R U2 R' and L F' R U2 R' U R U2 R2, Y perms are much slower.


Whether you call it a T perm or not, the adjacent swap alg I use is R' U R' F2 R F' R' F2 R2. Is R' U R' F2 R F' *U* R' F2 R *F'* R really "much slower" than that? I'll take that over CP recognition any day.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 17, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Ah, I see, then my understand of Winter Variation was incorrect. One moment while I modify a few things about my method.



Not sure if that first one was so clear, don't want to cause misunderstandings. Winter Variation works for R U' R' cases, while the mirror cases work for L' U L cases. Summer Variation works for R U R' cases, and it's mirrors work for L' U' L cases. You can turn a Summer Variation case into a Winter Variation case by doing R U2 R' or L' U2 L, but that increases move count.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 17, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> Not sure if that first one was so clear, don't want to cause misunderstandings. ... You can turn a Summer Variation case into a Winter Variation case by doing R U2 R' or L' U2 L, but that increases move count.


You were pretty clear, thanks. 

Performing the set up moves to do summer or winter variation would add about 3 moves to the total, giving us a move count avg of 48.77 HTM as opposed to CFOP's 48.3 HTM (quite close). Though the alg count increases substantially (54+54+21+21=150), and that is something I can't accept as a well balanced method. Though adding setup moves only for WV would bring up the move count by I think ~5, bringing the move count to 50.77 HTM. But once again the alg count is (54+21+21=96).


----------



## TDM (Jul 17, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Whether you call it a T perm or not, the adjacent swap alg I use is R' U R' F2 R F' R' F2 R2. Is R' U R' F2 R F' *U* R' F2 R *F'* R really "much slower" than that? I'll take that over CP recognition any day.


I didn't know about that Y perm. It is short... but I really don't like it. Diag swaps are my slowest PBL and adj swaps are one of my fastest (after diag-diag and adj-diag), but I suppose everyone has different algs and prefers different cases. For me avoided diagswaps are good, but it won't be as beneficial for you.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 17, 2014)

Dane man said:


> You were pretty clear, thanks.
> 
> Performing the set up moves to do summer or winter variation would add about 3 moves to the total, giving us a move count avg of 48.77 HTM as opposed to CFOP's 48.3 HTM (quite close). Though the alg count increases substantially (54+54+21+21=150), and that is something I can't accept as a well balanced method. Though adding setup moves only for WV would bring up the move count by I think ~5, bringing the move count to 50.77 HTM. But once again the alg count is (54+21+21=96).



If you assume that people can work out mirrors on the fly (I just tried a couple of the cases, it's not that difficult), it brings the total number of algorithms down to 69 again, though at the cost of the slightly higher move count.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 17, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> If you assume that people can work out mirrors on the fly (I just tried a couple of the cases, it's not that difficult), it brings the total number of algorithms down to 69 again, though at the cost of the slightly higher move count.


True. I simply assume that some mirrors may be harder to do on the fly than others, and in order to get up to a speed that it'd be worthwhile they'd have to either be practiced so much that they become habit, or memorized individually. Some might prefer non-mirror algs for the mirror cases for comfortability in fingertricking. And if I included mirrors in my alg count, I would have to also include them for the OLL cases for a fair comparison. For these reasons, I usually do not exclude mirrors in my alg count. Raw alg count is how I prefer to compare and contrast method power and efficiency in method.


----------



## elrog (Jul 17, 2014)

I don't see you including algorithms for F2L. I know that a few of the F2L cases (for me atleast) are more algorithmic than some of the WV cases.

Without ever learing winter variation, I do R U R', R U2 R', R U R' U' R U' R', and R' F2 R F R' F2 L F' R F L' (J-perm), L' U R U' L R', and possibly a few more that I can't remember at the moment.

Some of the F2L cases I had to learn to do efficiently with algorithms include: R U' R2' U R2 U R2' U' R, (R' F R F')3 or (R U R' U')3, and R U' M' U2 M2' U' R' U M2 U2 M. I still don't have a good alg for that last one.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 18, 2014)

elrog said:


> R U' M' U2 M2' U' R' U M2 U2 M. I still don't have a good alg for that last one.


Wow, all that to avoid a rotation?! . 

I often just solve it intuitively with a rotation but the best alg I know is R2 U2 F R2 F' U2 R' U R'. Start with thumb on top and go R2'. Pull F' with right ring finger


----------



## TDM (Jul 18, 2014)

elrog said:


> Some of the F2L cases I had to learn to do efficiently with algorithms include: R U' R2' U R2 U R2' U' R, (R' F R F')3 or (R U R' U')3, and R U' M' U2 M2' U' R' U M2 U2 M. I still don't have a good alg for that last one.


I use mark's alg for the last case, and [U2] R2 U2' R2' U' R2 U' R2' for the triple sexy/sledge case. It preserves all pieces' orientations, like triple sledge.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jul 18, 2014)

aguuugw said:


> I had a new F2L idea I tried a few solves It might actually work. I don't know if it's been done before but:
> CMLBCLL method:
> Step 1. Solve cross or x cross if you like.
> Step 2. Solve Three of the second layer edges. This goes quick since there is usually only 3 moves for each. This can be combined with step one if you have good look ahead.
> ...



The first method is [wiki]Keyhole[/wiki]


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 18, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> The first method is [wiki]Keyhole[/wiki]



And the second one is just EOLine on Right (Normally done EOLine on Left), but slightly misoriented so you're still doing <R, U, L>.


----------



## elrog (Jul 18, 2014)

It should be noted that you can also do keyhole by solving only 3 corners and turning the E layer as you insert the E layer edges.

Also, thanks for the algorithms guys.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 18, 2014)

aguuugw said:


> I had a new F2L idea I tried a few solves It might actually work. I don't know if it's been done before but:
> CMLBCLL method:
> Step 1. Solve cross or x cross if you like.
> Step 2. Solve Three of the second layer edges. This goes quick since there is usually only 3 moves for each. This can be combined with step one if you have good look ahead.
> ...



That's a very interesting idea. Some are calling it "Keyhole" though I don't think that is correct because keyhole is for inserting edges not corners. This method is for inserting corners.

The cross will be normal. 

Each edge would be about 3-5 moves (9-15 total). 

The corners though would be more complicated depending on where the corners are. For example, say one of the corners are in the cross layer already, but it is in the wrong place and mis-oriented. Each corner of that type will take anywhere up to 9 moves to put into place using the open slot, much more than simply doing an F2L pair. This means that corners have a range of 3-9 moves, and therefore, combined edge and corner move count is between 6-14 per.

One way you can modify this issue is to place the LL corners into the cross layer when you put the three edges in. This is done by grabbing any LL corner in any orientation and inserting it with the edge piece as if it were an F2L pair. Because orientation doesn't matter for the corner, the edge insertions can stay around 3-7 moves each. Now that all of the cross layer corners are in the last layer, they can easily be inserted using the slot with between 3-7 very fingertrick friendly moves. But this still results in a combined range of 6-14, but the chances of getting closer to 6 is greater.

Very interesting thought though. I think it's kinda cool to try out. Well done.

PS: 500th! (in this thread)


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jul 18, 2014)

Keyhole can actually be both edges or corners.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 18, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Keyhole can actually be both edges or corners.



Indeed. The Sexy Method also uses corner-inserting keyhole.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 18, 2014)

aguuugw said:


> I had an idea called MCOECP
> 
> 1. Solve the MIDDLE layer. About 8-9 moves, pretty easy and intuitive. This is where I get the M
> 
> ...



This is called the Belt Method. See also "Variants".


----------



## Renslay (Jul 18, 2014)

aguuugw said:


> Aaargh why can't I come up with something that hasn't been done???? Sigh....



Before you want to come up with something new, please carefully examine these graphs:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?46753-A-rubik-s-cube-methods-and-states-map
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3m7u4oyawj89nyl/MethodsStepsGraphV2_big.png

If you have something that is NOT on this graph, then you might (just might...) invented a new method.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 18, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Before you want to come up with something new, please carefully examine these graphs:
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?46753-A-rubik-s-cube-methods-and-states-map
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/3m7u4oyawj89nyl/MethodsStepsGraphV2_big.png
> 
> If you have something that is NOT on this graph, then you might (just might...) invented a new method.



Woah, cool graph! I didn't see Diaper, ZBLBL, or SF2L so that makes me happy to know that I understood enough methods to avoid repeating myself. Though I expected to see BLL there (and I did) because it was what seemed to me the most natural progression when I figured it out.

I've gotta come up with something different yet just as efficient if not more so than other methods. That's my goal.


----------



## G2013 (Jul 18, 2014)

aguuugw said:


> I think I have something no one has seen. I call it the Aw method or 23CCLLP5EO5EL3E but that's a little long.
> 
> I thought of this when I realized people often try to solve layer by layer up the cube but what if you solved up with the cube standing on one corner?
> 
> ...



It is interesting, but not practical for speed. I made a try with commutators. If someone improves that method, could result into something interesting for solving for fun, but I don't know if it will be useful for FMC or speed.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jul 18, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> What would be the alg count for ELL including both parities? 116?
> 
> Other than things like bad recognition and high alg count, this seems like it's at least worth some thought for 4x4. Yau/CFCE with the E including solution to either or both parities would guarantee a 2 look last layer.
> 
> What about OLL including OLL parity and PLL including PLL parity? Is it as simple as being twice the number of OLLs and PLLs?



I considered this worth some thought a few weeks ago and only just found this post. I started making algs but never finished the cases because I'm lazy.

Edit: I messed this up earlier, I'm a little tired I guess. I only looked at ELL when there's OLL parity, which is a total of 48 cases. I never finished making algs, might tidy up what I have and post at some point.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 18, 2014)

aguuugw said:


> I think I have something no one has seen. I call it the Aw method or 23CCLLP5EO5EL3E but that's a little long.
> 
> I thought of this when I realized people often try to solve layer by layer up the cube but what if you solved up with the cube standing on one corner?
> 
> ...



...or you could use Petrus (or Roux). The number of algs for step 4 could be quite high unless you split it into two steps, considering that there are still 7 unsolved edge slots. Additionally, one of the nicest things about L6E (the fact that it can be done just <M,U>) is lost. I can't see this catching on, except, as previously mentioned, perhaps a bit for FMC.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jul 19, 2014)

Or you could just use Petrus.


----------



## notfeliks (Jul 19, 2014)

Not a method or subset or anything, but out of curiosity, has anyone ever tried 3x3 speedsolving where the solved position is any that has all of the pieces permuted with orientation disregarded? I tried it and it seems kind of fun, but I think it would become so easy after a while that single times would become outlandishly fast and luck would play way too big a role.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 19, 2014)

notfeliks said:


> Not a method or subset or anything, but out of curiosity, has anyone ever tried 3x3 speedsolving where the solved position is any that has all of the pieces permuted with orientation disregarded? I tried it and it seems kind of fun, but I think it would become so easy after a while that single times would become outlandishly fast and luck would play way too big a role.



Recently I did something similar: I tried to "solve" the cube into the superflip position from a scrambled position. It's fun how you have to treat all the edges with their other orientation!


----------



## elrog (Jul 19, 2014)

aguuugw said:


> I think I have something no one has seen. I call it the Aw method or 23CCLLP5EO5EL3E but that's a little long.
> 
> I thought of this when I realized people often try to solve layer by layer up the cube but what if you solved up with the cube standing on one corner?
> 
> ...



People usually solve 2x2x2 blocks with the BRD corner because you can see more of the cube throughout the rest of the solve and it helps with lookahead. Also, when did you solve the DR edge?

For step 4, you can easily insert these edges intuitively if you had the M layer free. I think it may be better to start off with a 1x2x3 block on the left like in Roux, then solve the ULB and DRB corners, then use an algorithm for the last 4 corners, then solve 3 edges in the right ide by inserting them, and then do LSE.

Now from this, you could make an improvement from doing CLL normally on the LL because you can AUF the last layer. There would be the same number of cases doing CLL how you proposed, but instead of doing an AUF, you would have to rotate the cube around a corner.

Also, I have had the idea I just described in my head for a while (I'll still let you claim it if you want), but I was thinking you could do RoFL CLL to improve the movecount a bit.



Renslay said:


> Recently I did something similar: I tried to "solve" the cube into the superflip position from a scrambled position. It's fun how you have to treat all the edges with their other orientation!



I have a friend who does that in blindsolving. He will memorize good edges instead of bad if there are less good than bad. At the end of the solve, he just does the superflip. Pretty neat.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jul 19, 2014)

Hi I just want to show a video of an example solve of my 4x4 method called the B4 method. The B4 name is short for Belt method for 4x4. Also sorry for some parts of the solve to be out of frame. The scramble I used was R B2 F' u2 B' f2 u f2 R' r2 f' L2 r2 F' L' U u L2 u2 U B U2 f2 D L2 R' B2 L' F U B r U' u f' F r2 R2 u B'. This method could be potentially use for speed solving if we all look at better algs for the this method. This method consists of 8 steps:
Step 1: solve 2 opposite centers
Step 2: solve 2 more opposite centers
Step 3: solve the edges that connect the 4 solved centers together
Step 4: Solve the remaining 2 centers
Step 5: orient the corners. In this step there is a parity where you get on unoriented corner in the U and D layer but in the solve I did I got lucky by not getting it.
Step 6: place corners into the correct layer
Step 7: position the corners into the correct spot
Step 8: solve remaining edges


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Jul 20, 2014)

You could swap steps 2 and 3 so that you solve the belt edges similarly to Yau's first 3 cross edges. Should be more efficient and if you place them before solving the rest of the centres, then making the other centres can also be done as fast as Yau, except using slice moves instead of wide moves.


----------



## Michael Womack (Jul 20, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> You could swap steps 2 and 3 so that you solve the belt edges similarly to Yau's first 3 cross edges. Should be more efficient and if you place them before solving the rest of the centres, then making the other centres can also be done as fast as Yau, except using slice moves instead of wide moves.



This is true I could do that.


----------



## elrog (Jul 21, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Cubeshape last example solve
> 
> (3,-1) / (0,1) / (-3,6) / (2,1) / (-2,-3) / (2,6) / (0,6) / (-2,-1) / (-4,2) / (-2,6) / (1,2) / (-1,0) / (0,-3) / (-2,5) / (-2,-3) /
> 
> ...


Nobody made a comment :confused:.

I personally am curious as to what your trying to show us. It looks like square 1 scramble, but I really have no idea as I don't have one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's an idea I came up with and have been using for the last couple of days.

Method
- Make a block on the left the same as in the Roux method
- Solve any M layer edge and AML (Adjust M Layer) so that the edge is in the DB or DF position (preferably DB for lookahead)
- Build a 1x2x2 block on the right side. This block does not need to match up with the left block or the M layer edge
- Extend the 1x2x2 block on the right side into a 1x2x3
- Place another M layer edge and AML so that all pieces in the F2L are solved
- Do a NMLL of your choice

There is a NMLL algorithm set out there (you can find it on the wiki), but it only covers cases with all edges oriented.

One option for the LL is CPEOLL and 2GLL. The biggest drawback for this would be the recognition. The EO in CPEOLL can be recognized by first finding the orientation of the UL and UR edges by finding the L and R edge colors followed by looking at the remaining two edges to see if they have the U center color on top. 2GLL can be recognized by the orientation case of the corners using the L and R colors and pairing that with the placement of the L and R stickers on the edges.

I have come up with another NMLL. The biggest drawback to this is its algorithm count. It is inspired by the one on the wiki. Its algorithm counts would be 82 for the first step and 30 (maybe less if I check for mirrors) for the second. The first step is the same as the normal NMLL, except you force one of the UL and UR edges to be oriented while the other in misoriented. For each normal case you have 2 algorithms. One will either flip both the UL and the UR edges or leave them both oriented how they are. The other will flip one of the UL or UR edges but not the other. You then can finish with a step similar to the regular NMLL, but it will flip the misoriented Ur or UL edge and an M layer edge. You should know which M layer edge your algorithm flips and AML so that your misoriented edge is in the correct place.

Personally, I think poor recognition is worse than more algs, so I'd go with the second option listed here. I played around with a lot of things, but these were the only 2 LL systems that seemed viable. Enjoy!

Oh, and btw, what should I call this? _NMM_ which stands for Non-Matching Method? Or just simply _Method_ as I have done in this post?


----------



## kcl (Jul 21, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Whether you call it a T perm or not, the adjacent swap alg I use is R' U R' F2 R F' R' F2 R2. Is R' U R' F2 R F' *U* R' F2 R *F'* R really "much slower" than that? I'll take that over CP recognition any day.



Yes, I'm not sure you realize how fast CP recognition is for those of us who use it frequently. Learn a CLL set and you'll understand.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 21, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Yes, I'm not sure you realize how fast CP recognition is for those of us who use it frequently. Learn a CLL set and you'll understand.


Did you even read the original proposal?


----------



## Dane man (Jul 21, 2014)

Well, I was thinking, and a very interesting method came to mind. It reduces the cube to <R, U, F2>, and solves the cube from there. Because it begins very similar to Petrus, I'd like to call it *Pet rock*. Here's the idea.

1- Solve the 2x2x2 block in the BDL corner.
2- Orient the edges relative to <R, U, L, D>. The freedom of having a third side to turn without restriction should make this simpler to perform.
3- Extend from the original the 2x2x2 block to a 2x2x3 on the F side. This is done only using <R, U, F2>. With practice, this could become very efficient.
4- Extend from the original 2x2x2 block to a 2x2x3 on the R side. This in combination with step 3 should leave an F2L slot and all the edges oriented. (Use only <R, U> moves)
5- Insert the last F2L edge/corner pair (the orientation of the corner doesn't matter, allowing faster execution). (Use only <R, U> moves. 25 cases. Avg moves 7.5, rare worst case 12)
6- Perform CLS (24 algs (CLS: I/CLS: I(mirror)/OCLL). This orients the rest of the corners and leaves the edges oriented, skipping OLL)
7- Perform PLL. Done!

Because of the nature of the method, I don't have any way of discovering the avg move count besides actually performing it myself multiple times, so I have no idea how efficient it is yet, but what I do know is that it is very intuitive until steps 6 and 7. The total alg count is 55.

The combination of CLS and PLL has an avg move count of 22.3 (compared to the OLL/PLL avg move count of 21.5). Now the question is what the average moves are for steps 1-5. From what I've tested already, it seems not to be much more than what is already common for Cross+F2L or Petrus->F2L, though I'd like to test more, and see the possible situations. 

It really depends on if steps 2-4 require less moves on average than 3 F2L slots. If I were good at block building, I could probably find out. Step 2 should be quick, though steps 3 and 4 will likely take more. Anyone already know or willing to give it a go?

What do you all think?


_Moves required in step 5 cases_


Spoiler





```
1/25 = 0 (done)
2/25 = 3 (connected correctly on top)
2/25 = 4

1/25 = 7 (disconnected left)
3/25 = 8

1/25 = 7 (disconnected right)
3/25 = 8

1/25 = 7 (edge in, corner on top)
3/25 = 8

1/25 = 7 (corner in, edge on top)
3/25 = 8

2/25 = 11 (connected incorrectly on top)
2/25 = 12
```


----------



## Renslay (Jul 21, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Well, I was thinking, and a very interesting method came to mind. It reduces the cube to <R, U, F2>, and solves the cube from there. Because it begins very similar to Petrus, I'd like to call it *Pet rock*. Here's the idea.
> 
> 1- Solve the 2x2x2 block in the BDL corner.
> 2- Orient the edges relative to <R, U, L, D>. The freedom of having a third side to turn without restriction should make this simpler to perform.
> ...



Swap step 2 and 3 and you have Petrus.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/in..._you_could_just_use_petrus_.28July.2C_2009.29 = "Or you could just use Petrus."


----------



## Dane man (Jul 21, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Swap step 2 and 3 and you have Petrus.
> http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/in..._you_could_just_use_petrus_.28July.2C_2009.29 = "Or you could just use Petrus."


lol (dat meme). Almost, but not quite. The idea of this method is that orienting the edges becomes easier with the third available side. And steps 5 and 6 certainly aren't Petrus.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 21, 2014)

Dane man said:


> lol (dat meme). Almost, but not quite. The idea of this method is that orienting the edges becomes easier with the third available side.



How so? I cannot see that. Also don't forget that in Petrus, _recognition_ of the EO is much easier.



Dane man said:


> lAnd steps 5 and 6 certainly aren't Petrus.



A CFOP solve with advanced techniques for the last slot / edge control / forcing partial skips / COLL/CLS/MGLS/whatsoever is still a CFOP solve. Same for Petrus.


----------



## elrog (Jul 21, 2014)

If your just doing a 2x2x2 during inspection and your good at inspection, you should have insight as to what the EO case will be.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 21, 2014)

elrog said:


> Method stuff



That is crazy, a few days ago I started writing up a method that is very similar to that, except the block does match and EO is done in a different way. When I do post it, please believe me that I came up with it before you posted this!



Dane man said:


> 5- Insert the last F2L edge/corner pair (the orientation of the corner doesn't matter, allowing faster execution). (Use only <R, U> moves. 25 cases. Avg moves 7.5, rare worst case 12)
> 6- Perform CLS (24 algs (CLS: I/CLS: I(mirror)/OCLL). This orients the rest of the corners and leaves the edges oriented, skipping OLL)



Step 5 and 6 are basically just EJF2L


----------



## Dane man (Jul 21, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Step 5 and 6 are basically just EJF2L


And EJF2L is just a subset of CLS. Doesn't make it worth any less.



elrog said:


> If your just doing a 2x2x2 during inspection and your good at inspection, you should have insight as to what the EO case will be.


I was actually thinking of doing the edge orientation and block building at the same time. If you're up to that then go right ahead. Though, the EO-Block recognition difficulty becomes that of ZZ's EO-line.



Renslay said:


> A CFOP solve with advanced techniques for the last slot / edge control / forcing partial skips / COLL/CLS/MGLS/whatsoever is still a CFOP solve. Same for Petrus.


In that sense maybe, if you switched the steps, but they are intentionally not switched for the purpose I've already mentioned. Even if it could be called Petrus, then it is not "just Petrus".


----------



## elrog (Jul 22, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> That is crazy, a few days ago I started writing up a method that is very similar to that, except the block does match and EO is done in a different way. When I do post it, please believe me that I came up with it before you posted this!



I came up with it before I posted too .

Also, when comparing this method with Roux, I think you should be able to get the F2L done or just have one M edge to place by the time Roux finishes the second block. I think whether this is comparable with Roux in speed depends upon if the NMLL is comparable to CLL + L6E. I just did a solve and generated solutions to the NMLL cases as I went. The first step in NMLL seems great, but the second seems like it would have a high move count. I got an ugly 14 move optimal case. I am still working on making NMLL more efficient.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 22, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Well, I was thinking, and a very interesting method came to mind. It reduces the cube to , and solves the cube from there. Because it begins very similar to Petrus, I'd like to call it *Pet rock*. Here's the idea.
> 
> 1- Solve the 2x2x2 block in the BDL corner.
> 2- Orient the edges relative to . The freedom of having a third side to turn without restriction should make this simpler to perform.
> ...


I won't comment on the movecount, but I think you need to ask yourself this: Is this faster than MGLS?

Two things to consider:

1. Your method skips ELS by doing EO in step 2. However, your EO step looks much harder than ELS, as you have 4 more edges to orient. The recognition of bad edges is also obviously worse; in ELS it's ridiculously easy. Not sure if the third side make up for that.

It doesn't look like a very fast step. But could there a fast way to do it?

2. The advantage your step 2 has over ELS however, is that it might make the blockbuilding easier. Step 1, 3 and 4 are basically solving F2Lminus1 using blockbuilding. However CFOP is pretty much the _fastest_ known method for F2Lminus1 right now and it's use in MGLS will probably give it the edge. Will the EO in step 2 make steps 3 and 4 fast enough to make up for this difference? And what about the edge that ELS has over step 2?

Personally, I think it all rests on whether you can find a fast way to do step 2.

Not a bad idea though, I was pretty impressed anyway.


----------



## Dane man (Jul 22, 2014)

Tao Yu said:


> Personally, I think it all rests on whether you can find a fast way to do step 2.
> 
> Not a bad idea though, I was pretty impressed anyway.


Thank you.

When it comes to step two, It has only two extra edges to check when compared to the EO of normal Petrus. Those used to Petrus might find it to be very easy just checking the orientation of 2 more edges.

MGLS is a very fantastic LS method, and is one of the methods I refer to most as an efficient use of F2L slots to manipulate the last layer. I wouldn't be surprised if MGLS were faster than this method, but I still think this method has some potential.


----------



## elrog (Jul 23, 2014)

I little while after my last post in this thread, I came up with what I believe to be a good NMLL system. Its movecount and recognition seem great, but its alg count is relatively high. I went about my search for a NMLL system by sorting out what could and could not be recognized with just the R and L colors. Turns out, Tripod LL is recognizable with just the R color if you 2x2x1 block contains an L corner and vice-versa.

Rather than placing 1 M layer edge after finishing the 1x2x3 on the right side, place 2.

Now you make a 2x2x1 block in the U layer. This requires 72 algorithms. To recognize this step, first determine the permutation and orientation of the URF corner. If it is an R layer corner, find the edge with the R color on it and not its permutation as well as its orientation. You can AML to have either the UF edge or the UB edge solved depending on the case.

The last step has 105 cases, but many are mirrors or can be turned into other cases easily. How to do recognition was stated in the first paragraph of this post.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 23, 2014)

The somewhat recent discussion about WV+CP has got me thinking about ways to 'skip' OLL and permute corners. So here are the steps I thought up:
1)solve EO+ cross+3 f2l pairs however you want (no need to make the last pair!)
2)orient LL corners and insert the corner at the same time (WV/CLS stuff)
3)permute LL corners and insert the edge simultaneously
4)EPLL

Perhaps the order of 2 and 3 can be swapped around, or maybe CO+edge and CP+corner is better, not sure which is best in terms of number of algs/recognition/move count.

I also understand that, unless ZZ is used, EO is somewhat troublesome, so maybe you can just use this only when EO is done.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 6, 2014)

Okay, so I just had an idea for LL that I think is pretty cool. So first off, I'm going to have you guys guess what this is. 

What do all the PLLs except H, E and Z have in common? 

Confused? 


Spoiler



Its a physical type of block that these PLLs have in common.

Still confused: 


Spoiler



Think F2L.






Okay, so I highly recommend you guess before opening this, but if you really have no clue, you can. 



Spoiler



So what I am suggesting here is a sort of phasing for any kind of method that uses a LL. This can be used with Petrus, CFOP, ZZ, and many other methods. 

So what is this mystery thing I'm talking about? 

A pair. Just an oriented corner connected to its corresponding oriented edge. A pair is fairly easy and fairly intuitive to make during F2L, and creating one out of LL pieces isn't extremely hard either. Just like how the tripod method has an alg set that consists of 109 (maybe?) cases that all have a solved 2x2x1 in the back, this LL method consists of a 2x2x1 without the edge, which is considerably easier to make during the creation and/or insertion of the last F2L pair. Just like how there is phasing in the ZZ method which reduces the number of ZBLL cases to a much smaller number, there are fewer LL cases that have a solved pair.

Now to shows what exactly I mean by a solved pair, do the anti sune alg on a solved cube. Notice how there is a pair consisting of a correctly matched up oriented corner and edge in the UFL and UL position. This is the kind of pair that we are looking for. Now do the sexy sledge alg on a solved cube, and noticed how there is an _unoriented_ pair in the FU and FUL position. This is not what we want.

Okay, so now for the important question, how many cases are there? This is what I'm proposing, to see if anyone is potentially interested in calculating the number of LL cases with a solved pair. Currently this is just an idea I'm bringing to the table, as an interesting concept I haven't seen before.




Okay, now for another LL proposal, I've seen some talk of one-look two-alg LL systems, and I was thinking, why not recognize OLL and PLL in one step, do the pure OLL that only flips edges and twists corners in their place, then immediately do PLL without having to recognize? Just a little wandering thought I had. I'm sure that all pure OLLs probably aren't very nice algs, but I wonder how much time it could save. And anyone with experience recognizing CP could easily determine the PLL case even when corners are twisted. Just a quick thought, and where would I find algs that are pure OLLs?


----------



## Dane man (Aug 6, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Okay, now for another LL proposal, I've seen some talk of one-look two-alg LL systems, and I was thinking, why not recognize OLL and PLL in one step, do the pure OLL that only flips edges and twists corners in their place, then immediately do PLL without having to recognize? Just a little wandering thought I had. I'm sure that all pure OLLs probably aren't very nice algs, but I wonder how much time it could save. And anyone with experience recognizing CP could easily determine the PLL case even when corners are twisted. Just a quick thought, and where would I find algs that are pure OLLs?


Unfortunately, this is much more difficult than it looks for one reason. OLL, and PLL are independant properties of a state, which means that it can get very complicated to try and combine them in any way. 

For every PLL on OLL, there are 4 directions that the PLL can be rotated relative to the same OLL, meaning that, on an unoriented layer, it is extremely difficult and time consuming to recognize a PLL because there are four different directions for the PLL to be looked at, and will thus take much more time (recog/long-recog/alg/alg as opposed to recog/alg/recog/alg). It's especially difficult if your OLL algs affect permutation, and a lot of the good algs do. Even if you had "pure OLL" algs (which take more moves), the recog would be much less efficient, and take much more time than the standard method.


As for your mention of a solved pair on the last layer. I'm not exactly sure what you are proposing. Are you trying to suggest a 1LLL based on a solved pair? Are you trying to suggest that with preoriented edges and phasing, one could be left with a 1LLL for 3 corners? What exactly do you intend to do with this information?


----------



## PJKCuber (Aug 6, 2014)

I got this weird idea.
1. Solve 3 cross edges and 2 F2L Pairs belonging to those 3 edges. Essentialy, it leaves 2 slots open.
2.Solve The last 2 slots and then the edge
3.Normal LL.
It sucks


----------



## Dane man (Aug 6, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> I got this weird idea.
> 1. Solve 3 cross edges and 2 F2L Pairs belonging to those 3 edges. Essentially, it leaves 2 slots open.
> 2.Solve The last 2 slots and then the edge
> 3.Normal LL.
> It sucks



Step one is just a 2x2x3 block like in Petrus, though the method of block building is a little different than usual.
Step two would be rather difficult, especially because of lack of edge orientation and solving the edge after the slots, instead of solving the edge first, then finishing like F2L.

It is an interesting method to solving F2L, though. Test it out, see how it goes.


----------



## Cale S (Aug 6, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> where would I find algs that are pure OLLs?


You can find them here, and the site also has several other last layer algorithms (including full 1LLL). However, like Dane man said, doing pure OLLs has some problems.


----------



## PJKCuber (Aug 6, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Step one is just a 2x2x3 block like in Petrus, though the method of block building is a little different than usual.
> Step two would be rather difficult, especially because of lack of edge orientation and solving the edge after the slots, instead of solving the edge first, then finishing like F2L.
> 
> It is an interesting method to solving F2L, though. Test it out, see how it goes.



Tried out a speedsolve 24.14 which is 2 seconds slower, but it was my 1st try.
As for Step 2, you can solve the edge 1st, but that would make this a double x cross F2L.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 6, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Unfortunately, this is much more difficult than it looks for one reason. OLL, and PLL are independant properties of a state, which means that it can get very complicated to try and combine them in any way.
> 
> For every PLL on OLL, there are 4 directions that the PLL can be rotated relative to the same OLL, meaning that, on an unoriented layer, it is extremely difficult and time consuming to recognize a PLL because there are four different directions for the PLL to be looked at, and will thus take much more time (recog/long-recog/alg/alg as opposed to recog/alg/recog/alg). It's especially difficult if your OLL algs affect permutation, and a lot of the good algs do. Even if you had "pure OLL" algs, the recog would be much less efficient, and take much more time than the standard method.
> 
> ...



Well, I think that the fact that they are independent properties make them easier to distinguish.

Also, a good way to break this down is the same way one would recognize LLEF (which is included in your BLL method if I'm not mistaken?) by recognizing EP and EO. And CP is not had to recognize if you know CLL or COLL or OLLCP or CPEOLL or any sort of method that uses CP. Let's take this randomly generated LL scramble:

R2 B U2 B2 U2 F' D B' D L D2 F R' B2 R' 

So first of all, I see that CP is correct, by recognizing the top layer corner colors. If I wanted to solve the CLL and be left with ELL, I would just do U2 sune. So the CP recog was very fast. So I now know that I have an EPLL as my PLL, and I can tell by the front 3 pieces that they are correctly permuted in relation to each other, so that is my bar for a U perm. If I just recognize the top and side colors of my edges, I see that the opposite edge is on the right from this angle), which is how I distinguish U perms. Now just twist your corners, and flip your edges, and you'll notice that I was correct, and we have a U perm. 

Let's do another scramble: B2 U2 B' U2 B U2 L' R B R' B L B U 

So immediately we recognize that the corners have to be diagonally swapped. Then, if we do a U' AUF to line up the pair of pieces in the back, we can easily see that the UB and UR edges need to be swapped, so we have a Y perm. Easy peasy. All this really is is a basic understanding of CP, and EP as well. It's basically OLLCP+EP recognition, and EP is really easy to recognize.

Another scramble: B2 D' F2 D B D' F2 D U' R' U R B 
So immediately we see that the two corners in the back need to be swapped, but adjacently swapped corners also mean a 3 cycle of corners, which we can tell by the solved one in the back left. We also notice the solved edge on the left, and a 3 cycle of edges. So this is a G perm. 

So overall, if you experiment a little, recognition is not hard. You probably thought that OCLL recognition was going to be hard at first, but then you realized it was actually really easy. It just takes a bit of open mindedness.

And with my idea with the pair in the LL, it's very self explanatory. You create a pair out of LL pieces during the insertion of your last F2L pair, and you are left with a LL subset with much less cases. I don't know where you're getting preoriented edges and a 3 corner LL from, but it's simple. I'll reiterate: Solved pair of LL pieces. Less cases. Think of the tripod method: there's a solved 2x2x1 in the LL, with this it's a solved 1x1x2.


----------



## TDM (Aug 6, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> I got this weird idea.
> 1. Solve 3 cross edges and 2 F2L Pairs belonging to those 3 edges. Essentialy, it leaves 2 slots open.
> 2.Solve The last 2 slots and then the edge
> 3.Normal LL.
> It sucks


or you could just use petrus


----------



## Dane man (Aug 6, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> So overall, if you experiment a little, recognition is not hard. You probably thought that OCLL recognition was going to be hard at first, but then you realized it was actually really easy. It just takes a bit of open mindedness.


I didn't say that the recognition was impossible, nor that it would take a long time to do. I meant that it takes significantly longer than just a glance at the sides to recognize PLL. What you have suggested is possible, but is exponentially more time consuming and requires much more thought than would be efficient in a speed solve. It works, it's just not efficient.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 6, 2014)

TDM said:


> or you could just use petrus



Waited for this, wasn't disappointed.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 6, 2014)

Dane man said:


> I didn't say that the recognition was impossible, nor that it would take a long time to do. I meant that it takes significantly longer than just a glance at the sides to recognize PLL. What you have suggested is possible, but is exponentially more time consuming and requires much more thought than would be efficient in a speed solve. It works, it's just not efficient.



I completely understand your point, but I think that with some practice, differentiating an oriented PLL with a non oriented PLL can be relatively easy and fast. But only with practice, and I'm not sure that's something a lot of people will try .


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 7, 2014)

Do algorithms for CPEOLS exist? It might be useful for somebody who is both willing to learn a lot of algs and is so focused on OH that they don't need algorithms that are versatile. 

To make sure there isn't a misunderstanding, the steps would be
Cross + 3 F2L pairs
create final F2L pair
orient edges and permute corners while inserting final pair
2GLL


----------



## mcw0805 (Aug 7, 2014)

Hello, everyone. 

I think what I am about to explain is quite new, so if you are interested please continue reading. I don't know how efficient this approach is, but I sometimes use it and have gotten good times. 

Recently, I have been thinking if there was a better way to look ahead for the 1st F2L pair and/or save some time on the cross. 

Sometimes, don't you just have that one last cross edge to insert that just sucks? (probably applies to a lot of people who aren't color neutral) What I mean is that the last cross edge takes 3 or 4 moves to insert. Of course, people will solve the cross by trying to orient these bad edges, but still, the cross cases won't be pretty in every single solve. 

Just a heads up, this approach will work the best if you solve the cross on the bottom. 

SO.. my idea is that... 

1. Instead of placing the last cross edge, you insert the edge of the opposite side of the cross in any orientation in one move. For instance, instead of placing the last white cross edge correctly on the bottom, you place a random yellow edge in place of that last white cross edge. This way, F2L can be solved normally, and the F2L edge will never be placed in the bottom. Here's the limitation because it won't be always possible to insert that edge in one move. And the reason why I say "one move" is because I think that placing the wrong edge in more than one move is not pragmatic at all. 

2. Solve F2L as you normally would. ALL four pairs. Another limitation here because sometimes, you might get confused that the cross edge is the F2L edge because when it is stuck next to a corner, it may appear like an F2L pair. But I don't have any problems with that. 

3. As you insert the last cross edge, you orient the top four edges, thus getting a cross on top. From there on, you can do COLL, ZBLL, or just solve as you normally would. Inserting the last cross edge will always require M slice moves (usually by using M' U M move). Sometimes, inserting the last cross edge and orienting the top four edges will be simple as M' U M or M' U' M or M' U2 M. But most algorithms to insert the last cross edge will require you to do M' U M (or M' U' M) moves twice with U/U'/U2 moves in between. 

So a sample algorithm is (M’ U M) U2 (M’ U’ M). There are two sucky cases (three if you count the mirror), and one of them looks something like this: (M’ U’ M) U’ (M’ U M) U (M’ U2 M). The other sucky case looks similar to this but has a mirror case. 

I think there are 12 cases excluding the mirror and 16 cases including the mirror. (yes, only four cases have mirrors) 

Using only M and U layers never messes up the corner orientations, so it is ALWAYS possible to predict the COLL case as you solve the last cross edge. (This of course applies if you do use COLL). When all four corners are oriented, obviously, you have an OLL skip. And I noticed that I unusually get a lot of OLL skips using this approach. 

Conclusion. I call this way of solving as an "approach", as opposed to a "method" because it's not viable in every single solve. The ultimate OBJECT of this approach is to get a better look at the first F2L pair (perhaps second pair) without worrying much about screwing up the cross or breaking up the first pair you see as you solve the cross. This is kind of useful if you are trying to make an x-cross by building a 2x2 block first, then adding the last two cross edges because those two edges will not always be in nice positions. This approach is probably not that practical, but it's just another weird way to solve the cube. 

Please reply if you are interested, and if enough people are interested, I will post the algorithm sheet. 

Until then, happy cubing!


----------



## supercavitation (Aug 7, 2014)

mcw0805 said:


> Approach



Not really new. It's called making a pseudo cross, and it's been done before in a whole bunch of way, I believe including this one.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 7, 2014)

Mcw0805:

I actually had a similar idea, where you make 2 cross edges instead of 3, and orient edges while inserting the last cross edge. There's actually an alg set for it: L5EOP.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 8, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Do algorithms for CPEOLS exist?


They most certainly exist. The question is if they are recorded somewhere, and if there are few enough to be used. We've got ZBLS which is already 302 algs. Adding corner permutation to that would be... well, impractical to say the least.


----------



## supercavitation (Aug 8, 2014)

Dane man said:


> They most certainly exist. The question is if they are recorded somewhere, and if there are few enough to be used. We've got ZBLS which is already 302 algs. Adding corner permutation to that would be... well, impractical to say the least.



I assumed that he meant something like VHLS with CP included, rather than something like ZBLS with with CP included, but I could be mistaken.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 9, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Do algorithms for CPEOLS exist? It might be useful for somebody who is both willing to learn a lot of algs and is so focused on OH that they don't need algorithms that are versatile.
> 
> To make sure there isn't a misunderstanding, the steps would be
> Cross + 3 F2L pairs
> ...





Dane man said:


> They most certainly exist. The question is if they are recorded somewhere, and if there are few enough to be used. We've got ZBLS which is already 302 algs. Adding corner permutation to that would be... well, impractical to say the least.



I meant VH+CP, not ZBLS+CP. That's why I separated the two bolded steps.


----------



## elrog (Aug 9, 2014)

If your doing OH, ZZ is the way to go because edges are preoriented. For a last slot, I suggest you place the last F2L corner and perform an algorithm that flips the corner, places the last F2L edge, and solves corner permutation. Robert Yau came up with this idea and I generated algs for it a while back. There are 26 algorithms and I like them all, but I am the one who made them . If I could find out how to make arrows with visual cube I'd post them.


----------



## TDM (Aug 9, 2014)

elrog said:


> If I could find out how to make arrows with visual cube I'd post them.


You need to end the URL with something like: &arw=U0U1,U2U3. Explanation of this:

&: You use & whenever you're adding something to the URL in visualcube.
you probably knew that already
arw: this means you're adding arrows
U0U1: the first letter U means the arrow starts on the U face.
0: the pieces on the U face are numbers from left to right (and then from top to bottom) with numbers from 0 to 8. So U0 means the top left corner of the U face, and U4 means the centre of the U face etc.
U1: the arrow ends in the second location you give, so here the arrow points from UBL to UB.
,U2U3: this just adds another arrow from UBR to UL, or locations U2 to U3.





Here's an example using faces other than U (&arw=U0R3,F2R6):





(... hopefully you'll understand that)


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 9, 2014)

Well, EO+CP last slot (not combining other acronyms for clarity) isn't all that impractical. You have 32 algs for all mirrors and inverses (8 for just a regular pair, and you could do R U2 R' setup for split pair cases, then just mirror each) and 6 CP cases for each EO case, so 6*32= 192 algs for an 84 alg 1LLL. But again, if you wanted to mirror the algs yourself, it would just be 8*6= 48 algs, plus you would already know a few, so it would be actually pretty worthwhile to learn. The only trouble would be recognition, but in terms of speed, VHLS (let's just assume you're using 8 algs) + full ZBLL is probably slower than CPEOLS+2GLL. 

If anyone would be willing to generate (elrog, I'm talking to you haha) CPEOLS algs for just the first 8 VHLS cases, that would be great. I think it's a decent thing to learn. 

Either way, and I'm quoting kirjava here, there's lots of kids these days coming up with silly LS methods when the real development is in LL.


----------



## elrog (Aug 9, 2014)

TDM said:


> U0U1: the first letter U means the arrow starts on the U face.
> 0: the pieces on the U face are numbers from left to right (and then from top to bottom) with numbers from 0 to 8. So U0 means the top left corner of the U face, and U4 means the centre of the U face etc.
> U1: the arrow ends in the second location you give, so here the arrow points from UBL to UB.



That's what I needed to know. Thanks!

@ goodatthis - It shall be done. Also, I wouldn't say that there isn't real development to be made in LS methods. For example (but not limited to): my previous post.

I will generate any algs that are requested as long as there is some reason to but please don't pressure me to get done with them very fast though. School is starting again, and I have been working on other (some cubing related) related projects as well.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 10, 2014)

This is a little different. Can someone come up with approaches that:
1. solving a face first and then corners not waterman
2. A really nice corners first method


----------



## teddyman1331 (Aug 13, 2014)

Here is a method idea i have thats under development, and i have no idea if it would be faster or not:

Basically, its CFOP, but with a twist. The difference is that when you solve the cross, you switch two edges. For example, when solving white cross, you place blue edge next to green center and green edge next to blue center. The red and orange edges are placed correctly. (Same can be done other way). 

Next you solve f2l and oll normally, which gives you a nonexistent pll case (because the two edges are incorrect on the bottom)

Now, by solving the bottom two edges with M2 U2 M2, you can influence what the pll will be. Depending on how the top layer is when you perform the alg decides what pll is created. This can be used to force easier cases.

Well, that's it. I know it's not much and is probably useless, but you never know.


----------



## supercavitation (Aug 13, 2014)

teddyman1331 said:


> Here is a method idea i have thats under development, and i have no idea if it would be faster or not:



See previous statements about pseudo cross. Daniel Sheppard uses something much like that if it's more convenient than a normal cross, but long story short, this has been proposed numerous times before.


----------



## elrog (Aug 16, 2014)

* Fun new method !!!

*1 - Solve a 1x2x3 block on D (leaving the R layer free)
2 - Solve 2 E-layer edges using the set of U, u, and R (AuF  until they are in the FL and BL positions)
3 - Using the above set, solve the remaining E-layer edges (their places can be switched) and place oriented pieces into the RFD, RBD, and RD positions
4 - Use OLL to orient the top layer (there might be a few shorter algs)
5 - Using R2 and U, solve the F2L
6 - PLL to solve

I didn't intend on making a speedsolving method when I came up with this, but its not bad. There are many different variation of this too. Enjoy!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 16, 2014)

elrog said:


> * Fun new method !!!
> 
> *1 - Solve a 1x2x3 block on D (leaving the R layer free)
> 2 - Solve 2 E-layer edges using the set of U, u, and R (AuF  until they are in the FL and BL positions)
> ...



I like this--it seems like a speed optimized and advanced version of keyhole. I'm guessing that Petrus blocks/pseudoblocks will be more efficient than what you have for steps 1 and 2, but turning your method into Petrus sort of ruins the point of you making a method, lol. It looks fun, so gj for coming up with it.


----------



## TDM (Aug 16, 2014)

elrog said:


> 1 - Solve a 1x2x3 block on D (leaving the R layer free)
> 2 - Solve 2 E-layer edges using the set of U, u, and R (AuF  until they are in the FL and BL positions)


Why not solve a Rouxblock and then place DF+DB? Or are you just trying to make it as weird as possible?


----------



## elrog (Aug 16, 2014)

I myself think the first 2 steps are very efficient. I find building a 1x2x3 block and expanding into a 2x2x3 is easier than a 2x2x2 into a 2x2x3 such as in petrus.

Also, I didn't choose to do a Roux block because you would either have to learn to recognize the LL with a misaligned M slice, or you would always have to solve DF and DB as the correct edges.

Maybe some example solves will clear up any confusion. I have one done. I'll do more later.

Scramble 1: x F2 L R' D2 R' U B2 R B' D L F L2 D' R2 L F2 U B2 R2 D2 U' R2 D' R' x'
1 - F U2 B R2 F2
2 - u R u R2' *u*
3 - *u* U2 *R U R'*
4 - *R U' R2'* F R F' U2 R U' R' u'
5 - U2 R2 U2 R2' U' R2 U R2' U R2
6 - U (l' R') D2 R U R' D2 R U' R x'
*Red* - u2'
*Blue* - R'
This turned out to be a good solve.


----------



## Loupisar (Aug 25, 2014)

I watched Feliks' mini-video series and I was really interested in this case he showed: the 3 move OLL. For those who don't know it, it is a an LL case where you can "cheat" to orient the LL with an easy setup ( x' z L' U L ). Basically what you do is to rotate the cube (x' z), and then insert the pair (L' U L) to get an easy J-perm. Here is the picture:
Generator : B' F' L2 B' R' F U2 F' R B2 L' F
 (x' z ) L' U L and then you get the J-perm
Watching this was really cool but one day in a solve, I met this exact case: ( Generator: L2 B' L U L U' L' B L2 F' L' F (could be a good alg!)
It looks very similar, but it's not. If you change your grip like for the previous case, you see that the pair you want to insert is not at the same place. I found this to solve this LL case: x' z L' U L U y' L' U2 R U' R' U2 L (+AUF). You just get the pair out of the slot, and then insert it with a Winter Variation case that skips the PLL.

In these 2 cases, there is a 2x2x1 block already setup, but you can find many other situations where this block is not fully setup, and the LL still looks awesome, like for example the usual OLL case people use most:
 : Solved with r U2 R' U' R U r'
I found three more like this, if you like you can find a way to recognize them, and learn the algs.
: F R U' R' U R U2 R' U' F' (really cool alg, inverse could be used as well)
: F' L F L' U R U2 L' U L U2 R' (setup+ Winter Variation)
: F R U' R' F' U2 R U2 L' U L U2 R' (setup+ Winter Variation)


----------



## LeighSC (Aug 28, 2014)

*Possible new 4x4 method for Roux?*

a copy paste of a post I made on reddit:

So I had this idea, and I expect it to be picked apart very quickly, but I think that it could work.
I switched to roux recently, and wondered if I could combine hoya with roux, in a similar way to how yau can be combined with it, and I came up with this:
(just to help with my probably bad descriptions, count orange as the left block, white as the bottom, and blue on the front. just for convenience)

1) Solve 2 opposite, non block colour centres. (B/G or Y/W). So far, the same as Hoya. For the example, Y/W centres have been solved.

2) Solve the centres that will be your L block centre, and your B centre. So in the example. Orange for L and Green for B. To keep track of centre position, hold white (will be your bottom layer for 3x3) on the right, solve green, perform an x', solve the orange centre, and perform another x' for the next stage.

3) Do exactly as you would for a hoya cross, except build your first block (either by inserting the corners afterwards, or doing 2 edges, making a square, then the 3rd edge and 2nd corner). In the unused pair in the D layer, make any edge pair.

4) finish the centres as you would do on hoya. make sure to keep the block intact.

5) standard Yau/Hoya edge pairing. to avoid breaking the block, perform a 3U/' (correct notation? the top 3 layers clockwise or anticlockwise) instead of rotations to keep the corners of the block intact. after the first 3 pairs, no rotations/3U turns are required.
As an alternative,edge pairing on the M slice could be done, but I am not used to that.

6) solve roux. OLL parity could be used to get a nicer EO case for LSE, although your parity alg has to preserve corner orientation/permutation, which mine doesn't (currently)

So that's it. I think that the method is decent, and should at least compete with standard reduction with practice. Let me know how good you think it is currently, if you see potential in it, and how could it be improved. Also, if the method is decent, I want it named after me ;P

feel free to tell me how it is wrong, ineffective etc. I just think it would be pretty cool.

Thanks!


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 28, 2014)

LeighSC said:


> *Possible new 4x4 method for Roux?*
> 
> a copy paste of a post I made on reddit:
> 
> ...


You could recognise OLL parity before solving CMLL, so that you can easily predict your CMLL case, while not caring about preserving the corners.


----------



## Vesper Sword (Aug 28, 2014)

LeighSC said:


> *Possible new 4x4 method for Roux?*
> 
> a copy paste of a post I made on reddit:
> 
> ...



IMO doing it till step 4 using yau and just replacing cross with first block and a random solved edge pair in place of the last cross edge is faster than this although this could also be pretty fast but I'm pretty slow at it which is why I use the yau approach instead.


----------



## TDM (Aug 28, 2014)

LeighSC said:


> *Possible new 4x4 method for Roux?*


Or, you could solve like Yau, except when you solve the three cross edges you solve the corners too, making a Rouxblock then. You then do centres like normal Yau, and don't do the last cross edge, but instead continue with normal edge pairing (although it helps to put a paired edge in where the last cross edge would usually go).


----------



## LeighSC (Aug 28, 2014)

Vesper Sword said:


> IMO doing it till step 4 using yau and just replacing cross with first block and a random solved edge pair in place of the last cross edge is faster than this although this could also be pretty fast but I'm pretty slow at it which is why I use the yau approach instead.



The yau-roux method is what made me think of this. Hoya would be easier for me as I solve hoya. The hoya approach is basically hoya, but done differently. move count will be increaded by corners, but decreased by roux efficiency, and the random edge not having to be a specific pair.


----------



## LeighSC (Aug 28, 2014)

TDM said:


> Or, you could solve like Yau, except when you solve the three cross edges you solve the corners too, making a Rouxblock then. You then do centres like normal Yau, and don't do the last cross edge, but instead continue with normal edge pairing (although it helps to put a paired edge in where the last cross edge would usually go).



That method is what inspired me. I solve Hoya though, so doing Yau would be hard to pick up again, plus I dislike Yau centres, so a hoya equivalent would be nice.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 4, 2014)

My new 'method' is a combination of yau5 and K4 for big cubes.
1) solve 2 opposite centers
2) build 3 cross edges and match them with the center
3) solve the rest of the centers
4) finish the last cross edge and place it in to complete the cross
5) freeslice the 4 F2L edges
And here is where it differs from yau5.
6) finish all 4 F2L pairs (instead of 2 in yau5)
7) solve LL corners with CLL
8) solve the remaining edges with commutators like in K4.


Is this feasible?


----------



## Hypocrism (Sep 4, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> My new 'method' is a combination of yau5 and K4 for big cubes.
> 1) solve 2 opposite centers
> 2) build 3 cross edges and match them with the center
> 3) solve the rest of the centers
> ...



From my perspective, the centres are inefficient in yao variations for big cubes, and the LL will be either difficult or inefficient. But it's plausible.


----------



## lerenard (Sep 15, 2014)

*Petrus/Roux combo*

So I love Petrus, but I find that while I can complete everything after the. 2x2x3 block very quickly (I actually use 2 look cfop ll) I find the 2x2x3 block difficult to complete quickly, especially because it's hard to find all the pieces. I love how easy it is to find the pieces in Roux, however. Thus, what if you made 2 2x2x1 blocks in BLD and BRD. Then you just place the BD edge piece (extremely easy to find and place) and then you move onto EO like normal Petrus. I don't know if anyone will like this idea, and I haven't even practiced it enough to have it be faster than normal Petrus, but I think it could be very effective. Tell me what you think.


----------



## Chenkar (Sep 15, 2014)

lerenard said:


> ... 2 2x2x1 blocks in BLD and BLR. Then you just place the BD edge piece ...



I take it you mean BLD and BDR.
it seems like a good idea.


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 15, 2014)

lerenard said:


> So I love Petrus, but I find that while I can complete everything after the. 2x2x3 block very quickly (I actually use 2 look cfop ll) I find the 2x2x3 block difficult to complete quickly, especially because it's hard to find all the pieces. I love how easy it is to find the pieces in Roux, however. Thus, what if you made 2 2x2x1 blocks in BLD and BLR. Then you just place the BD edge piece (extremely easy to find and place) and then you move onto EO like normal Petrus. I don't know if anyone will like this idea, and I haven't even practiced it enough to have it be faster than normal Petrus, but I think it could be very effective. Tell me what you think.



that's seems like a good idea to reduce cube rotations and still maintain movecount efficiency. maybe also 1x2x3 to 2x2x3 might be better.


----------



## TDM (Sep 15, 2014)

Suggestion: add some 'frequently suggested methods' to the OP to hopefully stop people posting the same thing again and again?
(stuff like Roux where you do the D layer edges then solve pairs like CFOP, WV+CP -> E(P)LL, WV -> 1lLL, opposite-swap cross, keyhole etc.)


----------



## elrog (Sep 15, 2014)

lerenard said:


> So I love Petrus, but I find that while I can complete everything after the. 2x2x3 block very quickly (I actually use 2 look cfop ll) I find the 2x2x3 block difficult to complete quickly, especially because it's hard to find all the pieces. I love how easy it is to find the pieces in Roux, however. Thus, what if you made 2 2x2x1 blocks in BLD and BLR. Then you just place the BD edge piece (extremely easy to find and place) and then you move onto EO like normal Petrus. I don't know if anyone will like this idea, and I haven't even practiced it enough to have it be faster than normal Petrus, but I think it could be very effective. Tell me what you think.



This has been thought of many times and I believe it is the most efficient way to build a 2x2x3 block at the start of a solve.

@ TDM: Will do.


----------



## lerenard (Sep 16, 2014)

Chenkar said:


> I take it you mean BLD and BDR.
> it seems like a good idea.



Oh yeah xD thanks for catching that.

@GuRoux: Now that's an idea! I will most definitely be trying that out. And the cube rotation thing was another reason I thought of doing it this way.

@elrog: Well, that gives me two thoughts immediately: 
1) I must be smart/creative for having thought of it on my own then! 
2) If it's been thought of many times, why haven't I ever read anything about it?? Stupid Internet doesn't solve all my problems.


----------



## davidx233 (Sep 18, 2014)

*Possible Equator Method*

I have recently been researching lots of speedcubing methods.(I solve Using Petrus) and I was wondering, is there a way to solve a 3x3 using an equator method(Solving the whole middle layer first)? It. Is easy enough to solve the middle layer, but after that, I don't know what to do. Are there any algorithms or does anyone have any ideas? By the way, this is just for fun and not to speed myself up.


----------



## EMI (Sep 18, 2014)

The Belt method  http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 18, 2014)

So first there is already a thread for ideas like this, it's called The New Method/Substep/Concept Thread.

and an excerpt from the OP in this thread:



> *Do Your Research*
> 
> There are a lot of different methods out there. Please try to make sure your idea is new/original before posting. You should check out the methods pages on the wiki.
> 
> ...



I know it sounds good at first, but believe it or not, tons have people have "invented" this method before, including myself. Luckily I found out about this before I posted anything about it.


----------



## Randomno (Sep 18, 2014)

You can probably use a lot of E moves by doing z or z' in the middle of Roux.


----------



## davidx233 (Sep 18, 2014)

I have a possible idea. You solve a 2x2x3 block on the bottom of the cube. Then solve the other two first layer corners. From this point I only have an idea of what to do. You have to place the four corners on the top lavers. They don't have to be correctly oriented though. Then you would just solve the edges. I don't know the algorithms for this because I am a Petrus solver. Does anyone know how you could solve the cube from here.


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 19, 2014)

I guess you could do "L7E" to solve the edges. Sounds a lot like pikas**t to me.

(pikas**t is actually a method, look it up on the wiki, it's interesting)


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 15, 2014)

*New possible method?*

Hi. Im new to the forum, but i have sort of found an issue/method I use. I use to speedsolve (currently averaging around 20-25s) a method i havent seen a tutorial for. What I do is I solve the F2B like with Roux, And then do CMLL (I use 2 look) and then fix bad edges, but then finish the F2L, and it always brings me to an easy PLL. Those PLL's are all the edge cycle ones. Very rarely do I have a Z or H perm. If this is in the wrong place for this, please place in the right spot. Thank you


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 15, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Hi. Im new to the forum, but i have sort of found an issue/method I use. I use to speedsolve (currently averaging around 20-25s) a method i havent seen a tutorial for. What I do is I solve the F2B like with Roux, And then do CMLL (I use 2 look) and then fix bad edges, but then finish the F2L, and it always brings me to an easy PLL. Those PLL's are all the edge cycle ones. Very rarely do I have a Z or H perm. If this is in the wrong place for this, please place in the right spot. Thank you



you save about 10 moves doing it the roux way than what you propose.


----------



## Dane man (Oct 22, 2014)

Okay, I was messing with the cube and I discovered something rather interesting and cool at the same time. Part of this method is best understood when attempted.

1 - Cross
2 - Solve two *opposite* F2L pairs (opposite corners).
3 - Solve the remaining edges (This is done intuitively and can be done really fast with practice. This leaves 6 corners undone).
...
After that is a slew of algorithms that permute and orient the remaining 6 corners, but I found it interesting how easily and quickly the 6 edges could be solved intuitively with that space arrangement. 

I also have a slightly modified version that leads into what we already know.

1 - Cross
2 - Solve two *opposite* F2L pairs (opposite corners).
3 - Orient the remaining edges to <L,U,R> (Done quickly and intuitively).
4 - Solve the remaining F2L pairs, staying within <L,U,R>.
...
You now have a LL with all the edges oriented. A 2LLL from that should be simple, and 1LLL is just ZBLL.

Now I don't propose these as speed methods, but I think there is a lot of potential if they are explored. With the two opposite F2L slots open, you have an unusual freedom of movement that you don't get with two open slots right next to each other. To see what I mean you have to actually try it. I don't know exactly how much potential it has. Maybe it sucks, maybe it's awesome. I dunno. The recognition becomes a little tricky, because you can't just look at it from one angle to find the pieces you're looking for (thought there is a method for overcoming that). But it does have an odd advantage (or simply a difference) in how it can be used for edge orientation and permutation.

Granted it's not very <L,U,R> friendly, but that step can be used to make the rest of the solve <L,U,R> friendly.

So really, I just propose that we try to explore the possibilities of what can come after the following first two steps:

1 - Cross
2 - Solve two opposite-corner F2L pairs
...

If it needs a name, why not it's shape? 

Bow-Tie.


----------



## Chenkar (Oct 26, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Okay, I was messing with the cube and I discovered something rather interesting and cool at the same time. Part of this method is best understood when attempted.
> 
> 1 - Cross
> 2 - Solve two *opposite* F2L pairs (opposite corners).
> ...


This is a very interesting idea. I don't know if it's been proposed before cause of my newness here, but I kinda like it. Have you got the algs for the last step(s) you mentioned? I'll also try to come up with another idea after the 2 f2l slots.


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

*New possible method?*

Hi ive been posting a lot of threads like this one about new methods. I have created sort of a hybrid, possibly. It is EO, EP (edge permutation) and then f2l, then CMLL, then PLL. I solve a cross on every face tbh, then i solve my F2L, and then do CMLL, and finish with PLL. Thoughts?
edit: I just timed myself, Worst time 1:00.05. Best time 30.01


----------



## ChickenWrap (Oct 28, 2014)

Sure, the method works. It is just extremely inefficient. I got a 19.55 AO12 with it, btw.


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

All right thats good to know is there already a method like it, or no?


----------



## obelisk477 (Oct 28, 2014)

It sounds incredibly inefficient after solving edges. Seems like you'd almost be better off doing edges, and then only using commutators afterwards. Also, please post anymore threads like this here. It's a dedicated place for people with ideas for methods


----------



## TDM (Oct 28, 2014)

ChickenWrap said:


> Sure, the method works.


Does it? I just did a 'solve' following the steps listed and finished with some edges not oriented...


----------



## obelisk477 (Oct 28, 2014)

TDM said:


> Does it? I just did a 'solve' following the steps listed and finished with some edges not oriented...



I thought CMLL preserved EO but not EP? But I don't know Roux so correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## gj matt (Oct 28, 2014)

The method has some redundant parts, for instance solving all the edges followed by CMLL.



obelisk477 said:


> I thought CMLL preserved EO but not EP? But I don't know Roux so correct me if I'm wrong.



CMLL disregards any properties of the M layer.


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

Yes sorry about that I meant COLL or CxLL whatever one is for 3x3. I have been trying to learn Roux, so i said CMLL but meant COLL


----------



## Randomno (Oct 28, 2014)

I don't get it. Any more explanation?



2180161 said:


> Yes sorry about that I meant COLL or CxLL whatever one is for 3x3. I have been trying to learn Roux, so i said CMLL but meant COLL



CLL doesn't preserve edges, COLL does. CxLL is the name for all corner-solving methods.


----------



## goodatthis (Oct 28, 2014)

I think the CxLL method he is referring to is either COLL or OCLL, but if you're supposed to have all the edges permuted, the best option would be L4C. 

My guide to CxLL, since there's some confusion here


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

I will go step by step.
Step 1.solve a cross on every single face.
Step 2. Solve your f2l, while preserving your edge orientation.
step 3. COLL or solve OLL
step 4. PLL


----------



## goodatthis (Oct 28, 2014)

2180161 said:


> I will go step by step.
> Step 1.solve a cross on every single face.
> Step 2. Solve your f2l, while preserving your edge orientation.
> step 3. COLL or solve OLL
> step 4. PLL


during F2L, unless you use actual algs for it, you will disturb EP for the LL edges, so its a little redundant to solve EP for the LL edges to begin with. I would say that a better way to do it is to do EO, then just solve the E layer edges and the cross edges. And then for the LL, it would just be a ZZ style LL, so you could do COLL, OCLL, etc. But if you're just going to do regular PLL and you don't care about CP, then OCLL would be used, not COLL.


----------



## Randomno (Oct 28, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Step 2. Solve your f2l, while preserving your edge orientation.



How do you do this?


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

Im still nooby when it comes to cubing, but I have made i video oon how to solve it hopefully clearing things up, however i cannot find out how to insert it



Randomno said:


> How do you do this?



Use RUR'U' triggers.


----------



## Randomno (Oct 28, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Im still nooby when it comes to cubing, but I have made i video oon how to solve it hopefully clearing things up, however i cannot find out how to insert it



{video} and {/video}, obviously with square brackets though.


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 28, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Use RUR'U' triggers.



that's still going to mess up the edge permutation of the top layer edges.


----------



## TDM (Oct 28, 2014)

Randomno said:


> {video} and {/video}, obviously with square brackets though.


[noparse][VIDEO]video.url[/VIDEO][/noparse]


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

Im uploading my video to youtube now so in a few minutes you will have the video better explaining the method

NOTE: I AM A 14 YEAR OLD WHO HASNT HIT PUBERTY PARDON MY VOICE


----------



## kcl (Oct 28, 2014)

Seems like ZZ but a far less efficient. You solve a bunch of pieces only to break them up again in f2l.


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

Yes you break them up, but they fix them selves when you finish the F2L also ZZ you solve EO then F2L, then OLL then PLL at least how i do it


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 28, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Yes you break them up, but they fix them selves when you finish the F2L also ZZ you solve EO then F2L, then OLL then PLL at least how i do it



it doesn't fix the edge permutation of the u layer when you finish f2l.


----------



## ChickenWrap (Oct 28, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> it doesn't fix the edge permutation of the u layer when you finish f2l.



When I tried the method, I just did PLL at the end. If the method was how he advertised it, you would only have and E or A perm, I think....


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

I done did screwed up explaining in the video this was after i saw a post about how permuting the LL edges during the Cross on every face is useless. intead, Solve a cross on the bottom, solve the E layer, orient LL edges do triggers to solve F2L, then do OLL and then PLL


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 28, 2014)

2180161 said:


> I will go step by step.
> Step 1.solve a cross on every single face.
> Step 2. Solve your f2l, while preserving your edge orientation.
> step 3. COLL or solve OLL
> step 4. PLL



If you replace the first step with EOLine (the most reasonable choice here), you end up with ZZ-TOP.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 28, 2014)

This is just a bad edges-first method. If you're going to do all the edges, why would you do algs that mess them up again? What's the point?


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 28, 2014)

So I guess im kinda lost here. Is this a new method, or is there already one that is EXACTLY like this one?


----------



## obelisk477 (Oct 29, 2014)

Neither. I guess you could call it a new method, but its not new in that somebody before you has thought of it, realized it was a bad idea because of how inefficient it is, and then never posted it on the forums. Sorry to disappoint. As a general rule of thumb, if you think you've thought of a new method, you probably haven't and if you have its probably bad enough to not be worth mentioning. I had an idea for CFOP which basically ended up being an intermediate step for turning it into Roux, and someone had thought of it before.

In short, if you know you're a noob, go practice until you're at least sub-20 if not sub-15, and then you'll have a much better idea of what methods have been come up with, and whether or not yours is a new idea.


----------



## maps600 (Oct 29, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> I thought CMLL preserved EO but not EP? But I don't know Roux so correct me if I'm wrong.



No, it doesn't preserve EO, it only preserves the first two blocks.


----------



## maps600 (Oct 29, 2014)

ChickenWrap said:


> When I tried the method, I just did PLL at the end. If the method was how he advertised it, you would only have and E or A perm, I think....



Well an H perm as well because X perm corners


----------



## Dane man (Oct 29, 2014)

This is interesting. But it has a few set backs as a method.

The way I would put it, this method is a bunch of smaller methods chopped up and put together. I don't think anyone does it that way specifically because it is extremely inefficient, requires a ton of moves, and has redundant solving (especially the U layer). In fact, doing a cross, then the E layer, then the four corners on the bottom, takes a step back after having solved the E-Layer by undoing it and redoing it over and over in the process of solving the corners and this takes many moves to accomplish. Having the U layer edges solved is completely useless as they are removed from their places and need to be resolved afterwards.

So as for your questions: 
Is it a new method? Yes. 
Is there anything exactly like it? No.

But the bigger question is: 
Is it worth it?...

Perhaps for fun, or to play with, but for speedcubing or FMC? No.

But I like that you're looking for new ways to do things. This helps a lot, and you'll never know when you might actually be onto something. 

If you ever want to know if a method already exists, check out the methods and substeps that are on the wiki, and also check out this cube method and states map.


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 30, 2014)

Hello. I think I have found, yet again a new method. I haven't seen this one on the method map that Dane Man had linked to.
Step one:Solve all of your F2L corner-edge pairs
Step 2: CMLL
Step 3:Solve your cross on the bottom, thus solving your F2L and maybe your OLL 
Step 4:OLL, if you had an OLL skip go to step 5. There are only 3 OLL's you need to know. The corners oriented, and no edges oriented
step 5LL edit: you will have an easy cycle of edges, seeing as the OLL's that come up keep the permutation of the corners


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 30, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Hello. I think I have found, yet again a new method. I haven't seen this one on the method map that Dane Man had linked to.
> Step one:Solve all of your F2L corner-edge pairs
> Step 2: CMLL
> Step 3:Solve your cross on the bottom, thus solving your F2L and maybe your OLL
> ...



I think this is just an inefficient way of doing PCMS...


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 30, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I think this is just an inefficient way of doing PCMS...



PCMS?


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 30, 2014)

2180161 said:


> PCMS?



https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PCMS


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 30, 2014)

Its not PCMS its a variant I guess. You solve columns, yes, but then you use M, M' and U and U' moves to solve your cross. this then leaves you with an easy OLL and a 1/4 chance of an OLL skip (I think). PCMS is columns, then coll, then Last 5 Edges. This is similar, but not the same.


----------



## TDM (Oct 30, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Its not PCMS its a variant I guess. You solve columns, yes, but then you use M, M' and U and U' moves to solve your cross. this then leaves you with an easy OLL and a 1/4 chance of an OLL skip (I think). PCMS is columns, then coll, then Last 5 Edges. This is similar, but not the same.


You can't just solve the cross with M/U moves, and PCMS does not end with L5E.
He wasn't saying this _is_ PCMS, he was saying that it's just a less efficient version of it.


----------



## Logiqx (Oct 30, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Its not PCMS its a variant I guess. You solve columns, yes, but then you use M, M' and U and U' moves to solve your cross. this then leaves you with an easy OLL and a 1/4 chance of an OLL skip (I think). PCMS is columns, then coll, then Last 5 Edges. This is similar, but not the same.



Nope, 1/8 chance.

I suspect every cuber who mixes and matches methods will have considered this approach at some time. It can be considered an intermediate level columns first method but it can't be considered innovative. Similar methods are listed on the Wiki:

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Columns_first


----------



## Bubtore (Oct 30, 2014)

*LPCO / CmLL / Keyhole EO*

Hello everybody,
I want to share with you a, not completely, new method (since a french guy, Titiaucube, came up with it around May, and psi already put parts of it in the rubik's cube methods and states map).

So what is it about ?

At first you have to build an F2L minus the front cross edge and one edge-corner pair next to it (he proposed to do 3/4 cross, and then 3 of the F2L pairs, but you could also do with Roux leaving one pair and inserting the BD egde, or, what i personally prefer is a 2x2x3 block extended by a pair).

When you have that you will insert the last pair while orienting corners (LPCO, basically it's WV but you don't care about the last 5 egdes).



Spoiler






The pictures are taken from Cubewhiz.



Therefore you have an F2L-1E, so you want to orient all of those 5 edges as well as finishing the F2L : that's keyhole EO



Spoiler









Finally you only have a PLL left.

Obviously you can do different variations of the method :
I tought about doing the 2x2x3, followed by F2L-1E (which shouldn't take any cuberotations since you're allowed to do the r move forth and back).
And afterwards do what would coincide with CMLL but has that DB edge which shouldn't be moved :



Spoiler






I took the model of Kungfoomanchu's 2x2x2 CLL here.



Like this you can finish the cube with M and U moves since you only get EPLL cases
(all keyhole EOs can be done using that, I've just shortened some of them with optimal algs).

I hope everything is clear in my message and you find it a cool way to solve the cube. 
Happy Cubing,
Reto


----------



## Hssandwich (Oct 30, 2014)

My brother and I have had an idea for a skewb method. 
The method goes:
1: solve a side with mismatched corners
2: solve the top centre along with the corners like sarahs intermediate
3: solve the rest of the cube using an algorithm. There are three cases.

The method would pair up with Sarah's intermediate or advanced. Similarly to ortega and LBL/ CLL.
There are three cases, one of which we have an alg for (Not the best alg) and if anyone could generate some, we would be very grateful. 
The three cases look like a swap of 2 centers (the one we have an alg for), a z perm and a skip.
We don't really have a name for it yet, any suggestions?
hssandwich

Edit : there are actually 4 cases. One which looks like a 2 swap but different. Uh oh.


----------



## TDM (Oct 30, 2014)

Hssandwich said:


> My brother and I have had an idea for a skewb method.
> The method goes:
> 1: solve a side with mismatched corners
> 2: solve the top centre along with the corners like sarahs intermediate
> ...


Interesting idea - I don't know about being fast with Skewb, but maybe this could be used as an alternative for when you can't find a good layer, rather than using it as a completely different method.
(also the 'skip' isn't really a skip  It's more like an H perm)


----------



## Hssandwich (Oct 30, 2014)

Yeah, but if you do an h perm, you have the same case pretty much.


----------



## giorgi (Oct 30, 2014)

Sorry if this was said before but I have slightly changed my CFOP wth solving 2x2 block first then expanding to x-cross doing remaining 3 f2l pairs and then Last layer. Sometimes it is good for some cases and if you are new to CFOP which I am not it could be good to just try out. If you are single cross solver you have 4 choices for doing 2x2 block If you are 2 colour cross solver you have 8 choices to start 2x2 block and if you are colour neutral you have 24 choices to start 2x2 block which makes it more better than just doing cross if you can not see first f2l pair but again you do not need to use this in every CFOP solve if the case is not good


----------



## supercavitation (Oct 30, 2014)

Hssandwich said:


> My brother and I have had an idea for a skewb method.
> The method goes:
> 1: solve a side with mismatched corners
> 2: solve the top centre along with the corners like sarahs intermediate
> ...



Isn't that just Kir-meep with the top center being solved during CLL/EG instead of during L5C?


----------



## Bubtore (Oct 30, 2014)

I'm not sure if you mean :
1. - Solve one side.
- Solve the opposite side and all the corners.
- L3C / L4C
2. - Solve one side.
- Solve the opposite side.
- Do the rest in 1 algorithm.

I solve the skewb with sara's intermediate and the 1. just above,
so if it's that what you're talking about I can give the algs I use (I've posted them on the german forum a while ago),
if it's the 2 I can't help a lot since I only know 2 (inefficient) 11 moves long algorithms.


----------



## Hssandwich (Oct 30, 2014)

supercavitation said:


> Isn't that just Kir-meep with the top center being solved during CLL/EG instead of during L5C?



Its quite similar, but with Kir-Meep don't you solve the CLL/EG before L4/5/3C, with this, you Permute the corners as you do the L4C.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 2, 2014)

Is this a new method? it is for 2x2. 
1. solve a face using opposite colors, Like a face that is 3/4 red and 1/4 orange, or 1/2 orange 1/2 red, etc.
2. using about 3 algs, solve both your faces
3.PBL


----------



## Tao Yu (Nov 2, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Is this a new method? it is for 2x2.
> 1. solve a face using opposite colors, Like a face that is 3/4 red and 1/4 orange, or 1/2 orange 1/2 red, etc.
> 2. using about 3 algs, solve both your faces
> 3.PBL



I'm assuming that you mean to include an OLL step, otherwise you're going to need a lot more than 3 algs for step 2

I use this sometimes. It's like a slower version of Guimond, but sometimes you will find cases where it's faster. Not really new, but useful sometimes. And of course, methods like EG, CLL and TCLL are far superior to Guimond and this method.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 2, 2014)

Tao Yu said:


> I'm assuming that you mean to include an OLL step, otherwise you're going to need a lot more than 3 algs for step 2
> 
> I use this sometimes. It's like a slower version of Guimond, but sometimes you will find cases where it's faster. Not really new, but useful sometimes.


yeah here's a revision
1. Solve a face using opposite colors
2. Oll
3. Solve both faces using bout 3 algs
4.PBL


----------



## TDM (Nov 2, 2014)

2180161 said:


> yeah here's a revision
> 1. Solve a face using opposite colors
> 2. Oll
> 3. Solve both faces using bout 3 algs
> 4.PBL


Yes, as Tao Yu said, this is very similar to Guimond, and isn't new.


----------



## Mnstrmatt1 (Nov 3, 2014)

*4x4 Solving Idea*

Let me start this off by saying I really do not like Reduction to a 3x3. That is what started this thought. I decided to think of a newer, maybe even faster way to solve even layered puzzles. So here came the simple thought of "Why reduce to a 3x3?" The fastest way I could think of was to reduce to a 2x2. So I thought about it further and realized it could be reduced to a cuboid all the same. However I like the 2x2 idea the most. I am having difficulties finding a quick way to reduce to a 2x2. Any suggestions? Thanks for the help.


----------



## gj matt (Nov 3, 2014)

Mnstrmatt1 said:


> I am having difficulties finding a quick way to reduce to a 2x2.



this has been though of before, and this is the reason it isn't the most popular 4x4 method


----------



## Mnstrmatt1 (Nov 4, 2014)

I can reduce the first 6 in 45 secs, but it takes ages for the last two. Do you know of a website or tutorial for this?


----------



## Randomno (Nov 5, 2014)

Got two new methods I thought of. Please tell me how similar they are to existing ones (obviously A has similarities to Roux).

Method A.
1. Build 4 F2L pairs around a center.
2. Pretty much CMLL but you can move the S layer too.
3. L8E or solve first layer edges then ELL.

Method B.
1. Will write about it later, pretty much a beginner's method using almost nothing but R U R' U'. And it's not the Sexy Method.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 5, 2014)

Randomno said:


> Method A.



That is PCMS


----------



## Randomno (Nov 5, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> That is PCMS



I guess it's essentially the same.


----------



## gj matt (Nov 8, 2014)

I think that is more complicated than roux, yet less efficient.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 13, 2014)

2-Look/3-Look OLLCP?
Solve your OLL's corners, and then permute them (Coll, or 2-look) the use the corneres oriented OLL's to bring to an EPLL
Example: on Bob Burton's cubewhiz.com/oll.php oll #3.
Do U R U R' U R U2 R' U2 Now permute your corners.
then use the alg:M' U M U2 M' U M U M'U M U2 M' U M
this then goes to an EPLL case


----------



## Logiqx (Nov 13, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Solve your OLL's corners, and then permute them (Coll, or 2-look) the use the corneres oriented OLL's to bring to an EPLL



https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CFCE


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 13, 2014)

I've had a thought, for last slot, use WV/SV algs to force a particular OCLL case, and finish with ZBLL of that OCLL. This has the advantage where you can use the same alg for multiple cases.


----------



## Chenkar (Nov 13, 2014)

A few months ago, TDM and I had a whole pm conversation where we came up with a few different recognition methods for CPLS like steps. Should I make a new thread to post our findings, or post it all here. Keeping in mind that there will need to be a detailed explanation for each.


----------



## TDM (Nov 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I've had a thought, for last slot, use WV/SV algs to force a particular OCLL case, and finish with ZBLL of that OCLL. This has the advantage where you can use the same alg for multiple cases.


ZZ-blah?

Also Chenkar, I think I still have the bit of paper lying on my floor with one of those methods on


----------



## Chenkar (Nov 13, 2014)

TDM said:


> ZZ-blah?
> 
> Also Chenkar, I think I still have the bit of paper lying on my floor with one of those methods on


Haha which one?


----------



## Randomno (Nov 13, 2014)

Anybody got any idea how many algs multislot + WV would be?


----------



## TDM (Nov 13, 2014)

Chenkar said:


> Haha which one?


Whichever one I said I preferred; I think it's the one where you put the DFR corner in UBL then do recog by looking where the UFR corner is.




Randomno said:


> Anybody got any idea how many algs multislot + WV would be?


What do you mean by this?


----------



## Chenkar (Nov 13, 2014)

TDM said:


> Whichever one I said I preferred; I think it's the one where you put the DFR corner in UBL then do recog by looking where the UFR corner is.
> 
> 
> What do you mean by this?


Oh yeah that one... well I'm gunna start a new thread with it all sometime between today and tomorrow


----------



## Randomno (Nov 13, 2014)

TDM said:


> What do you mean by this?



Multislotting the last two pairs, and meanwhile doing CO.


----------



## TDM (Nov 13, 2014)

Randomno said:


> Multislotting the last two pairs, and meanwhile doing CO.


What do you mean, 'multislotting'? Isn't multislotting when you affect the next pair by inserting your current pair slightly differently (e.g. R U' R', U R U2 R', U' R' F R F'), so the number of algs would be the same as normal WV?


----------



## Randomno (Nov 13, 2014)

TDM said:


> What do you mean, 'multislotting'? Isn't multislotting when you affect the next pair by inserting your current pair slightly differently (e.g. R U' R', U R U2 R', U' R' F R F'), so the number of algs would be the same as normal WV?



Hm I thought multslotting was something else.


----------



## Namoon (Nov 14, 2014)

I got an idea: BCBCM1TOTPM2 ( bottom cross. bottom corners. middle p.1. top orient. top permute. middle p. 2.) or BTM (bottom top middle) for short. you basically solve the cross then you solve f2l be getting a corner and matching it up with a random non-yellow edge. so all the non yellow edges are in the middle layer.the solve the top layer, but there are more ll cases because the edges of the middle layer don't matter, also the algs will be quicker because the middle layer doesn't matter. after you solve the top layer you solve the middle layer in one alg.


----------



## TDM (Nov 14, 2014)

Namoon said:


> I got an idea: BCBCM1TOTPM2 ( bottom cross. bottom corners. middle p.1. top orient. top permute. middle p. 2.) or BTM (bottom top middle) for short. you basically solve the cross then you solve f2l be getting a corner and matching it up with a random non-yellow edge. so all the non yellow edges are in the middle layer.the solve the top layer, but there are more ll cases because the edges of the middle layer don't matter, also the algs will be quicker because the middle layer doesn't matter. after you solve the top layer you solve the middle layer in one alg.


Why add in an extra step? Surely that would be slower than normal CFOP...


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 14, 2014)

TDM said:


> ZZ-blah?



Kind of, but this 'method' can be used to always get your favorite OCLL, whereas ZZ-blah always results in Pi or H.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 17, 2014)

I believe I have come up with a method that is very similar to Roux, but isnt.
Step 1-F2B (First Two Blocks)
Step 2-CMLL
Step 3-Fix bad edges
Step 4-AMS (Adjust Middle Slice)
Step 5- Finish F2L using M and U moves only
Step 6- EPLL
Let me know what you think!

Here is an example: (note I am using an example from the Roux Example Solve game thread and it is not my own first few steps)
U' F L2 U' R' F' B' U F L2 F2 R' B2 L B2 U2 D2 R F2 R'

y' 
u R' U' M F' Best first block I ever saw/made (5)
M2 U r U B' R2 B M U2 r U r' Second Block (12)
(Don't know this CMLL case) U' FRUR'U'F' T perm (21)
M' U2 M' U2 M U' M' U M' U2 M' U' M2 U' M U R U R' U' M' U R U r' 
U M' U2 M U2 M U2 y R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'


----------



## GuRoux (Nov 17, 2014)

2180161 said:


> I believe I have come up with a method that is very similar to Roux, but isnt.
> Step 1-F2B (First Two Blocks)
> Step 2-CMLL
> Step 3-Fix bad edges
> ...



i'm guessing this has been thought up and dismissed countless times by many different cubers. it's LSE is just too inefficient. a better version would just be F2B, CMLL, F2L, ELL, but even that has a lnger LSE and a needed reconition. Roux LSE is already pretty much as optimized as it gets.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 17, 2014)

It has the same LSE cases as Roux, just the bad edges ones. Then you will ALWAYS have at MAX 8 moves to finish your F2L, and then, bring you to EPLL. Look at the example to see more clearly
I will post a vid in a moment on how to solve it how I mean to solve it



Spoiler: Example


----------



## ttran9235 (Nov 17, 2014)

Not sure if this idea is taken before but:
1. 2x2x2 block
2. Expand to 2x2x3 
3. Then expand to F2L minus 1CE
4. Orient the remaining edges 
5. Solve the F2L and the last layer edges (2-gen)
6. Solve the last the remaining corners using L4C

Minimum amount of moves can be 25 with L4C skip and at least maximum of 55 moves (bad L4C case or block)

2x2x2-8 moves (8)
2x2x3-5 moves (13)
F2L- 1CE-6 moves (19)
Orient edges-3 to 6 moves (22 to 25)
F2L and LL edges- 7 moves (29 to 32)
L4C-12 moves (41 to 44)


Total of 84 algorithms


----------



## TDM (Nov 17, 2014)

ttran9235 said:


> Not sure if this idea is taken before but:
> 1. 2x2x2 block
> 2. Expand to 2x2x3
> 3. Then expand to F2L minus 1CE
> ...


This is very similar to Petrus.


----------



## ttran9235 (Nov 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> This is very similar to Petrus.



It is supposed to be some kind of variant


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 17, 2014)

2180161 said:


> It has the same LSE cases as Roux, just the bad edges ones. Then you will ALWAYS have at MAX 8 moves to finish your F2L, and then, bring you to EPLL. Look at the example to see more clearly
> I will post a vid in a moment on how to solve it how I mean to solve it



This is exactly what he was referring to, a variant that has been thought up and dismissed by many different cubers. As Guroux already said, a more efficient variant would be to skip the EO step, solve F2L, and then do ELL, but even that's simply not nearly as efficient as Roux with standard LSE.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 17, 2014)

2180161 said:


> It has the same LSE cases as Roux, just the bad edges ones. Then you will ALWAYS have at MAX 8 moves to finish your F2L, and then, bring you to EPLL. Look at the example to see more clearly
> I will post a vid in a moment on how to solve it how I mean to solve it



Lower movecount and better fingertricks for Sandwich(is this the right term?) instead of EPLL.


----------



## AlexTheEmperor (Nov 17, 2014)

I have discovered in the last 5 minutes a technique that I originally used for OH but can be advantageously applied to 2H. It is designed for my main method of CFOP but there might well be applications to block building in other methods. 

When I was OHing, I found it annoying how I could not insert pairs into certain slots easily without doing y. I overcame this by transferring my Cross on B to a COL and reverting after the insertion. In 2H, it could be used for certain inserts into BL and BR which would require a y, the core of this method being that you do a z to put make the insert or even to pair the CE if you can spot bad EO. 

Why not do normal F2L, you may think but my response is that a z rotation is far quicker to do than a y and the z (insert) z' clause that would be used can be executed in the same wrist position and without regripping.

Why does y instead of x mean a faster F2L, it is because ys, is the generally accepted slowest rotation to do since it requires a total regrip of the RH; whereas z can be executed with the thumb static around the F center and the index finger can be ready to flick U both before and after z with the LH only requied to let gravity rotate the cube.

This technique can be used to free your F2L of ys, the appropriate adjustments for each slot's insert can be made by doing wide Ls as needed. 

I will put together an example soon, any initial thoughts or feedback?

Some names for this technique could be:

*The Z technique / ZF2L

or

Goodhead F2L / GF2L
*
*GZF2L

F2L-Goodhead handling 
*


----------



## donal56 (Nov 19, 2014)

I dont know if it exists but I modified the cage method (its for big cubes) to work in 3x3. Its not the fastest but I like to solve the cube way different.Starts like this.

1.- Solve all the cornes in the way you want, I solve with ortega
2.-Move the centers to the right position 
3.- Insert the bottom face edges, it can be inseted from the top or with E slices 
4.- Rotate 180 and insert the bottoms edges. First locating the edges, moving to the color's face and in the oposite side do R' D R or L D' L' (according to the case), then insert edge and reverse algorithm.
5.- The midle edges can be oriented doing R2 and E moves intuitively. There are 4 cases, all in pure flips, 2 edges in vertical (almost all the time) , 2 diagonal (sometimes), all 4 (very few times) or solved (rare)

The first two cases can be solved with a ELL and the third doing it twice. As I said before it is just an idea not to speedsolve. [emoji28]


----------



## goodatthis (Nov 19, 2014)

donal56 said:


> I dont know if it exists but I modified the cage method (its for big cubes) to work in 3x3. Its not the fastest but I like to solve the cube way different.Starts like this.
> 
> 1.- Solve all the cornes in the way you want, I solve with ortega
> 2.-Move the centers to the right position
> ...


First, it's not really a modification on the cage method, it's more of just another corners first method. Seems to me it's the most similar to Waterman. Generally the term corners first is just a blanket term for methods that solve the corners first, you could solve the edges anyway you like. Also, one thing I like doing is going on the wiki and browsing on the methods list, it's pretty cool how many methods are out there, and you can learn a lot.


----------



## brian724080 (Nov 27, 2014)

AlexTheEmperor said:


> I have discovered in the last 5 minutes a technique that I originally used for OH but can be advantageously applied to 2H. It is designed for my main method of CFOP but there might well be applications to block building in other methods.
> 
> When I was OHing, I found it annoying how I could not insert pairs into certain slots easily without doing y. I overcame this by transferring my Cross on B to a COL and reverting after the insertion. In 2H, it could be used for certain inserts into BL and BR which would require a y, the core of this method being that you do a z to put make the insert or even to pair the CE if you can spot bad EO.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure about the whole speed with rotations, but I'm pretty sure that x rotations require a complete regrip too. However, I do know that using double layer moves is a pretty standard technique in advanced F2L.


----------



## Randomno (Dec 1, 2014)

If this doesn't exist, I'm calling it CRY for sure (CRosses, Y perm).

1. Make a cross.
2. Put in 3 middle layer edges.
3. Solve last layer cross, making use of the empty slot.
4. Identify where the UBL corner should go.
5. Bring it to DFR. The corner does NOT have to be moved so that it will have correct orientation after best step.
6. Y perm.
7. Repeat for all corners.
8. Find two unoriented diagonals and put them at UBL and DFR.
8a. If there are none, move one diagonally opposite the other. After the Y perms, undo this move.
9. Y perm, then x' z2 (rotate so other corner is in DFR).
10. Y perm. Repeat 3 times.
11. If the two corners are now oriented, repeat step 8. Otherwise, repeat step 9.
12. Solved.

Probably hard to follow, I'll do an image guide later today.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2014)

Wat? So it's like edges first and then doing the corners with a really slow Old Pochmann variant?


----------



## Randomno (Dec 1, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Wat? So it's like edges first and then doing the corners with a really slow Old Pochmann variant?



Yeah, it's a reasonably simple 1 alg method.

EDIT: Just timed myself, 2:45.55. CRY is a good name, it's what you'll do after all those Y perms.


----------



## Chenkar (Dec 1, 2014)

Randomno said:


> If this doesn't exist, I'm calling it CRY for sure (CRosses, Y perm).
> 
> 1. Make a cross.
> 2. Put in 3 middle layer edges.
> ...


Interesting idea. I'm surprised that I was able to follow it. I'll try it out later and think of some ways to make it a fast-ish method

Edit: By LL cross, do you mean orient and permute, or just orient?


----------



## Randomno (Dec 1, 2014)

Chenkar said:


> Interesting idea. I'm surprised that I was able to follow it. I'll try it out later and think of some ways to make it a fast-ish method
> 
> Edit: By LL cross, do you mean orient and permute, or just orient?



Same edge method as 8355 or Sexy.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 1, 2014)

ttran9235 said:


> Not sure if this idea is taken before but:
> 1. 2x2x2 block
> 2. Expand to 2x2x3
> 3. Then expand to F2L minus 1CE
> ...



It's a good method. It's actually almost what I used to do for Heise (but instead of full L4C, I used 2-look commutators to solve).

But you overestimate the movecount. You don't need that many moves for the third step.

The only problem is that L4C algs truly suck.

But to be honest, this is the best legitimate variant proposal that I have ever seen in this thread.


Edit: you can also use https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/LPELL to solve the LL edges while inserting the last pair


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 1, 2014)

I believe I have a keyhole variant:
Cross
F2l-Corner edge pairs do not have to match, but do however have to be in correct orientation so when you do a D, D' or D2 move, it pairs up the corner and edge, then orient LL edges (2-look OLL step), and then you pair up the corner edge pair, remove, correctly place corner edge pair, repeat
OLL
PLL
Pros-F2l pairs dont have to match, making for more options, LL edges oriented
Cons-LOTS of moves.


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 1, 2014)

2180161 said:


> I believe I have a keyhole variant:
> Cross
> F2l-Corner edge pairs do not have to match, but do however have to be in correct orientation so when you do a D, D' or D2 move, it pairs up the corner and edge, then orient LL edges (2-look OLL step), and then you pair up the corner edge pair, remove, correctly place corner edge pair, repeat
> OLL
> ...



That would waste a lot of moves, and moving around the first layer corners without messing up EO is going to waste even more, and will almost certainly require several algorithms. There's absolutely no way this ever turns out worth it.


----------



## lerenard (Dec 3, 2014)

So, I'm not trying to be like the guy in the 19th century who said everything that could be invented already existed, but are there seriously any new "methods" that haven't been found yet? I mean, so many people have looked into so many different things, I feel like we basically already know of everything that is worthwhile by now.

I'm not trying to hate on newness or originality, I just feel like there really aren't very many ways to solve a 3x3 outside of all the different ways everyone has already come up with (or small variations on these).

Also, FreeFOP basically covers anything anyone could think of in the future. ha.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 3, 2014)

lerenard said:


> I'm not trying to hate on newness or originality, I just feel like there really aren't very many ways to solve a 3x3 outside of all the different ways everyone has already come up with (or small variations on these).



i can easily write down BILLIONS of methods that have never been thought of, never will be thought of, and bear no resemblance to FreeFOP

think about it. you can solve any property of any piece on the cube in any order, and still move the cube closer to the solved state. My first step could be orienting the BR edge while placing it in the D layer, my second step could be orienting the corners with respect to L/R while placing UBR in the left layer. are we solving the cube? YES. has this dumb approach been written down yet? NO.

the point of this thread, and speedsolving in general, is to have fun. thinking of new methods is fun. finding new algs for our new methods is fun. practicing our new method until we get a random sub-15 is fun. and looking at all the stupid methods that other people come up with is also fun.


----------



## lerenard (Dec 3, 2014)

So, the purpose of this thread is not necessarily to discover new methods that are better than the ones we have now, but simply to share things we think of and have fun? If that's the case, awesome. I just misunderstood its purpose.

My method I currently use is basically FreeFOP, but there's a lot of different ways people can do that, since it's basically just "build the F2L however you can." My previous method being Petrus, I usually focus on blockbuilding, or an X-cross minus one edge (a.k.a. a 2x2x2 + one edge) and then do it Fridrich style with a free M-slice, limiting rotations, but I'll fill in the final edge piece as a 2x2x1 block if I see it can be done easily. And I almost always orient the edges before I get to the LL, often using VHLS (only like 5 cases) and I know EJF2L as well. Sometimes I'll use full Fridrich if there's an easy cross. I don't use Roux though. I've tried, and it just is way slower than anything else I use (not because of the method itself, I'm sure) but when I do use it after the 2 blocks I orient corners, then fit in one of the D edges and then orient the rest of the edges and place the other D edge using the technique shown below. I then finish with a PLL. I don't do ZZ either, because it's not like you just pick up a cube and say "oh hey I have a really easy EOLine case" unless you have practiced with it a lot, and I'm not willing to put in the work for that xD. Basically, though, I'm just trying to use as many different methods as possible so I never have the problem of "agh where is that one corner I need" and can use whatever I see. I average a 32-move F2L with Petrus. Other ways I solve make up for using more moves by being fingertrick friendly and/or limiting rotations. Here are a few example solves:

Scramble: (White as U, Green as F) F' R2 F' U' R2 U D R U' F B' L2 R' U2 R F2 D2 F' D2 U' R' U' B' L2 F2

Inspection:
Okay, so the first thing I notice is the RY edge is already in place, and we have two edge/corner pairs: RBY and RGW thus, I will build around the red face and my LL will be orange. All I have to do is not use any orange pieces.

L' U (2x2x1 RBY block)
D F' D' (2x2x1 RGW block)
L' F B' U' F2 (connecting all the solved pieces to where they go)
now I inspect the cube and see the RBW pair can be easily matched up
z(? rotate the cube so Orange is U and Green is F. I've never understood cube rotation notation) U2 R' U2 R U' R' U R (RBW pair done Fridrich style)
U2 L' U L U' F R U' R' F' (RGY pair with VHLS because I don't know full OLL.)
28 move F2L 
btw this was a lucky scramble, I almost never get that much to start with AND it's that easy to put in. Usually they're all jumbled in with each other and it's a pain to solve anything without messing up the stuff the scramble gave you. Here's another example:

Scramble: R' F' L' F' B2 D2 F D' L2 U' R B2 L2 U' D2 B' F' R2 U' R' B2 R L2 U' R2

Inspection: I have a WBR pair and two White cross edges in place (one of which is blue). Finally I see the RB edge and figure out how to place it while solving everything else.

R U' B' (RB edge)
U' F2 U' (X-cross -1 / 2x2 + 1) So my color this time is White, and I have to avoid all Yellow pieces.
x2 (Blue is F, yellow is U)
I see the WBO pair that would normally be a pain, but is fairly easy to handle here because almost the whole L face is free.
L U2 L2 U' L
I realize I should have been looking ahead here, but I'm only averaging 30 seconds (maybe that's why?) so the next thing I see is the WGO corner (not the WGR pair, which is easier... So I would look to the B face for its edge.
U' R' U2 R U M U M' (I think that's how you write M notation (M follows L). The pair is now connected) U L U' L'
Now I would look for my last edge piece and resist the temptation to try and fit in the GW edge as part of a block (that never works (quickly) when one of the F2L pairs is already inserted)
R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' U R - RGW pair
U M U' M' U' M U M' last edge and edge orientation.
42-move F2L (STM), but the last two steps were 19 moves (!) and would be executed very fast in fingertrick fashion.

So yeah, not really a new method per se, just how I approach FreeFOP. It works for me, but I need to look for more tricks and get used to it, because I still have consistently better times with Petrus when I happen to use it (the corner I use after the 2x2 happens to be the right one for a 2x2x3). I even set a PB of 20.87 yesterday. Also, if this isn't the right place to put this since it's basically just FreeFOP, sorry. I'm just trying to show how /I/ do it.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 3, 2014)

lerenard said:


> or an X-cross minus one edge (a.k.a. a 2x2x2 + one edge) and then do it Fridrich style with a free M-slice, limiting rotations, but I'll fill in the final edge piece as a 2x2x1 block if I see it can be done easily. And I almost always orient the edges before I get to the LL, often using VHLS (only like 5 cases) and I know EJF2L as well.




One thing that you could do is after the "2x2x2 + one cross edge" is build and insert the next F2L pair (into the open F2L slot that you made) while either:

1) orienting the edges.
2) permuting the corners via ZZ-Porky V2, or some alternative 

the former will leave you with a ZZ-esque finish (my ZZ soft-spot is showing)

and the latter will leave you in some stupidly awkward cube state with messed up edges, but really nicely permuted corners (so you only need to use 2 faces of the cube, and slices to solve) which is mad weird, but would probably be kind of ergonomic and efficient.


You should give these a try!



or another idea for option 2)

you could expand your first step to be "2x2x2 + 1 cross edge + orienting the E-slice edges" 
and then solve the missing F2L pair in your second step while solving the Corner Permutation
third, solve the next two F2L pairs without solving the last cross edge, but inserting the last F2L pair with winter variation so your corners are completely 100% solved relative to each other, but have a ton of screwed edges floating around in between
fourth, solve the remaining 5 edges of the cube with either 1) commutators or 2) EO and EP5 (which is, in my opinion, how the roux method should ACTUALLY finish)


lol That's a horribly complicated method if I ever saw one! but it probably outperforms CFOP movewise, which makes me frown and smile at the same time.


----------



## lerenard (Dec 3, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> One thing that you could do is after the "2x2x2 + one cross edge" is build and insert the next F2L pair (into the open F2L slot that you made) while either:
> 
> 1) orienting the edges.
> 2) permuting the corners via ZZ-Porky V2, or some alternative
> ...



That might be a good idea in general, but not for me. I like my LL the way it is. 28 algs, 2 steps. I also know 2-sided PLL recognition (although my recognition time is not the fastest...). Basically, I have enough invested that I'm not interested in permuting anything until everything's oriented. I have considered WV, although I tried to learn a few algs and they didn't come to me very easily. But yeah, I would be more interested in different ways to build the F2L than how to influence/solve the LL.

The problem I see with filling the F2L slot as soon as you build it is 1: if you're going to solve the pair immediately, why not just build a 2x2x1 block? and 2: The whole point I moved to FreeFOP is that you aren't tied down to a specific system/order. You don't have to look around for that one corner you need if you see 2 pieces right in front of you that can already be matched up. filling in the cross edge is beneficial because I can do it without much/any thought (and I'll only do it if I already see how to do it easily) and it allows me to just make the corresponding F2L pair at any time (whenever I happen to find it). I don't have to worry about making it immediately just because I have one edge that goes with it.


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 4, 2014)

I was wondering if this is a new method:
WCA scramble (white on U green of F):L R' B R' U R2 D' L' U' L' D' U2 B2 L2 R2 F' R' U' R B2 L R2 F U F'
Step 1: L' B'U' F D


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 4, 2014)

sorry for some reason it submitted the method with out me finishing


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 4, 2014)

never mind that doesnt work


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 6, 2014)

OKay I have revised a method, and have now used it, and had to look up the algs, and it does work.
Anyway...
Step 1-Solve a 2x2x3 block as in petrus
Step 2-Fix bad edges
Step 3-Solve your first layer using only R and U moves
Step 4-COLL
Step 5-Do a U perm to permute the edges to correct spot so that your B,L and D faces are all solved
Step 6- Do an edge cycle from blind solving to solve the cube (note: If done correctly, you only need to use an alg once).
Example Solve: 
Scramble:U F2 U L2 B' L' R B2 L U' F B L F' U2 F' L' R' D' F2 B' D R F2 U
2x2x3 block- F' D' B D B D L U' L R U' R' U' L U L2 U2 L d
Bad edges- (I use a 2-look version) R2 U R U R' U' M' U R U' r
Solve first layer- R U R' U' R U' R' U R U' R'
COLL- (once again, 2-look) U' R U R' U R U2 R' U R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L U'
Solve B,D and L-R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 
Solve the cube- R2 U R U R U' R' U' R' U' R'
Moves to solve-89 (I believe)
How is this? Im sure people could lower the movecount, but eh, I'm not there yet


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 6, 2014)

2180161 said:


> OKay I have revised a method, and have now used it, and had to look up the algs, and it does work.
> 
> How is this? Im sure people could lower the movecount, but eh, I'm not there yet



It's good! Another advantage is that you can do step 3 on the OTHER first layer too (at the top left of the cube, instead of the bottom right.). This flexibility is a very good thing! nice idea


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 6, 2014)

Thanks, It came to me last night, and wanted to see if it was possible first. Thanks for the feedback. The example solve works right? I did it again and couldn't but eh. BTW you only need 13 algs for a 2 look version of the last 2 steps(8 OLL, 2 CPLL). For bad edges, you dont need much. So is it worth it to do so, or are there too many moves?


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 6, 2014)

One Moment I need to revise it DO NOT GO OFF THE PREVIOUS ONE ATM


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 6, 2014)

It's a pretty good idea. you can always finish the first two steps in under 20 moves (easy).

And the third step is VERY fast.

I personally know full COLL, so step 4 can be done sub-2 if you know all the algs.

But steps 5 and 6, I wouldn't recommend breaking up the way you do. i would just combine them into one step (solving edges with commutators). because trying to solve three edges that are THAT close together is pretty awkward. (I see that you use 2-gen moves, which helps a bit).

Also, you don't actually have to orient ALL of the edges during step 2 (if you think about it). you only need to orient the F2L edges and the edges on B/D/L. then, at step 6, you will just have a few additional cases to deal with (none of which are difficult to solve with commutators or algs).


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 6, 2014)

Step 1- Solve F2L -1 pair. Rotate so the unsolved slot is in RF
Step 2- Fix bad edges
Step 3- Solve first layer
step 4- COLL
step 5- Ua, Ub, H, or Z perm to solve L and B faces (AFTER using a BLD alg, but only if necessary)
Step 6-Using BLD solve algs, solve the cube. (You should only need to use 2 different algs, 3 for speed)


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 6, 2014)

So how good do you think it could be if it would be for speedsolving?


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 6, 2014)

The reason I break it up into two steps is because it is easier for me. It doesn't has to be as you said, but I do it for me.


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 6, 2014)

You could do this instead:
Step 3: F2L-1Edge
Step 4: COLL
Step 5: PL5E (Permute last 5 edges)


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2014)

Isn't that just Petrus for people who can't figure out EPLL?


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 6, 2014)

You could also try:

Step 3: Finish first layer
Step 4: COLL+1 (#algs ~= #COLL algs * 2)
Step 5: L5E (I haven't calculated the number of algs required for this step nor how decent this step would be)


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 13, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Step 1- Solve F2L -1 pair. Rotate so the unsolved slot is in RF
> Step 2- Fix bad edges
> Step 3- Solve first layer
> step 4- COLL
> ...



bumping my idea, simply because of the lack of replies, and no other bumps on this thread for six days. Trying to keep it alive. Although it probably doesnt need help but... eh


----------



## lerenard (Dec 13, 2014)

2180161 said:


> bumping my idea, simply because of the lack of replies, and no other bumps on this thread for six days. Trying to keep it alive. Although it probably doesnt need help but... eh



I just dont see how this is more effective than something like mgls, petrus, heise, or OLL/PLL. Petrus fixes bad edges earlier when you have more freedom, and leaves you with less unsolved pieces to do intuitively. mgls just uses algs for the last slot, which is faster than intuition (even if it's possibly less cool) and leaves you with just a PLL case. Heise takes advantage of the empty slot to solve all edges and one or two corners, whereas you solve one corner and edge permutation. OLL/PLL is just fast, even if it requires a lot of algs. Basically, I don't see how your method is somehow more effective than any of the others I just listed. They all require fewer looks and are probably just always going to be faster. That being said, if you want to use this method, go ahead. It's not horribly inefficient, I just don't see it offering anything the other methods don't. Sorry.


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 13, 2014)

Isnt there a way to possibly lower movecount however in order to make it more efficient?


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 13, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Isnt there a way to possibly lower movecount however in order to make it more efficient?



Yes there is! 

combine steps 1 and 2 (per petrus/heise)
combine steps 3 and 4 (so ~125 algs to solve 5 corners)
combine steps 5 and 6 (~100 algs to solve 5 edges, can be 100% 2 gen)

This might actually be a good method, if you're willing to learn ~225 algs. 

Basically you solve EOF2L-1, then use 2 algs to solve the cube.

Better than CFOP? yes.

Better than Petrus? no.

Better than Roux? obviously.


----------



## Randomno (Dec 13, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Better than Roux? obviously.



This applies to a lot of stuff.

JK guys, don't hunt me down.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 13, 2014)

Randomno said:


> This applies to a lot of stuff.
> 
> JK guys, don't hunt me down.



was about to reply and then I saw the invisible text in the editor


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 13, 2014)

Randomno said:


> This applies to a lot of stuff.
> 
> JK guys, don't hunt me down.



Yeah lol. What if I posted in this thread:

1) solve the first layer but don't solve 2 adjacent corners and the edge in between.
2) solve the other layer across the cube in the same way. hold the cube so these two layers are on the Bottom Left and Bottom Right. I call this the "anti-equator step" because you are leaving a belt of pieces unsolved in the middle. But don't worry, the more pieces we leave unsolved in the middle of the cube, the better. 
3) solve the corners of the cube with a 3-gen algorithm that will make any decent speedcuber throw up
4) solve the rest of the cube with intuition and the most awkward moveset I can think of [M,U]. This will take a lot of moves. This movecount will also have to be multiplied by 1.5 because I picked a horrible moveset


you'd think it was a silly approach. 

that's because it is.


----------



## Chenkar (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Yeah lol. What if I posted in this thread:
> 
> 1) solve the first layer but don't solve 2 adjacent corners and the edge in between.
> 2) solve the other layer across the cube in the same way. hold the cube so these two layers are on the Bottom Left and Bottom Right. I call this the "anti-equator step" because you are leaving a belt of pieces unsolved in the middle. But don't worry, the more pieces we leave unsolved in the middle of the cube, the better.
> ...


Lol I had to reread it to understand where you were going. But it did make me consider going back to that method.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

holy crap! MrMan had a really good idea. I modified it slightly

1) EOLine,

2) insert 3x [E-slice edges with random D layer corners in random orientations] and 1x [F2L pair] (make sure the last edge+corner you insert is with the speed-heise algs here. The last insertion must be with these algs, but doesn't have to be the true F2L pair), note that the D layer corners must be in an exactly solvable state (in that their orientations and permutations are not affected by any other corners on the cube)

*EDIT: you must also insert the cross edges, per standard ZZF2L procedure. I'm sorry; I thought that was obvious, my b*

3) 2 distinct commutators

step 2 will take some getting used to, particularly in the last 3 F2L inserts

omg that's actually a fantastic method. props to MrMan.

i say we call it ZZ-Belt for the lols


----------



## TDM (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> holy crap! MrMan had a really good idea. I modified it slightly


This does sound like it could be good, but won't recognition be absolutely terrible for step 2?
E: actually, no it won't... you just need to orient the third "random" corner to make a possible case. So actually it wouldn't be that bad at all.
I've been more busy than I expected and haven't remembered to learn speed heise yet. Also, I can't commutator. Have you tried using this method? How fast are you with it?


----------



## Chenkar (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> holy crap! MrMan had a really good idea. I modified it slightly
> 
> 1) EOLine,
> 
> ...


What do the commutators solve? The other d edges and 7 corners? Sorry I'm not understanding it all


----------



## deadmanlsh (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> holy crap! MrMan had a really good idea. I modified it slightly
> 
> 1) EOLine,
> 
> ...



But it isn't COLL you use for the last layer (wait, it's actually not the last layer, it's the top layer), it's L4C, which has more than 80 algorithms and really sucks in both efficiency and speed.

Imagine getting a pure-flip Sune on the bottom. *shivers*


----------



## TDM (Dec 30, 2014)

Chenkar said:


> What do the commutators solve? The other d edges and 7 corners? Sorry I'm not understanding it all


They solve corner 3-cycles on the D face and on the U face. You could also get 2/3 corner twists.


deadmanlsh said:


> But it isn't COLL you use for the last layer (wait, it's actually not the last layer, it's the top layer), it's L4C, which has more than 80 algorithms and really sucks in both efficiency and speed.
> 
> Imagine getting a pure-flip Sune on the bottom. *shivers*


Not COLL, commutators. Also it's three corners, not four, which means a single commutator is usually fine, but you can sometimes get pure twists cases... they aren't too bad though. They can all be done 2-gen, and there are often even faster algs e.g. left sune + right sune.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> This does sound like it could be good, but won't recognition be absolutely terrible for step 2?
> E: actually, no it won't... you just need to orient the third "random" corner to make a possible case. So actually it wouldn't be that bad at all.
> I've been more busy than I expected and haven't remembered to learn speed heise yet. Also, I can't commutator. Have you tried using this method? How fast are you with it?



during step 2, you also have to make sure the isolated D-layer CP is feasible. so you have to pay attention to which corners you're placing after the first one.

so basically, ignoring completely the true F2L pair (which can be successfully inserted at any moment during the F2L), after you insert the first random corner: 

1a) if the first F2L corner is in the correct location, but misoriented, you must also insert the next 2 random F2L corners into the correct spots.

1b) if the first F2L corner is not in its correct location, make sure you don't insert the opposite corner-edge "pair" together into the same slot. (ie don't have a 2-swap of D-layer corners). for example, if u insert the red-green corner with the red-blue edge, dont insert the red-blue corner with the red-green edge

2) the last random F2L corner has to be inserted to make the isolated D-layer CO possible.


this method seems very fast. i havent tried any solves yet, but I will later. i know all the speed-heise algs for DFR oriented down. 

you don't even need to use "commutators". There are only 27 possible cases. 18 are 3-cycles, but most of those are just the standard OCLL alg. 8 are pure CO (sune pairs to solve these cases). and 1 is a skip. Honestly, if you know CFOP, you should have no problem with commutators with corners that are isolated to a single layer.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

Chenkar said:


> What do the commutators solve? The other d edges and 7 corners? Sorry I'm not understanding it all



Yeah, after step 2, you should only have 6 corners left unsolved on the cube (max), which can be exactly solved with 2 unrelated commutators/conjugates.



deadmanlsh said:


> But it isn't COLL you use for the last layer (wait, it's actually not the last layer, it's the top layer), it's L4C, which has more than 80 algorithms and really sucks in both efficiency and speed. Imagine getting a pure-flip Sune on the bottom. *shivers*



COLL typically affects the permutation of the edges. In this method, the second step gaurantees that the edges are already correctly solved, as well as 1 corner in each the U and D layers. We won't use 2x L4C cases, but instead we will use 2x L3C cases.


----------



## Chenkar (Dec 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> They solve corner 3-cycles on the D face and on the U face. You could also get 2/3 corner twists.



Ok... so when do you solve the RD, LD and U edges? I'd try it out now, but I don't have a cube to experiment with atm.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

Chenkar said:


> Ok... so when do you solve the RD, LD and U edges? I'd try it out now, but I don't have a cube to experiment with atm.



ya i'm sorry. that's totally my B. I forgot to write that in the original method description (i thought it was obvious). I updated the original description

The LD and RD edges are solved during the F2L. so you apply the standard ZZF2L blockbuilding strategy to insert these pairs. (or you can just do EOLine, followed by inserting the cross-edges. whatever floats ur boat)

The U layer edges are solved with the speed-heise algs that I linked to in the original method description. So during the last insert, you apply one of those 24 algs. and once you're done, you will magically have everything solved on the entire cube, except for a commutator on the U layer, and a commutator on the D layer.


----------



## Chenkar (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> ya i'm sorry. that's totally my B. I forgot to write that in the original method description (i thought it was obvious). I updated the original description
> 
> The LD and RD edges are solved during the F2L. so you apply the standard ZZF2L blockbuilding strategy to insert these pairs. (or you can just do EOLine, followed by inserting the cross-edges. whatever floats ur boat)
> 
> The U layer edges are solved with the speed-heise algs that I linked to in the original method description. So during the last insert, you apply one of those 24 algs. and once you're done, you will magically have everything solved on the entire cube, except for a commutator on the U layer, and a commutator on the D layer.


Okay makes more sense now. Thanks


----------



## TDM (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> during step 2, you also have to make sure the isolated D-layer CP is feasible. so you have to pay attention to which corners you're placing after the first one.
> so basically, ignoring completely the true F2L pair (which can be successfully inserted at any moment during the F2L), after you insert the first random corner:
> 
> 1a) if the first F2L corner is in the correct location, but misoriented, you must also insert the next 2 random F2L corners into the correct spots.
> ...


So, here's how I would do it then (all of these corner-edge pairs exclude FR, obviously):
1. insert edge+random corner
2. insert edge+specific corner with random orientation
3. insert edge+only remaining corner with specific orientation
So you only need to really focus on CP for 2, and CO for 3. That isn't _too_ bad... for step 2, there's only two D layer corners left that aren't DFR, so that's not hard. Step 3 is the "hard" bit, making sure it's oriented correctly, but with a bit of practise that shouldn't be very hard at all.



> you don't even need to use "commutators". There are only 27 possible cases. 18 are 3-cycles, but most of those are just the standard OCLL alg. 8 are pure CO (sune pairs to solve these cases). and 1 is a skip. Honestly, if you know CFOP, you should have no problem with commutators with corners that are isolated to a single layer.


Yeah, thinking about it now, I think there's only one case I can't 1-look (the T case [x R2: [R U2 R', D2]] and its mirror), but that isn't a very hard one to learn.


Chenkar said:


> Ok... so when do you solve the RD, LD and U edges? I'd try it out now, but I don't have a cube to experiment with atm.


Step 2 is like ZZ F2L, so when mDiPalma was talking about inserting 'pairs', he meant inserting the pairs and DL/DR at the same time as the pairs. The speed heise bit solves U layer edges.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> So you only need to really focus on CP for 2, and CO for 3. That isn't _too_ bad... for step 2, there's only two D layer corners left that aren't DFR, so that's not hard. Step 3 is the "hard" bit, making sure it's oriented correctly, but with a bit of practise that shouldn't be very hard at all.



yeah this is actually a really good ZZ variant. think of all the moves you'll save during F2L. The only expense is a z2/x2 rotation followed by a quick 8 move "alg" at the end of your solve. i actually think this method is better than standard ZZ, which says a lot.

it might be an even better idea, statistically, to assure that the corners you insert during F2L are not permuted correctly. that would ease the recognition a bit.

another great advantage is that you basically only get 3 move inserts, up until the last "pair". And you get 4 chances for an easy ACTUAL F2L pair.

not to mention the endless possibilities for FMC.

this deserves its own thread. i'll write one when I get off work

inb4 sub8 avg5 and WR single by Porkynator.

so do we call it ZZ-Belt, ZZ-Edges First, ZZ-F, ZZ-rulez, ZZ-Z or what??? NEED IDEAS PLS


----------



## TDM (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Spoiler: Long post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you have any idea roughly how many moves this method would take on average?

I would call it ZZ-edges first, or more likely I would call it ZZ-EF.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> The only expense is a z2/x2 rotation followed by a quick 8 move "alg" at the end of your solve.



I don't see why one couldn't predict the D case based on watching the three unsolved corners as you place them, or that in combination with looking at the case while executing the speed-heise insertion, and/or while executing the U-layer comm. If it is feasible to recognise the D case at one of these points, then the x2/z2 rotation isn't needed and we could just look for nice algs that directly solve L3C on D. Most likely some U/D mirrors of L3C on U will be nice for this anyway.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> Do you have any idea roughly how many moves this method would take on average?



because you can do the legit F2L pair whenever you want, the movecount would be consistently pretty low.

EOLine 7 
square 4
pair 3
legit F2L square/pair 5
set up last pair 5
speed heise+aufs 10
commutators 17

looks like around 50 htm for a speedsolve. ill do a closer analysis later



TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> I don't see why one couldn't predict the D case based on watching the three unsolved corners as you place them, or that in combination with looking at the case while executing the speed-heise insertion, and/or while executing the U-layer comm. If it is feasible to recognise the D case at one of these points, then the x2/z2 rotation isn't needed and we could just look for nice algs that directly solve L3C on D. Most likely some U/D mirrors of L3C on U will be nice for this anyway.



true. but frankly i don't think it's worth it to learn 20+ new algs from a new orientation. I think it's good enough to just pre-recognize the L3C case on D, and just hop right into it with the right grips once you finish the L3C on U.


----------



## TDM (Dec 30, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> because you can do the legit F2L pair whenever you want


I don't understand why you can do this; if you do F2L pair + U layer stuff and then do other pairs, surely that would affect the U layer? Unless you can do speedheise for all four slots? Or were you thinking of putting in the actual pair anywhere, and doing speedheise on any random pair in FR?


----------



## MrMan (Dec 30, 2014)

I think we should create the thread for it and add the info in the first post while talking about it, it is not really clear now.
And for me ZZ-EH is nice !


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

TDM said:


> I don't understand why you can do this; if you do F2L pair + U layer stuff and then do other pairs, surely that would affect the U layer? Unless you can do speedheise for all four slots? Or were you thinking of putting in the actual pair anywhere, and doing speedheise on any random pair in FR?



you dont have to do speed-heise on the legit pair. as long as you do speed-heise on the last slot (be it in BL or FL or anywhere, with a random F2L corner in a random orientation that is paired with the correct F2L edge), this solution approach will still work. 

the only requirement of speed-heise is that it be performed on the last slot (it does not matter where that slot is, nor the relevance of the F2L corner involved.

does that make sense?


----------



## MrMan (Dec 30, 2014)

Sorry but, what is speed heise for ? Is it for having the last edges permuted correctly while inserting last slot or for having 1 face corner cases ?


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 30, 2014)

MrMan said:


> Sorry but, what is speed heise for ? Is it for having the last edges permuted correctly while inserting last slot or for having 1 face corner cases ?



both

the 24 (or eventually, 72) speed-heise algs solve the permutation of the LL edges while inserting the last slot, and while solving 1 corner of the LL. 

it leaves you with an L3C case in the U layer.


----------



## MrMan (Dec 30, 2014)

Ok, it seems great. It's so sad that I have to sleep right now I really want to give it a shot...
I will see tomorow I guess.


----------



## TDM (Dec 31, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> you dont have to do speed-heise on the legit pair. as long as you do speed-heise on the last slot (be it in BL or FL or anywhere, with a random F2L corner in a random orientation that is paired with the correct F2L edge), this solution approach will still work.
> 
> the only requirement of speed-heise is that it be performed on the last slot (it does not matter where that slot is, nor the relevance of the F2L corner involved.
> 
> does that make sense?


It makes sense, I just wasn't sure whether you'd learned speed-heise for all four slots.


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 31, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Yes there is!
> 
> combine steps 1 and 2 (per petrus/heise)
> combine steps 3 and 4 (so ~125 algs to solve 5 corners)
> ...



Where would one get the algs for that though?


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 31, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Where would one get the algs for that though?



cube explorer


----------



## Logiqx (Dec 31, 2014)

2180161 said:


> Where would one get the algs for that though?



The optimised approach sounds like MGLS on steroids. Rather than F2L-1, ELS (orient edges), CLS (orient corners), PLL it's more like freestyle F2L with edge control, Super-CLS (solving corners) followed by Super-ELS (solving edges).

It may have benefits over CFOP in terms of move count and finger tricks (e.g. 2-gen algs) but I think case recognition and alg recall would hold most people back.

You could use Cube Explorer to find algs for yourself.


----------



## Randomno (Jan 1, 2015)

1. Cross.

2. 3 corners

3. Using empty slot, make sure no yellow edges are in the middle layer.

4. Solve F2L pair for last slot.

5. Solve LL. You can get both sorts of "parity" in this step.

6. Solve parity and 3 middle layer edges. Middle layer edges can sometime be done intuitively easily.

Not too good, but it works alright. It can work as a decent beginner's method since it uses few algs.

I'm not sure about OLL parity, but PLL parity can be solved with R2 U2 x3.

I can't recognise good and bad edges very well, but if you can, you could line two of them up and do something like R U R' U' M' U R U' r' and the a U perm. Very inefficient ofc though.

Method definitely needs work and some algs. Anyone want to suggest any?


----------



## TDM (Jan 1, 2015)

Randomno said:


> Method definitely needs work and some algs. Anyone want to suggest any?


Why not just use normal keyhole?


----------



## Randomno (Jan 1, 2015)

TDM said:


> Why not just use normal keyhole?



What about the last pair?


----------



## TDM (Jan 1, 2015)

Randomno said:


> What about the last pair?


If this is for a beginner, you could teach them to insert the corner and then use a LBL alg. That's how I first solved a cube.


----------



## Hypocrism (Jan 1, 2015)

Randomno said:


> What about the last pair?



Doesn't your method also involve putting in a pair?


----------



## Randomno (Jan 1, 2015)

Hypocrism said:


> Doesn't your method also involve putting in a pair?



I mean for keyhole.


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 6, 2015)

I think this is where this should go...
Anyway it is where you solve your L and R sides and M layer with Roux, in one algorithm.
Or intuitivly


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 6, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I think this is where this should go...
> Anyway it is where you solve your L and R sides and M layer with Roux, in one algorithm.
> Or intuitivly



i don't understand, how is this different from roux?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 6, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i don't understand, how is this different from roux?



I think the important part is LSE in ONE ALG which means 1 look and high tps. It would be... I think (I suck at probability too) 28 orientations (since corners must be aligned) times 25 ish I think lr edges possibilities times 3 ep cases from 4 angles so 28x25x12....screw that...


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 6, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I think the important part is LSE in ONE ALG which means 1 look and high tps. It would be... I think (I suck at probability too) 28 orientations (since corners must be aligned) times 25 ish I think lr edges possibilities times 3 ep cases from 4 angles so 28x25x12....screw that...



there's way more cases than that

4 [corner permutation]
4 [center permutation]
2^5 [edge orientation]
6! [edge permutation]
1/2 [parity] 

184320 cases


----------



## lerenard (Jan 6, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I think this is where this should go...
> Anyway it is where you solve your L and R sides and M layer with Roux, in one algorithm.
> *Or intuitivly*



Yeah, or that.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 6, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I think this is where this should go...
> Anyway it is where you solve your L and R sides and M layer with Roux, in one algorithm.
> Or intuitivly



oh, i think i get what you mean now. i think most corner's first method do something like this, solving all of the right and left faces then the m layer.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 6, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> there's way more cases than that
> 
> 4 [corner permutation]
> 4 [center permutation]
> ...



I would divide by 16 because cp and centers can be fixed whilw doin cmll... parity wat?


----------



## deadmanlsh (Jan 6, 2015)

A post just to add to the list of redundant last layer methods.
I decided to generate full sets of algorithms simply because I like the U-layer edge 3-cycles a lot. Like a lot.

Without further ado, allow me to present to you another way of doing the last layer.

*Step 0.5: *
COLS. Since EO is unnecessary, I found better algorithms for some cases. Of worthy note is the availability of sledgehammers. In case you don't know what COLS is, it's basically WVLS without necessarily preserving the edge orientation, so I'm calling it COLS here.

*Step 1: *
CP1E. Stands for Corner Permutation and 1 Edge. Exactly as it sounds. There are 3 possible sets of situations, with 8 cases for each.
First, there is the solved set, where the corners are correctly permuted. ELL would solve the cube, but for the sake of consistency, I added algorithms to fit CP1E.

Next, there is the adjacent swap set, where 2 adjacent corners are swapped (if you haven't realised). My method of doing this step would be to place the bar of solved corners at the left, then recognising where the sticker that belongs to UL is. Just look for two identical colours adjacent to each other and the piece with the same colour as those. Recognition should be pretty easy.

Finally, there is the diagonal swap set. Just look for the edge piece with the colour which is identical to the LUF sticker.

*Step 2: *
L3E. This is the step the whole method was created for. Solve the last 3 edges with an algorithm. 6 algorithms to learn. All of them are superb except maybe the adjacent 2-flip. I love using them in solves.

It's a 2.5-look method. L3E is ridiculously fast, so I would say it isn't that much of a loss speed-wise. You only need to look at 3 stickers at most for CP1E, so recognition should be quite fast. It shouldn't be too hard to decide where the edge piece is when it isn't visible by elimination. You can also just track the edge sticker during COLS (It's like 1 piece, even during algorithms it should be quite easy. It's nothing compared to seeing the first 3 pairs during inspection).

A total of 27 + 23 + 6 = 56 algorithms are required. A lot of them are really short or very obviously related to other algorithms, so you won't really have to learn that many algorithms in reality. Also, for those who just want to try out the method for fun (a.k.a. most of you all), just use set-up moves and PLLs for CP1E to indulge in L3E in all its glory. For those who don't know WVLS, use standard OCLL or other such sets that fulfill the purposes of COLS in a less efficient way.

*Algorithms: *
Below are the algorithms. For those with B moves, it's really supposed to be done as though you are doing a rotation, but not quite, so figure out the finger trick yourself if possible.
*I have since edited the post. So don't be surprised if you don't find any B moves.

Some of the algorithms may seem really bad, so if you have any suggestions, please drop a reply.

For some cases, I just put "WVLS", "Y Perm" or other such simplifications. I may edit them in the future (or I may not), but for now just look for resources online (PLLs are literally everywhere) or try to figure it out yourself (it won't take much effort, really).

For COLS, refer to algdb.net for the numbering (since you need them for those cases identical to WVLS anyway).

By variants I mean inverses and mirrors of a particular algorithm.

*COLS: *
1: WVLS
2: WVLS
3: U F' U F R U' R'
4: y Lw' U' L U M
5: U2 F2 L F L' F
6: R' U' F U R U' F'
7: WVLS
8: WVLS
9: WVLS
10: WVLS
11: R' F R2 U R' U' F'
12: WVLS
13: 
U2 F R' F' R U' R U' R'
R' F R2 U' R' F' L' U L
14: 
WVLS
U2 R' F R F' R U2 R'
15: R' F R F'
16: 
U Lw R U' R' U F' Lw'
U2 F R' F' R2 U2 R'
17: WVLS
18: WVLS
19: y U F R U' R' F'
20: 
U2 F' U F U' R U2 R'
U2 R U' Lw U' R' U F' R' x
21: 
U F' U F U R U2 R'
U F' U L' U2 L U F
22: U' F' U' F (U' R U' R')
23: U2 R Dw' R U' R' F'
24: 
(U2 R' F R F')2
R' F R U2 y' R' U' R U' R'
U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 F R F'
25: 
WVLS
U2 F2 L F L2 U' L U F
26: 
WVLS
U' F' U' F U2 R' F R F'
27: WVLS

*CP1E-Solved*
//Solve to UL
UL: U4
LU: ((M' U)3 M')2 U2
UF: R2 U R U (R' U' R' U' R') U R' (U Perm)
UB: R2 U' R' U' (R U R U R) U' R (U Perm)
UR: R U' (R U R U R) U' R' U' R2 (Inverse of UF)
FU: (M U M') U2 (M U M')
BU: (M' U' M) U2 (M' U' M)
RU: (U') (R U R' U') M' (U R U' Rw) (U)

*CP1E-Adj*
//Bar at UL
UL: R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' (U') (J Perm)
LU: 
(U') R' U' R' F' U' F U R2 U2 R' U' R
R' U R U2 R2 U' F' U F R U R (U)
UF: (U2) R2 F2 L F L' F2 R F' R (U')
UB: (U2) Lw R U2 L' U' L U2 R' U Lw' (U)
UR: (R U R' U' R' F R2) U' R' U' R U R' F' (T Perm)
FU: (U') F2 U F L F L2 U L2 F L' F'
BU: F L F' L2 U' L2 F' L' F' U' F2 (U)
RU: (U') Lw U' R U2 L' U L U2 R' Lw' (U2)

*CP1E-Diag*
//With respect to LUF sticker.
UL: L U F' U2 R' U L' U' R U2 Rw U Rw'
LU: 
R' F' U2 F U' R U R2 F R F' U2 R (U')
(U) R' U2 F R' F' R2 U' R' U F' U2 F R
UF: R U' L U' R' U L' U2 F' U F R U' R'
UB: F R U' R' U' R U R' F' (R U R' U' R' F R F') (Y Perm)
UR: (U2) F U' F' U' L2 D' Lw U Lw' D L2
FU: R U R' F' U' F U2 L U' R U L' U R'
BU: R F R' F' R U R' F' U' F R2 U' R2 (U2)
RU: (U) R U' R2 F R F' R U' y R U2 R' F'

*L3E:*
U Perms
(R U R' U') M' (U R U' Rw') and its variants. It's just sexy M' inverse sexy M with a combined move. Non-optimal, but fast.
(M' U' M) U2 (M' U' M) and its variants. the 7-mover.
Pure Flips: 
Opposite (UF, UB being the only case) - (M' U)3 M' U2 (M' U)3 M'
Adjacent - R U R' U' Rw' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 Rw and its variants (or just do U moves to set up).

Recognition for 3-cycles with 2 flipped-edges (use the oriented piece to decide the angle to perform the algorithms): 
If the flipped pieces are adjacent,
-If the U-layer stickers are opposite colours, the case is the inverse of [sexy, M'].
-If the U-layer stickers are adjacent colours, the case is the 7-mover.
If the flipped pieces are opposite,
-The case is [sexy, M']. The piece at the front will go to the right (UF to RU to BU), so use that for calibration.


----------



## Chenkar (Jan 6, 2015)

deadmanlsh said:


> A post just to add to the list of redundant last layer methods.
> I decided to generate full sets of algorithms simply because I like the U-layer edge 3-cycles a lot. Like a lot.
> 
> Without further ado, allow me to present to you another way of doing the last layer.
> ...


This doesn't seen at all redundant... I really like how it flows, imma pring out the algs later today. Thanks!


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jan 6, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> there's way more cases than that
> 
> 4 [corner permutation]
> 4 [center permutation]
> ...


well you could just learn the 40 algs for the corners and have 2 steps, it takes 1 move to solve the centers and recognizing the case then is way easier and shouldn't edge permution be 5! cuz the last 2 edges cant be in any place they want.
'


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 6, 2015)

Antonie faz fan said:


> well you could just learn the 40 algs for the corners and have 2 steps, it takes 1 move to solve the centers and recognizing the case then is way easier and shouldn't edge permution be 5! cuz the last 2 edges cant be in any place they want.
> '



this is basically lse cases, the corners are already solved, just need auf. i guess you can divide by 16 because pre auf in the M and U layers. i think is is 6!/2 rather than 5!.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 6, 2015)

Antonie faz fan said:


> well you could just learn the 40 algs for the corners and have 2 steps, it takes 1 move to solve the centers and recognizing the case then is way easier and shouldn't edge permution be 5! cuz the last 2 edges cant be in any place they want.
> '



What are you talking about 

The corners are already solved here. 4 corner permutations are just NO-AUF, U-AUF, U'-AUF and U2-AUF. But as others have said you can divide by 16 because you can fix M and U layers correctly while/after CMLL...

Also it's not 5! because 5! is not the same as 6!/2
First edge can be in any of the 6 possible locations. Second can be in any of the remaining 5 locations so 6*5
And so on until you only have the second last edge left. That can only be in one of the remaining 2 places because of parity so you get 6*5*4*3*1=6!/2


----------



## jjone fiffier (Jan 6, 2015)

For some time, I´ve been thinking about a new square-1 method.
Unfortunatelly I don´t know anything about generating algs, so I obviously don´t know, how many of them there would be.

The method has 6 steps:
1. Making the cube square (use any method)
2. Solving a Roux block either on DR or DL (totally intuitively)
3. Solving the other block
4. Inserting the last two edges whilst orienting the U-layer corners
5. EPLL
6. Fix the middle layer

Step 4 is, where it becomes tricky. Currently I do this in two steps, bring one corner down using (0,-1)/(1,1)/(-1,0) wich is very easy. To bring the second one down i hold the edge and its correct location on DR and UR and do (1,0)/(0,-3)/(0,-3)/(-1,-1)/(1,4)/(0,3)/. Then only the LL corners and edges are left.

Please tell me, where i can generate square-1 algs.


----------



## stoic (Jan 6, 2015)

I'm not sure if either of the programs here are of use?
Also, you don't need to know how to generate algs to work out how many you need.
Good luck with your method.


----------



## DGraciaRubik (Jan 6, 2015)

jjone fiffier said:


> For some time, I´ve been thinking about a new square-1 method.
> Unfortunatelly I don´t know anything about generating algs, so I obviously don´t know, how many of them there would be.
> 
> The method has 6 steps:
> ...



I don't get the orienting corners step after doing the two D roux blocks, shouldn't the corners be already oriented, and they only need permutation then. If so, this is similar to screw/roux method and is already in use by some speed square-1 solvers. 
BTW, the step 4 seems kinda weird and difficult. What I do when I solve using the Roux method is:
1.Square
2.Roux Blocks (DR, DL)
3.Permute corners of the top layer
4.Orienting edges
5.L6E in two steps or one if i know the case.


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 6, 2015)

Alright this is for 3x3.
Eoline
Solve your first layer 
COLL because it maintains EO
Cycle your edges until f2l is solved (maximum # of edges to be cycled: 4)
EPLL


----------



## lerenard (Jan 7, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Alright this is for 3x3.
> Eoline
> Solve your first layer
> COLL because it maintains EO
> ...



OR this:

EOLine
Solve f2l efficiently using block building
COLL+EPLL/ZBLL/phasing + ZZLL/etc.

This way you use fewer moves, less algs, and can do everything faster.

Oh wait that's just zz.

An idea I use in my roux solves:
This probably has been thought of by someone else but whatever.
Once you have EO done, you don't have to solve L and R edges, you can solve F and B or the two D edges, whichever is easier. At this point the last four edges can be cycled as in normal roux.
scramble: U' M' U2 M' U M U2 M'

In this case we see that the F and B edges can be easily paired with M U2 M'. At this point I just try to get both U edges on the same face and it usually just solves the cube. In this case you would use U' to join up the DB edge to its centers and I see the R color on the DF edge and so I know it's the UR edge and the other U edge is at UB so I would get them on the same face with M U2 M and U to finish.
I hope the example was clear. This would probably be slower for most fast roux people simply because they are hard wired at this point to just look for UL and UR and doing otherwise would just require too much thought even if it required a few less moves. I plan to start off solving this way so that it will be just as fast if I ever do get fast with roux (my pb is like 36 ATM... But I can build really good first blocks, sometimes just 6 moves)


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 7, 2015)

lerenard said:


> OR this:
> 
> EOLine
> Solve f2l efficiently using block building
> ...



some rouxers use this. but it is often hard to recognize because you have to identify both the colors of the edge.


----------



## lerenard (Jan 7, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> some rouxers use this. but it is often hard to recognize because you have to identify both the colors of the edge.



I didn't think about that. I'm totally color neutral with roux, so I generally just ending up tracking two opposite edges I happen to see during EO and only about half the time are they UR and UL.

It's cool to know people actually find an idea I came up with useful, even if they already thought of it.

Another thing I do sometimes on normal solves with f2l: if the corner of the last slot is already done and edges are oriented (they usually are for me) I do coll and then I solve edges using an EPLL alg with a setup move. I only do this with slow solves though because it takes more effort to think about how to do it... It's probably not practical for speed solves.


----------



## Smiles (Jan 7, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> some rouxers use this. but it is often hard to recognize because you have to identify both the colors of the edge.



sometimes i mess up my L/R colours during lse and accidentally insert F/B so i do this anyway lol its not bad but recognition is a pain. i never intentionally do it though.


----------



## jjone fiffier (Jan 7, 2015)

Alright, I'll try that, thanks!


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 7, 2015)

Probably a question rather than an idea, but, do any CFOP solvers try to find cross solutions that make good the F2L edges? For avoidance of rotations later? I'm not talking about adding several moves or an extra step; I just mean choosing a slightly different cross solution that might be 1-2 moves longer but that leaves no bad edges.


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Jan 7, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Probably a question rather than an idea, but, do any CFOP solvers try to find cross solutions that make good the F2L edges? For avoidance of rotations later? I'm not talking about adding several moves or an extra step; I just mean choosing a slightly different cross solution that might be 1-2 moves longer but that leaves no bad edges.



Isn't that just like an EO cross adopted from ZZ?


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 7, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Probably a question rather than an idea, but, do any CFOP solvers try to find cross solutions that make good the F2L edges? For avoidance of rotations later? I'm not talking about adding several moves or an extra step; I just mean choosing a slightly different cross solution that might be 1-2 moves longer but that leaves no bad edges.



that would be really hard for CN solvers.

most CFOPers have no idea what "edge orientation" even means until they get to the Last Layer. let alone at the beginning of the solve, let alone in ANY orientation.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jan 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> that would be really hard for CN solvers.
> 
> *most CFOPers have no idea what "edge orientation" even means until they get to the Last Layer*. let alone at the beginning of the solve, let alone in ANY orientation.


I doubt that, but even if that's true he did say "any". I pay attention to EO throughout my solve and solve pairs differently to avoid future rotations/worse LL, just not during cross.


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> that would be really hard for CN solvers.
> 
> most CFOPers have no idea what "edge orientation" even means until they get to the Last Layer. let alone at the beginning of the solve, let alone in ANY orientation.



I think very many CFOPers know what EO means... Of course newer solvers who don't know that many tricks don't necessarily know this but at least most of the experienced solvers definitely should know this.

I don't think about EO during my speedsolves (I don't really practise normal 3x3 event that seriously so haven't learned it), except for occasional sledge insert to avoid dot OLLs, but I certainly know what EO is and how it works and how affect it...


----------



## Smiles (Jan 7, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Probably a question rather than an idea, but, do any CFOP solvers try to find cross solutions that make good the F2L edges? For avoidance of rotations later? I'm not talking about adding several moves or an extra step; I just mean choosing a slightly different cross solution that might be 1-2 moves longer but that leaves no bad edges.



nope just cross solutions to make an easy first pair. just because an edge is oriented doesn't *always* mean it'll make a nice case. for example if the corresponding corner is inserted in the diagonal slot from where it should be, cross colour facing down. i'd rather just rotate or do F moves sometimes.


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 11, 2015)

I have a new method/ idea. It is mainly an adaption of Waterman to Roux, seeing as it is a Corners-First Method
First solve your a line, as in ZZ, however, EO doesn't matter. Then solve your corners, using whatever method you like, whether it be Ortega, Guimond, Or CxLL. Just make sure that your line isnt destroyed.
Then cycle three edges, to solve your F2B. (you will have to cycle multiple times)
Now, your CMLL is already done.
Now the last step is LSE.
What do you think? I realize move count is high, but it could be used for speedsolving, and seeing as I average about 23 seconds, and I got a 19 second time, so I think it could be good.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 11, 2015)

good idea! maybe you can solve the corners first, then the line. 

it would allow more efficiency for the corners, and would allow you to pick whichever line was easiest, once the corners are done.


try it out and let me know!


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 11, 2015)

The corners and line took much less time that way, about 6 seconds. My problem with this method though, is the edge cycling. But hey I'll work on that.


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 11, 2015)

What I had originally thought, was solve a layer, solve your LL corners then solve F2L using edge cycles, then ELL, but thought it was the same as Waterman


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 11, 2015)

Ok here is another method!
Learn all possible permutations!
No, This is the real one! 
Solve a 1x2x3 block like in Roux. Using R,r, U, and M, solve F2l.
OLL
PLL
Let me know what you guys think!


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 12, 2015)

Using the above method, I got a 44 second time, but that is because my first block takes about 15-20 seconds
`


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 12, 2015)

CheesecakeCuber said:


> Isn't that just like an EO cross adopted from ZZ?


No, because I meant only orienting the F2L edges. So you'd get rotationless F2L but full OLL rather than COLL/OCLL.



Smiles said:


> just because an edge is oriented doesn't *always* mean it'll make a nice case.


True but it's whether the whole F2L is nicer on balance that matters. 

Similar question: has anyone tried a ZZ variant where only the F2L edges are oriented when making the line (including the D edges)? So you'd get an easier EOline and better lookahead into first block, but finish with full OLL/PLL.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 12, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Similar question: has anyone tried a ZZ variant where only the F2L edges are oriented when making the line (including the D edges)? So you'd get an easier EOline and better lookahead into first block, but finish with full OLL/PLL.



i know i've thought of it, but i don't use zz. i would assume using this when it is hard to get all eo would be a good idea. how much faster is OLL with edge oreinted already compared to all OLL.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 12, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> has anyone tried a ZZ variant where only the F2L edges are oriented when making the line (including the D edges)? So you'd get an easier EOline and better lookahead into first block, but finish with full OLL/PLL.



yes and i throw up every time


----------



## Smiles (Jan 12, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Similar question: has anyone tried a ZZ variant where only the F2L edges are oriented when making the line (including the D edges)? So you'd get an easier EOline and better lookahead into first block, but finish with full OLL/PLL.



It doesn't take that much to orient the LL edges, and you benefit so much from it actually.
It's not a comparison of OCLL to OLL.
It's a comparison of Winter + Summer variation / MGLS / COLL / OCLL / a bunch of other techniques to just OLL.

Not to mention look ahead is easier when your UB edge is oriented and you know it's a LL edge.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 17, 2015)

Not really a 'new method', just a thought I had. If you know full COLL, couldn't you identify (in each of those COLL cases that you know) what EP is necessary for it to be a skip (for it to be a ZBLL), and then just learn one extra ZBLL (a shorter one) for that COLL case and apply it instead if you don't get that EP? It would increase the probability of PLL skips to 1/6 (for ZZ users), which means for any given average of 5 you would get one skip in that average about 60% of the time.

Pros: Can be a helpful way to learn some more ZBLLs and make them useful instead of hoping they come up. Increases PLL skip chances to 1/6 (for ZZ users).
Cons: Using the extra ZBLL will still leave you with EPLL every 5/6 solves (but if you're using COLL anyway, this shouldn't be much of an issue). The common COLLs are usually the fastest, so the extra ZBLL may take a little longer than the regular COLL case.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Jan 17, 2015)

I think this is very similar to COLL+1. Learn two ZBLL algs for each COLL case and you can always solve at least one edge, so you either get U-perm or EPLL skip.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 17, 2015)

or you can apply LPELL to solve EP during the insertion of the last pair. Then knowing 2x42 "COLL" algs would be enough to solve the cube.

these are "L4C" algs and suck.

perhaps you can force a predictable unsolved EP during the insertion of the last pair. maybe those algs wont suck


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 20, 2015)

Hi I was wondering if this would work.
It is an adaption of the Heise method to one I made.
Solve F2L-1 using the Heise method, and while doing so, fix bad edges
COLL +1 or Solve first layer, then COLL
Place two adjacent edges with their corresponding corners.
Solve L3E with commutator.


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 20, 2015)

Here is an example solve. Note: my Heise Blocks are extremely ineffecient.
Scramble:F' R' U' R2 U' L B2 L2 U R' B2 U' B F D' U2 B2 F2 D2 F' L2 R2 B2 L R'
First block- U2
Second block- x' y D2 R2 U M U' R U2 M' F L2 F' U 
Third Block-R' E(towards L) F R D' x y' R U R U RU R' U' R' U' R L
Final block-R UR' L' U2 R' U2 R r' U2 R U' M' U R' U' R U R2 D' R' D U'
Fix Bad edges-x' y U2 R U' R U R' U' M' U R U' r' 
COLL +1- U R U D R' U R U2 B2 U B2 U' D' R2
Now, I got lucky, and got a skip, so here is the other way starting from the end of Fix bad edges
Solve First Layer - U' R' U' R U R' 
COLL- r U R' U' L' U l F' U2 T-perm.
Solve adjacent edges- R U' R U R U R U' R2 
L3E- U2 R2 U R U RU' R' U' R' U' R' U'


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 20, 2015)

nice idea! is this what you mean (using your scramble)?

D2 F2 D B2 U2 // 2x2x2 (5)
x2 F U' L' F U' // 3x2x2 (5)
x z R' U2 F R' F' U R // eof2l-1 (7)
U2 R' U2 B' R' B U2 R2 U R' U2 // leave 3 edges (11)
R' F R S R' F' R S' // ell (8)
=36


----------



## TorbinRoux (Jan 20, 2015)

I have an idea to improve the Roux method a tad. So here are the steps:
1. 1st block like normal
2. Solve UL and UR pieces in the DF and DB spots
3. 2nd block 
4. CMLL
5. Edge Orientation
6. Align top layer and do M2. 
7. Then do the middle layer edge case.

Basically, you sort out the UL and UR pieces before so you don't have to do it later.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 20, 2015)

i have bad news for you



Spoiler












dont u need M for the second block? 

what if ur E-slice edges are misoriented? wouldn't that make ur second block really hard?

unless u use a petrus-esque method to orient the second block edges. in which case, u should just use pure petrus.


----------



## kcl (Jan 20, 2015)

I can generally tell if there's a super easy way to EO during cross but I won't go out of my way for it.


----------



## TorbinRoux (Jan 20, 2015)

Good point. But technically you don't need M for second block, you could do a more cfop style block
Also, as an example, if I were solving my blocks with white on bottom, the UL and UR pieces would be connected to their respective center, which would be yellow. Then the second block would basically be 2 F2L cases and 1 "cross" piece. It's truly not much harder than a typical second block, just a little less efficient.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jan 20, 2015)

TorbinRoux said:


> Good point. But technically you don't need M for second block, you could do a more cfop style block
> Also, as an example, if I were solving my blocks with white on bottom, the UL and UR pieces would be connected to their respective center, which would be yellow. Then the second block would basically be 2 F2L cases and 1 "cross" piece. It's truly not much harder than a typical second block, just a little less efficient.



Then you might as well do CFOP. The point of using M slices is that you don't need rotations, or F/B moves. 

Also good Roux solvers can influence their UL and UR edges during EO, meaning preserving them after Step 1 is pretty irrelevant. Also, some CMLL algs take advantage pf the free M Slice, so you'd have to use less efficient CMLL algs.


----------



## TorbinRoux (Jan 20, 2015)

Yeah, I myself just stick with original roux. This was just a proposal and adds many cfop aspects to roux. Also for EO to preserve the pieces on the bottom you could use olls like M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2


----------



## DeeDubb (Jan 20, 2015)

TorbinRoux said:


> Yeah, I myself just stick with original roux. This was just a proposal and adds many cfop aspects to roux. Also for EO to preserve the pieces on the bottom you could use olls like M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2



I appreciate the thought. I think Roux still has growing room. I don't think your suggestion is particularly an improvement as you claimed it to be in your original proposal, but I definitely appreciate people looking for ways to improve the method that I love.


----------



## Rainbow Flash (Jan 20, 2015)

Two things:

1.
In the last few days I've pretty much become colour neutral because I've been learning Petrus and I want better crosses anyway. But the thing is, I've started unconciously combining Petrus and CFOP into one 'method.' I hate the cross, and I hate the expansion of the 2x2x2 block into a 3x3x3 block, so after finishing the 2x2x2 block I choose a colour of one of the faces of the block to complete the last two cross pieces, finish regular F2L (not the weird edge orientation thing in Petrus) and complete last layer. Now, I need someone to help me figure out whether this is good to do. The only pause in my Petrofop solves is when I choose the colour to complete the x-cross, and I'm not sure if this 'method' will be worth it when I get faster. I think this is a fairly good combination of methods, and I'm looking to improve it further...

2.
I'm trying to invent a method for the 4x4x4, which is going to be drastically different from Redux, Yau, and most other method out there for 4x4x4. Now, I need an algorithm finder, because I'm not going to spend time trying to figure them out myself. The program needs to...

1. ...find algs for certain cases.
2. ...calculate how many cases there would be for a certain step of my method.

Thanks.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Jan 20, 2015)

Rainbow Flash said:


> Now, I need an algorithm finder, because I'm not going to spend time trying to figure them out myself.


I understand you're probably busy, you got an idea, and you want to see it through before you forget it due to your busy life, but this just sounds _really bad_. You basically want someone to write a program that find algorithms (which is very unlikely, if you're talking about move-optimal, much less speed optimal) AND



Rainbow Flash said:


> 2. ...calculate how many cases there would be for a certain step of my method.


you want people to count the cases for you too.

That's basically 99% of the work for creating a new method, especially for the 4x4x4 and larger cubes since such software has not been written.

If we don't know what the sub-steps of your method are, there is _no way_ we can write a program which happens to do the exact calculations you will actually need without having to write a program which counts every possible scenario. (Which is impossible, because if we could write such a program, we would already be aware of all possible sub-steps/discovered all possible sub-step methods.)

Therefore, you must either state (and illustrate, if necessary) the sub-steps of your method so that one of us (I'm not going to personally because I, like you, don't have time) can write a program which calculates the number of cases in each sub-step of your specific sub-step method, or you must do all of this work on your own.


----------



## Hypocrism (Jan 20, 2015)

Rainbow Flash said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1.
> In the last few days I've pretty much become colour neutral because I've been learning Petrus and I want better crosses anyway. But the thing is, I've started unconciously combining Petrus and CFOP into one 'method.' I hate the cross, and I hate the expansion of the 2x2x2 block into a 3x3x3 block, so after finishing the 2x2x2 block I choose a colour of one of the faces of the block to complete the last two cross pieces, finish regular F2L (not the weird edge orientation thing in Petrus) and complete last layer. Now, I need someone to help me figure out whether this is good to do. The only pause in my Petrofop solves is when I choose the colour to complete the x-cross, and I'm not sure if this 'method' will be worth it when I get faster. I think this is a fairly good combination of methods, and I'm looking to improve it further...
> ...



I don't think your petrofop is a good idea - the advantage of CFOP is that you do your setup at the beginning (cross planned and first F2L pair found in inspection) so that there are no real analytic steps for the rest of the solve and it can be done with simple fast TPS and look-ahead/know-ahead. The advantage of petrus is that it is move efficient, and if you get good at the analytic block building steps, you can get fast times because of the lower move count despite requiring generally lower TPS and has more propensity for pausing. By combining the two in this way, you lose the simplicity/execution advantage of pure CFOP (because you have to stop and think about your cross after your first step), and you lose the block-building/move count advantage of petrus (because you build a cross and this is less move-efficient).

I would use your petrus experience to practise seeing when an x-cross can be easily built instead of trying this.


----------



## TorbinRoux (Jan 20, 2015)

I saw a video awhile back of someone doing a blindfold solve by memorizing where each of the piece were, then put on the blindfold and took the cube apart, organizing the pieces into groups, then put them back into the cube solved. This is sort of a new method, and I'd like to know if it'd be allowed in competition. Just curious, because it's very creative.


----------



## TDM (Jan 20, 2015)

TorbinRoux said:


> I saw a video awhile back of someone doing a blindfold solve by memorizing where each of the piece were, then put on the blindfold and took the cube apart, organizing the pieces into groups, then put them back into the cube solved. This is sort of a new method, and I'd like to know if it'd be allowed in competition. Just curious, because it's very creative.


I think that was kinch...
It wouldn't be allowed. I'm not sure which specific regulation it is (maybe I'm being blind and not seeing something obvious?) but this one could be relevant:

5b1) If a competitor chooses to repair the puzzle, *he must repair only the defective parts*. [...]

Doing this is also not under the list of permitted repairs.


----------



## lerenard (Jan 20, 2015)

Rainbow Flash said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1.
> In the last few days I've pretty much become colour neutral because I've been learning Petrus and I want better crosses anyway. But the thing is, I've started unconciously combining Petrus and CFOP into one 'method.' I hate the cross, and I hate the expansion of the 2x2x2 block into a 3x3x3 block, so after finishing the 2x2x2 block I choose a colour of one of the faces of the block to complete the last two cross pieces, finish regular F2L (not the weird edge orientation thing in Petrus) and complete last layer. Now, I need someone to help me figure out whether this is good to do. The only pause in my Petrofop solves is when I choose the colour to complete the x-cross, and I'm not sure if this 'method' will be worth it when I get faster. I think this is a fairly good combination of methods, and I'm looking to improve it further...



This isn't a new idea, I and (last time I heard) Jlarsen solve this way at least some of the time. The idea is that expansion to the 2x2x3 block requires seeing three pieces and how to put them together: you can't do anything until you have all three or at least one corner and one edge. This leads to pauses more often than not which, of course, are the speedsolver's arch nemesis. Tracking two cross pieces while you build your 2x2x2, on the other hand, is easier because there are only two pieces and also because each one can be placed individually. It is also very easy to place them both which facilitates lookahead into the first (second?) pair. I actually feel like it combines the advantages of the two methods instead of failing to make use of either. It's the most common incarnation of FreeFOP, which means you just build the F2L whichever way seems easiest. I will still go full Petrus if I see two pairs in inspection that can be part of the 2x2x3, but I always wait to do EO until the last slot (see: VHLS). I will also just use full CFOP if the 2x2x2 is annoying or I don't see one or there's an easy cross.


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 23, 2015)

So this is a concept idea thread, so I was wondering if anyone had thought of this for look-ahead.
have your cube on really really loose tensions, so you are forced to turn slow, other wise it will pop. This gives you an opportunity to get better look-ahead, and then slowly tighten your cube.You then can end up with your normal tensions, and good look ahead.


----------



## TDM (Jan 23, 2015)

2180161 said:


> So this is a concept idea thread, so I was wondering if anyone had thought of this for look-ahead.
> have your cube on really really loose tensions, so you are forced to turn slow, other wise it will pop. This gives you an opportunity to get better look-ahead, and then slowly tighten your cube.You then can end up with your normal tensions, and good look ahead.


You could just practise your 2H method OH... that forces you to turn slower too.


----------



## lerenard (Jan 23, 2015)

2180161 said:


> So this is a concept idea thread, so I was wondering if anyone had thought of this for look-ahead.
> have your cube on really really loose tensions, so you are forced to turn slow, other wise it will pop. This gives you an opportunity to get better look-ahead, and then slowly tighten your cube.You then can end up with your normal tensions, and good look ahead.


Unless you have a weilong, which is unpoppable.


----------



## 2180161 (Jan 24, 2015)

I have a weilong, and it does pop a crap ton. It pops about 1 in every 5 solves, even on tight tensions.


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 24, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I have a weilong, and it does pop a crap ton. It pops about 1 in every 5 solves, even on tight tensions.



weilong doesn't really pop easily unless it's very, very loose or you took out the torpedoes.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 24, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> weilong doesn't really pop easily unless it's very, very loose or you took out the torpedoes.


Wait what you can do that!


----------



## lerenard (Jan 24, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I have a weilong, and it does pop a crap ton. It pops about 1 in every 5 solves, even on tight tensions.



Then you're doing it wrong.

Mine has literally never popped on me. The center caps, on the other hand, seem to come off every other z-perm unless I put tissue paper under them.


----------



## lerenard (Jan 25, 2015)

Came up with a new 4x4 method today. I looked it up and apparently it's called Meyer, except mine is slightly different. After you build your first block you build an additional 1x2x2 on the other side. This leaves even less to be solved after edge pairing (only 9 edges left, 8 if you insert one that happens to build itself into the empty slot sometime between block building and the end of center building (this happens to me about half the time). It's different from stadler, though, because after centers you do normal edge pairing. Having the E slice, F face and the U face minus a 1x1x2 block gives you just enough breathing room to easily match up edges. I suck at roux so I haven't even bother timing myself with this, but I think it could be very fast, at least in cases where the 1x2x2 block is obvious.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 25, 2015)

Do you mean 1x3x3 and 1x1x3? It's an interesting idea, I'll have to try a solve on it sometime.


----------



## lerenard (Jan 25, 2015)

Complete steps:
1: opposite centers
2: 1x3x4 on L, 1x3x3 on R
3: Remaining centers
4: x' z' solve remaining 9 edges using E slice, F, and unsolved portion of U
5: z x solve remaining pair, making two 1x3x4 blocks
6: CMLL
6: LSE, possible parity as in normal redux solves (I'm assuming those who already use roux know how best to deal with these .)


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 26, 2015)

Sounds like a lot of moves..
Also sounds like 3x3 ortega, but I don't actually know how that works so I can't say.


----------



## lerenard (Jan 26, 2015)

Just sounds like hta to me, except the last couple steps aren't intuitive. I only know of one person who has ever gotten sub20 with that, so I doubt it has any potential whatsoever. And I have solved using hta before, so I feel in somewhat qualified to make this conclusion.


----------



## supercavitation (Jan 26, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> Yes, it sounds complicated and long method, but it actually takes 45 moves to solve the complete cube (sometimes less than 40 moves), I will upload a video on youtube very soon.



Either your move count is way off, which is what I would bet on, or you're planning a method that requires learning 3x3 P2L, which is a ridiculous number of algs (483 if I did my math correctly). Even just doing OCLL on two faces at once takes 63 algorithms. That or the description you posted is just unclear.

Edit: Both of those numbers should be low (P2L by roughly a factor of 2, and OCLL by a factor of 3) due to parity issues.


----------



## Berd (Jan 26, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> Yes, it sounds complicated and long method, but it actually takes 45 moves to solve the complete cube (sometimes less than 40 moves), I will upload a video on youtube very soon.


This got me thinking. Could you create a 2x2 alg set that orientes both layers? OBL?


----------



## Cale S (Jan 26, 2015)

Berd said:


> This got me thinking. Could you create a 2x2 alg set that orientes both layers? OBL?



You mean like this? http://www.amvhell.com/stuff/cubes/OSPA_ALGS.html


----------



## Michael Womack (Jan 28, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> This is the video I said I would upload, I explain the steps and how the method works, for all of you guys that have some doubts about my method. It's only an overview, not a tutorial ok. Here you can check that the process is not so long as it sounds. Please comment XD
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWVpuCK6sc8&feature=youtu.be&hd=1



Reminds me of the belt method https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt_Method


----------



## supercavitation (Jan 28, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> This is the video I said I would upload, I explain the steps and how the method works, for all of you guys that have some doubts about my method. It's only an overview, not a tutorial ok. Here you can check that the process is not so long as it sounds. Please comment XD
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWVpuCK6sc8&feature=youtu.be&hd=1



I counted 59 moves STM for what appeared to be a relatively lucky case (4 move EO, no corner parity, top CP skip, etc). Where did you get your 45-50 move average number?

Additionally, as someone who's made this mistake before: did you use Cube Explorer to generate those algs? That EP at the end looked like it was designed to be move optimal rather than being finger tricky (evidence: that z2 mid alg to reach from F2 to B2). If so, I'd recommend using ACube for better algs. That will increase your move count, but it'll make for easier execution.

How bad is the lookahead for this?


----------



## lerenard (Jan 28, 2015)

Michael Womack said:


> Reminds me of the belt method https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt_Method


Why are half of all "new" methods just basically the belt method ? It isn't now and has never been a good idea. The point of speedsolving the cube is to solve portions of it in a way that you can use the unsolved portion to easily create more solved pieces. Petrus simply sections off the cube, limiting the kinds of moves you can make. Fridrich eases lookahead by restricting edges to the U and E layers and creates an environment where finger tricks can easily be used, roux leaves the m layer free to eliminate cube rotations, zz accomplishes the same thing a different way, but they all are mostly intuitive and take advantage of what's not solved to make some aspect of the solve easier. How does solving the E layer make solving the rest of the cube easier? Because the way I see it it restricts you to solving the rest of the cube using algs, and that doesn't seem useful to me. Let us know when you get a sub20 ao100.


----------



## supercavitation (Jan 28, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> Yeah, I used cube explorer for the final permutation of PLLs , I know my solve was more than 50 moves ; the problem was that I solved the D layer corners to minimize the final PLL cases on the double permutation. The complete method was completed just by solving the U layer corners and making a U(a) or U(b) on the U face to directly solve both faces at once. That means 2 Pll cases x 21 pll cases = 42 cases. but unfortunately I don't recognize all PLL cases, that's the reason. Thank you for your advice
> Well, look ahead can be a good help since double OLL (ox2) is made using algs, and px2 also needs algorithms, we will need look ahead in the part of solving the parity of corners and the separation of edges to create a U(a)-(b) on the U face.



Lookahead is always helpful, but in the method you just described, it would be incredibly difficult, since at any given time, as many as 3 or 4 unsolved pieces need to be tracked because they're invisible (hidden on the bottom of the cube), at the same time as doing whatever you're doing to solve the cube. The recognition for OC2L (Orient Corners of 2 Layers) would be incredibly difficult, since at least one of the corners is always hidden, and recognizing a PLL on the bottom while at the same time recognizing an EPLL on top will be almost as tough. 

Additionally, as I mentioned, that solve was rather lucky. Even with full EPLL top-PLL bottom, if you use finger tricky algs instead of stuff off cube explorer, especially if you get corner parity, I would bet that it will actually be less move efficient than CFOP, without any of lookahead benefits that lerenard explained above.

In short, like all Belt methods I've ever heard of, it's not going to become an effective speedsolving method. As lerenard said, while Belt seems like it could be really effective, it doesn't provide any real benefits, and unless you're planning to memorize several hundred algorithms, is going to waste a lot of moves.


----------



## Berd (Jan 28, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> yes, I know that it is very difficult looking ahead  , thank you guys for letting me know the problems this method has, I have to improve the process and the algorithms, I have to change my mind to create a really good method.


Just look ahead like you would EO on square 1


----------



## lerenard (Jan 29, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> It could work , mm anyway I am convinced this will never be a good method  ... I will learn ZZ method , maybe I could reduce my time using this method. here watching some tutorials I see the F2L looks easier than CFOP F2L


 It is, because no cube rotations are necessary. Also, lookahead is easier because, for example, you know that if you see a blue sticker on UB (assuming you have orange F and yellow U) and you only have one slot left on the blue side you know that's the edge you need.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 29, 2015)

another good thing about ZZ lookahead is that you subconsciously feel the difference between FR/BL pairs and FL/BR pairs.

also you can use open-slotting which saves moves and certainly improves cube awareness.


----------



## TDM (Jan 29, 2015)

Fernando Miron said:


> All of you are right  ZZ is a good method, I am learning it but my time is not good, maybe because I am new using it, the step I am very slow is the recognition of bad edges , I can recognize bad edges but hardly remember where they are located  ...


Everyone has this problem when they first learn ZZ. Practise; it's worth it


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 29, 2015)

lerenard said:


> It is, because no cube rotations are necessary. Also, lookahead is easier because, for example, you know that if you see a blue sticker on UB (assuming you have orange F and yellow U) and you only have one slot left on the blue side you know that's the edge you need.



That is all true but you forgot to mention the drawbacks of ZZ compared to CFOP (in terms of lookahead):
1. In ZZ you can have edge pieces "hiding" in DL and DR positions. In CFOP you know that after cross there won't be any unsolved edges in D-layer.
2. To be a "real" ZZ solver you need to be able to track 3 pieces at once (the 2 edges and 1 corner that make 2x2x1 block) where in CFOP you only need to track 2 at a time (1 corner and 1 edge that form a pair). And obviously tracking 3 is harder than tracking just 2.

Now I think you can make fairer comparison.  As usual both methods have something that is better than the other and something that is not as good as in the other method...


----------



## cfop01 (Feb 1, 2015)

*New Redux Variant*

I have thought up a new redux variant that skips a whole step, I'm not 100% sure that it works but my idea is this

First, you solve the centres as normal

Second, you solve all the edges except the ones with a yellow sticker on them

Thirdly, you solve it like a regular 3x3, without pll, pretending that the yellow edges are solved (ask if you don't understand this, I might have to explain in more detail)

Lastly, you do one algorithm to permute all the yellow edges

Reply if you would like me to make the algorithms for the lask step
Also comment if you have any questions/need a step explained in more detail...

I really hope this works because I think it will be alot faster than regular redux and it might really have potential


Also I'd like to apologise if this has already been suggested, I looked around the forums and couldn't find it


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 1, 2015)

Im fairly certain that the number of algs to permute the remaining edges is very large.


----------



## cfop01 (Feb 1, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Im fairly certain that the number of algs to permute the remaining edges is very large.



Maybe you could do it in 2 look, like you permute the top face and than just do pll, i think it could be interesting but i have no clue with making algorithms so i need help


----------



## TDM (Feb 1, 2015)

I've heard this a couple of times before; the LL is similar to what you'd do in K4, but you're just doing the F3L in a different way.


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 1, 2015)

Rob Yau also made a video of a method similar to this but with Yau instead of redux for the F3L.


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 1, 2015)

cfop01 said:


> I have thought up a new redux variant that skips a whole step



What does this even mean? It might skip what step precisely?

To me it just sounds similar to saying that by using Roux, you can skip PLL. (Well duh, you're not using a method that finishes with PLL...)

I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## cfop01 (Feb 1, 2015)

you skip the last 4 edges


----------



## TDM (Feb 1, 2015)

cfop01 said:


> you skip the last 4 edges


No you don't; you just do them at a different time.


----------



## AlexTheEmperor (Feb 1, 2015)

That method is basically this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pItLMQOY-o

Except what is done in the video is more like Yau than Redux and on a 5x5.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Feb 1, 2015)

So like ELL at the end of the solve like K4. It doesn't skip PLL, you're just delaying it.


----------



## cfop01 (Feb 5, 2015)

what is the fastest skewb method?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Feb 5, 2015)

cfop01 said:


> what is the fastest skewb method?


Sarah Advanced, I think. Some fast people use bits and pieces of other methods also.


----------



## tseitsei (Feb 5, 2015)

cfop01 said:


> I have thought up a new redux variant that skips a whole step, I'm not 100% sure that it works but my idea is this
> 
> First, you solve the centres as normal
> 
> ...


http://snk.digibase.ca/k4/7.htm

3-look version for the last layer edges. That is already in use in K4 method 

And yeah I don't understand what is the step that you say you are skipping... you just do last 4 edges at different time than in Yau/redux...


----------



## SpeedSkewber (Feb 6, 2015)

*New 4x4 Method Tell Me What You Think*

Hello I'm a 16 second average on 3x3 and 1:20 average on 4x4 (I don't practice much) this is my first post, sorry if this method has already been made, but I'm really sure it hasn't.
This method has a lot in common with Yau and reduction method but also has big differences in certain parts of the solve. I'm not very good at describing so I will do my best. PAY ATTENTION TO STEPS 3 AND 3 1/2 AND 4! I will be making a video if requested.

1. Build two centers across from each other

2. Line up each center so they are in 1x2 blocks long ways

3. Place edge pieces in the middle layer so one is in the u layer and another is in the d layer, pair them and place it in the bottom layer. At the end of this step you should have four edges that are solved in the bottom layer while making sure the centers stay in 1x2 bars long ways in the u and d layers after each edge

3 1/2. Solve four more edges and place them in the top layer. Make SURE you have all four edges solved that go to the color of your cross. When you tuck away the solved pieces in the top layer make sure they are oriented if they are a cross piece

4. At this point you should have Eight edges solved, four on top and four in the bottom. For this step turn the cube to the two solved centers are on the left and right. for this step you are able to turn l, r, U2, F2, B2, D2. Now solve the centers (This step usually takes me two seconds) ALSO if you made the cross pieces oriented earlier then it will result in a very easy cross after this step 

5. For edges will be left, solve them as you please

6. 3x3 phase

7. (PROFIT) I mean you're done.


----------



## OliverSW (Feb 6, 2015)

sounds like it could be pretty efficient. I think a video would help


----------



## TDM (Feb 6, 2015)

SpeedSkewber said:


> but I'm really sure it hasn't.


This is reduction with freeslice edge pairing, the most common method for 5x5+.


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 6, 2015)

SpeedSkewber said:


> Hello I'm a 16 second average on 3x3 and 1:20 average on 4x4 (I don't practice much) this is my first post, sorry if this method has already been made, but I'm really sure it hasn't.
> This method has a lot in common with Yau and reduction method but also has big differences in certain parts of the solve. I'm not very good at describing so I will do my best. PAY ATTENTION TO STEPS 3 AND 3 1/2 AND 4! I will be making a video if requested.
> 
> 1. Build two centers across from each other
> ...



EDIT: Misunderstood what that second step was (though still not 100% sure I believe it'll take 2 seconds), but yeah, what TDM said. Already discussed several times.


----------



## Mollerz (Feb 6, 2015)

This exists, it's called freeslice.


----------



## Robert-Y (Feb 6, 2015)

What is the point of this method? If it is for speedsolving, then I ask you: What are the advantages and disadvantages of this method?


----------



## SpeedSkewber (Feb 6, 2015)

Pros: Centers are easier than Yau, Don't have look at the bottom layer for pieces after first four edges, Cross very easy cross, No pause between, Centers are also fast to build the 1x2 blocks.

I will post a video in a few hours to better describe the method.


----------



## Randomno (Feb 6, 2015)

Do you mean U and D or u and d?


----------



## Myachii (Feb 6, 2015)

Randomno said:


> Do you mean U and D or u and d?



Probably U and D if referring to centres.



Mollerz said:


> This exists, it's called freeslice.



Correct me if I'm misinformed, but isn't freeslice when you solve the edges around four solved centres and then fix the centres afterwards?

Redux - F2C, L4C, F8E, L4E, 3x3
This method - F2C, F8E, L4C, L4E, 3x3

This is a weird variation of Redux, with a slight Yau-ey look to the L4C.

Maybe this could be edited so when solving the F4E, you solve the white cross? (this would mean it is more of a Yau submethod than a Redux one)

As most very fast cubers (sub-40) use Yau, I think the bottom method will have a better chance than the Redux variant.


----------



## Mollerz (Feb 6, 2015)

Really there isn't much difference, and in my opinion there are more disadvantages than advantages to this that just doing freeslice.


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 6, 2015)

Mollerz said:


> Really there isn't much difference, and in my opinion there are more disadvantages than advantages to this that just doing freeslice.



What he said. Robert Yau did move count on IRC earlier and found that trying to solve the centers into 1x2 blocks really wasn't saving any moves over just solving the centers. Basically, you're wasting moves for no advantage.


----------



## lerenard (Feb 7, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> What he said. Robert Yau did move count on IRC earlier and found that trying to solve the centers into 1x2 blocks really wasn't saving any moves over just solving the centers. Basically, you're wasting moves for no advantage.



Hmm, are you sure he was being really efficient? Most of the time one trigger (r U r' or similar) can form 2 bars, so I would be surprised if it wasn't at least movecount efficient.


----------



## 2180161 (Feb 7, 2015)

I dont know if I put this already. I couldnt find it so...
Anyway this is for solving the 3x3 cube.
1.EO (Edge orientation)
2. F2l-1 ( The missing pair must be in FR or BL)
3. COLL +1 OR solve the corner of the first layer then COLL.
4. Solve 2 adjacent sides on the top layer.
5. Cycle edges to solve the cube. (3 edges left)


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 8, 2015)

lerenard said:


> Hmm, are you sure he was being really efficient? Most of the time one trigger (r U r' or similar) can form 2 bars, so I would be surprised if it wasn't at least movecount efficient.



Based on the move counts he was posting, yes, I am sure he was being really efficient.



2180161 said:


> I dont know if I put this already. I couldnt find it so...
> Anyway this is for solving the 3x3 cube.
> 1.EO (Edge orientation)
> 2. F2l-1 ( The missing pair must be in FR or BL)
> ...



This is a ZZ LS-LL subset. I believe this has been suggested before, sort of a reverse Heise LL with a lot more algs.

EDIT: If you're willing to learn COLL+1, you might as well learn PL5E (with EPLL subtracted out, it's only 48 algs, which could be reduced with inverses).


----------



## qqwref (Feb 15, 2015)

Silly little 4x4x4 method:
- Solve white and yellow centers, place on left and right
- Build a 1x3x4 block on left
- Extend to 2x3x4 block OBLBL style
- Pair up and build a 1x3x4 block on right (flip an edge with rU2r' or r'U2r)
- CLL
- Solve UL and UR edges, not sure best way to do this
- Solve last 6 edges with <r, U2>
- Solve last 10 center pieces with commutators


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 15, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Silly little 4x4x4 method:
> - Solve white and yellow centers, place on left and right
> - Build a 1x3x4 block on left
> - Extend to 2x3x4 block OBLBL style
> ...



Step 4 uses too many slices. Slow. Commutators eww.


----------



## TDM (Feb 15, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Step 4 uses too many slices.


Same with Roux 


> Commutators eww.


K4 is one of the fastest 4x4 methods, and that finishes with commutators.

But yeah, it's slow.


----------



## lerenard (Feb 15, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Silly little 4x4x4 method:
> - Solve white and yellow centers, place on left and right
> - Build a 1x3x4 block on left
> - Extend to 2x3x4 block OBLBL style
> ...



What benefit is there in postponing centers until after edge placement? Is it really that much harder to do edges with centers already made?


----------



## SpiderFingers (Feb 15, 2015)

A method I thought of... I don't know if it's original or not. It's not very fast in any case.
1.)Fix all bad edges
2.)Move all E layer pieces to their layer (creates belt around cube)
3.)Orient corners on top and bottom layer using ocll without messing up edge orientation (use RUR'U'x3 to fix parity)
4.)Solve the top and bottom layers like you would on a 3x3x2 
5.)Do z' rotation and finish the E layer pieces using a 3 cycle/Roux 4c technique
6.)Fix any opposite swap parity on top and middle layers using R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 15, 2015)

TDM said:


> Same with Roux
> 
> K4 is one of the fastest 4x4 methods, and that finishes with commutators.
> 
> But yeah, it's slow.



but roux 3x3 slicing is easy because 3x3s turn perfect. Those gosh darn aosus take hundreds of solves until the construction error of the two piece design in the edges smooths out and the inner slices become fast.


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 15, 2015)

SpiderFingers said:


> A method I thought of... I don't know if it's original or not. It's not very fast in any case.



I don't know alot about other methods, but that sounds a lot like an ineffiecient version of the belt method.


----------



## SpiderFingers (Feb 15, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> I don't know alot about other methods, but that sounds a lot like an inefficient version of the belt method.



Lol yeah. I've been experimenting with the belt method a lot lately, the main problems I've been running into with it are that 1.) double (corner and edge) parity is really annoying 2.) fast times require full oll 3.) its really difficult to group both edges and corners into their layers 4.) its really hard to preserve a fully solved belt. With my method I was basically trying to fix the edge parity and oll problem by fixing bad edges at the beginning and fix the problem of preserving the belt by only requiring the pieces to be in the right layer but lol yeah its still pretty inefficient.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 16, 2015)

i was randomly thinking about LL, and started thinking about the viability of random 2-look LL sets.

for example, i thought about this:
1. solve a 1x1x3 block. (which forces one other edge to be permuted, if that matters)
2. orient and permute the rest.

that might be easier with EO already done.
for step 1, in other words, solve one colour/side. this leaves you with 6 pieces all crammed together that aren't solved.
idk what the algs will look like, and i didnt have a piece of paper with me but in my head it seems like a lot of algs.
recognition would be easy for step 2, but i have no clue for step 1.
step 1 can be colour neutral, which will reduce algs i guess but recognition gets even harder lol.

this doesn't seem too viable because of step 1 recognition (i might be mistaken about how difficult it is) but the point is i was getting creative with LL. maybe there are other good ideas.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 16, 2015)

lerenard said:


> What benefit is there in postponing centers until after edge placement? Is it really that much harder to do edges with centers already made?


Parity  The idea of the method is that you can just do an r slice to fix parity, and as much as possible is solved while still letting you do that.


----------



## 2180161 (Feb 16, 2015)

For 3x3:
Solve a line from LD to RD +All f2l edges.
Solve all edges using M,U
Use commutators to solve the corners. could be used as blind maybe? Idk i dont do blind but..

Okay here is another one. Similar to CFCE, but not quite
Cross
F2l (LS=VHLS to fix EO)
OLLEP (same as OLLCP but permutes edges instead of corners)
CPLL (corner PLL)


----------



## Smiles (Feb 16, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Okay here is another one. Similar to CFCE, but not quite
> Cross
> F2l (LS=VHLS to fix EO)
> OLLEP (same as OLLCP but permutes edges instead of corners)
> CPLL (corner PLL)



this has been suggested before but here are some flaws:
if you want a COLL twin (OCLLEP?) then that'd be more viable to learn, since nobody wants to learn OLLCP anyway. plus ZZ solves would benefit every solve.
if you have EO done already, the EP has bad recognition because you have to look at 3 edges (therefore 3 sides). it's like trying to recognize CP in CPEOLL. it's just not good because you're forced to look at 3 sides. this isn't a problem for non-OCLL cases (if you just had OLLEP), but again there's a problem of alg count that nobody wants to learn.

but the bigger problem is CPLL.
if you wanna argue that A perm = U perm in speed, fine. at least for 2 hands.
H perm = H perm.
Z perm > E perm, there's a rotation and it's longer and it's just a bad alg in general. nobody wants to force E perms.

plus, EPLL comes with the advantage that the entire set can be done <M,U> so the case doesn't affect your hand positioning. also, <R,U> for one hand and big cubes.

overall, it's just very difficult to argue that CPLL can be compared to EPLL.

as for OLLEP, i would have to look at the algs but the OLLCP algs aren't that bad anyway. especially for COLL, since there are so many commutators.

HOWEVER there is a bright side to OCLLEP. if my brain is working properly, i think it can be done 2-gen.


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 16, 2015)

2180161 said:


> For 3x3:
> Solve a line from LD to RD +All f2l edges.
> Solve all edges using M,U
> Use commutators to solve the corners. could be used as blind maybe? Idk i dont do blind but..



That's just less efficient Roux.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 16, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> That's just less efficient Roux.



No its like edges first then comms. Edges first could work for bld, but you lose any efficiency because the corner memo will have to be done while considering for edge moves, which completely jumble all the corners unless you are careful.


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> No its like edges first then comms. Edges first could work for bld, but you lose any efficiency because the corner memo will have to be done while considering for edge moves, which completely jumble all the corners unless you are careful.



I thought that said all F2L pairs, which would have meant Roux finishing with L4C.


----------



## Memphis3000 (Feb 16, 2015)

What about skewb blind? Solve the centers using center swap commutators, then solve the corners with an old pochmann type swapper.


----------



## TDM (Feb 16, 2015)

Memphis3000 said:


> solve the corners with an old pochmann type swapper.


I'm not sure if that's possible.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> I'm not sure if that's possible.



Arent skewb speedsolving methods one-look-able?


----------



## Memphis3000 (Feb 16, 2015)

oh maybe I guess sarah's advanced is one look-able


----------



## TDM (Feb 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Arent skewb speedsolving methods one-look-able?


I think so, but swapping corners isn't.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> I think so, but swapping corners isn't.



Yeah but you dont need to only swap corners if you one look the speedsolving method and then corners and centers are free to move if you know whar ur doing


----------



## TDM (Feb 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Yeah but you dont need to only swap corners if you one look the speedsolving method and then corners and centers are free to move if you know whar ur doing


I wasn't saying Skewb BLD wasn't possible.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> I wasn't saying Skewb BLD wasn't possible.



No you were saying that once centers are solved, solving corners with a pochmann type thing isnt possible. Then i said for skewb bld its better to use a normal speedsolving method since corners and centers can be solved at the same time.


----------



## TDM (Feb 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> No you were saying that once centers are solved, solving corners with a pochmann type thing isnt possible. Then i said for skewb bld its better to use a normal speedsolving method since corners and centers can be solved at the same time.


Whether or not centres are solved is irrelevant. You can't swap two corners like OP. I'm not saying that 1-looking isn't faster; I was never talking about that. I was simply saying that his method was not possible.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> Whether or not centres are solved is irrelevant. You can't swap two corners like OP. I'm not saying that 1-looking isn't faster; I was never talking about that. I was simply saying that his method was not possible.



I see, but I was disregarding his method because it does not work, and I was saying that to do corner swaps you have to affect centers, so you might as well do L4C with LLcorners. I think we are both saying the same thing.


----------



## Memphis3000 (Feb 16, 2015)

Thats what I was saying by saying an OP type swap, like on the 3x3 you can't swap two corners, so you swap two edges too, same with skewb, to swap two corners you have to swap two centers. However centers do not need to be swapped with corners(i.e. U perm).


----------



## qqwref (Feb 16, 2015)

What are you talking about with two corners? Every turn moves 3 corners.


----------



## Memphis3000 (Feb 16, 2015)

good point, I guess I meant any number of corners


----------



## Bubtore (Feb 16, 2015)

Dylan, the idea of a 1x1x3 block LL has (obviously) been thought about before.
In this way, in December, at the Italian Open, Riccardo Munaro had shown me that method (which he uses as his main), but he only had it in his own notation.
So, some weeks ago, I tought of exploring a bit that area :

I came up with 208 algs to build the Block (averaging 9-10 moves) and 70 for finishing the cube (but these are long ones, I would say 14-15 Moves).
Therefore, that wouldn't be useful to anybody (in speedsolving), except someone knows already many algorithms and wants to learn the 2nd step of it to have more 1look LLs (since recognition is quite easy for them).

As an alternative, you could also do only a side, that would make 104 algs to build it (and the algorithms get even shorter), but on the other hand this creates 72 more algs for the 2nd step (so 142 in total), I'm not sure if it makes this even worse ...

I'm still working on the presentation of all of this, and as soon as I finish it I will post it here.


----------



## molarmanful (Feb 17, 2015)

*Pang Method: New 3x3x3 Method*

Hey guys, I made this awhile ago, but recently improved it significantly. You complete all of the F2L pairs somehow (and maybe orient LLE's), then insert the FLE's while orienting the LLE's, then finish LL however you want. More info, examples, and algs here: http://molarmanful.com/pang.

There are 4 variations based on how you complete the F2L pairs:
BEGINNER
Belt-first, then FL corners. Easy to learn, and the belt is easy to build, but there is very high move count.

BEGINNER-INTERMEDIATE
Columns-first. A bit harder, but still relatively easy. Move count is somewhat lower, but still rather high.

INTERMEDIATE-ADVANCED
Columns-first while orienting LLC's. Requires knowledge of an F2LL method like WVLS. Move count is only a bit lower. Forces an OLL skip.

ADVANCED
Build a 2x2x2, 2x2x3 (recommended), 1x2x3, or a combination of the previously-mentioned blocks and insert remaining F2L pairs to solve all columns and some FLE's. Move count is lower, but gets even lower with F2LL. This is highly recommended and will force an OLL skip.

*PROS*
-Forces an OLL cross (and maybe an OLL skip).
-EFL + LLEO uses only M and U, and can be very fast. This step can also be done intuitively.
-Predictable: If you don't use F2LL, you can predict your OLL case when you finish columns. If you DO use F2LL, then you can predict whether you will get headlights or not during PLL when you finish columns.

*CONS*
-Not very efficient for the most part; only the advanced method with LLCO is sort of decent with efficiency. If you don't know some form of F2LL, you are basically screwed to inefficiency.
-Horrible for OH (obviously).

What do you guys think?


----------



## Dyys (Feb 17, 2015)

Looks interesting.


----------



## NewCuber000 (Feb 17, 2015)

Advanced seems pretty cool. I could see people getting Sub-15 times with it.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Feb 17, 2015)

Seems like a hybrid Roux and just using your last Cross Edge to get a cross on top. Looks interesting but I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 17, 2015)

For advanced, you could just use Petrus, or, if you're not restricting it to that order, you just created a FreeFOP variation that requires uses of Last Slot stuff. Basically, advanced has been done before.

Beginner is just Belt. Been there done that.

Beginner-Intermediate and Intermediate advanced could be improved by turning them into PCMS or Michael Gottlieb's Columns First Method. 

Also, there's a thread specifically for posts like this, in case you didn't know.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 17, 2015)

To be specific to this method, you could find the best OLS algorithm for each WV (F2LL) case since you don't need to worry about EO.

The concept is almost like MGLS because you do EO and CO separately while still solving F2L.

+
Manipulation of open layer during F2L.
Forcing better EO cases shouldn't be too hard if you know a few OLS algs for each WV case.
If you get a CP skip then you can either do LSE or keep your hands in the <M,U> position for EPLL (reminds me of method neutrality??).

-
Non-cross F2L edge could end up in the open cross edge spot, hinders look ahead.
EO has some bad cases, and EO+COLS is probably slower than CFOP's LS+OLL.
y rotations before EO.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Feb 17, 2015)

Interesting method. Roux blockbuilding would be better than F2L here. and then those edge insertions could be fast and then there are so many things that can be done for LL. I say sub 20/sub 15 is possible with this.

EDIT: What we can do is make a psuedo cross consisting of 3 edges and then do f2l. and then insert the last edge while doing EO?


----------



## molarmanful (Feb 17, 2015)

Smiles said:


> To be specific to this method, you could find the best OLS algorithm for each WV (F2LL) case since you don't need to worry about EO.



How do I find algs for this? Like what software or technique?


----------



## CriticalCubing (Feb 17, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> How do I find algs for this? Like what software or technique?



Can you give me all the algs for the EO step when we are inserting the last edge?


----------



## Smiles (Feb 17, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> How do I find algs for this? Like what software or technique?



http://rowe.cubing.net/rls/

it's really called VLS i think. credit to rowe hessler and mats valk for making them.
if you want split pair, it's called HLS but idk where you can find documentation for it.

each subset of edge orientations will have each WV corner orientation show up once.
for example, for WV #15 (L' U R U' R' L) you can just sledgehammer instead.



CriticalCubing said:


> Can you give me all the algs for the EO step when we are inserting the last edge?



it's on his site


----------



## obelisk477 (Feb 17, 2015)

Smiles said:


> To be specific to this method, you could find the best OLS algorithm for each WV (F2LL) case since you don't need to worry about EO.



Well even this would be using algs that do too much 'work'. WV specifically orients corners while preserving LL edge orientation, which is somewhat of a restriction, since at this point EO doesn't matter. More efficient algorithms could be generated that would orient corners (or even permute them too) while disregarding EO and inserting the last F2L pair.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 17, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Well even this would be using algs that do too much 'work'. WV specifically orients corners while preserving LL edge orientation, which is somewhat of a restriction, since at this point EO doesn't matter. More efficient algorithms could be generated that would orient corners (or even permute them too) while disregarding EO and inserting the last F2L pair.



Isn't that exactly that OLS does? it has every possible EO so the algs are already generated for you. you just choose the nicest one.\

edit: in case my previous post wasn't clear, i meant use OLS algs for every corner orientation


----------



## obelisk477 (Feb 17, 2015)

Well this could be expanded even further into disregarding DF DL DR and DB. So probably you would find a most efficient one out of all the OLS algs, but maybe not since these preserve the first layer edges


----------



## Smiles (Feb 17, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Well this could be expanded even further into disregarding DF DL DR and DB. So probably you would find a most efficient one out of all the OLS algs, but maybe not since these preserve the first layer edges



to my understanding 3 FLE were already completed. maybe i looked at the method wrong. otherwise inserting those edges would be a real pain because of forced rotation, unless they're F/B or L/R.

edit: the advanced part says to blockbuild to get some of the FLE already in there, which makes sense rather than just making columns which is slower when you have to insert the dedges later.

but i guess you could have an alg that only disregards one dedge, but then the orientation of your last pair would be a factor because it might cause you to rotate, and you'd have to learn twice as many algs compared to learning the best OLS alg.

it's kinda like CMLL vs CLL, and if you only know 1 alg per case then CLL is barely worse than CMLL. practically, i doubt disregarding one cross dedge will make much of a difference.

edit 2: if and if you do columns first then it might as well be PCMS and finish with CMSLL rather than COLS, and then the 2 slices after that.


----------



## molarmanful (Feb 17, 2015)

Smiles said:


> to my understanding 3 FLE were already completed. maybe i looked at the method wrong.



3 FLE's CAN be completed. It depends on how you blockbuild: if you do a 2x2x2, you finish 2 edges and 1 F2L pair, if you do a 1x2x3, you finish 1 edge and 2 F2L pairs, and if you do a 2x2x3, you finish 3 edges and 2 F2L pairs. Combinations of different blocks might help, too, as long as your combination leaves one edge to be solved.


----------



## 2180161 (Feb 20, 2015)

What if you permuted your corners? So like with the LLC, you would instead use COLL+1, which has 96 algs (I think) but would have to insert your F2l edge with it, but hey. Oh, by the way I got a sub-30 time with this. I like it.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 20, 2015)

Skewb method ("pyraskewb"?):
- V: Solve one corner, the 3 centers next to it, and the 3 corners across from the first corner.
- L7P: Solve last 3 centers + last 4 corners in one look. Suppose you hold these so the 3 centers are on U, F, and R. There are 324 total cases. However: when the edges are solved you can rotate the cube freely; all ccw center cases are mirrors of a cw center case; and you can rotate UFR to "AUF" the UFR corner.


----------



## lerenard (Feb 23, 2015)

This method has probably never been thought of before simply because of how counterintuitive it is. It would only ever be useful in something like FMC and only if it were very easy:
Solve a 2x2x2 block
Solve another 2x2x2 block completely opposite the other one (ex. First solve BOY and then GRW)
Solve the remaining 6 edges as you would once you two pairs solved in heise.
Solve the remaining corners with commutators.

As I said, this would only be practical if the movecount for each step was very low, which usually is not the case, and if the opposite 2x2 is so easy, it may just be better to use a premove like F2.


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 23, 2015)

lerenard said:


> if the opposite 2x2 is so easy, it may just be better to use a premove like F2.



unfortunately 

i've always been confused by methods that solve 2+ non-connected sections of the cube at once (Roux, corners first, a couple weird methods here and there). it just seems like they're intentionally trying to restrict the free moves that you can use.


----------



## GuRoux (Feb 23, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> unfortunately
> 
> i've always been confused by methods that solve 2+ non-connected sections of the cube at once (Roux, corners first, a couple weird methods here and there). it just seems like they're intentionally trying to restrict the free moves that you can use.



in roux, 3/4 of the steps are free moves. cfop, petrus, and zz, the last layer makes only 1/2 of the steps free moves. so though the scope of the free moves get narrowed quicker, you have a greater percentage of the solve that is free moves.


----------



## Hssandwich (Feb 23, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Skewb method ("pyraskewb"?):
> - V: Solve one corner, the 3 centers next to it, and the 3 corners across from the first corner.
> - L7P: Solve last 3 centers + last 4 corners in one look. Suppose you hold these so the 3 centers are on U, F, and R. There are 324 total cases. However: when the edges are solved you can rotate the cube freely; all ccw center cases are mirrors of a cw center case; and you can rotate UFR to "AUF" the UFR corner.


I thought of this a while ago but I never tried to use it or try it out. Great minds think alike


----------



## qqwref (Feb 23, 2015)

lerenard said:


> This method has probably never been thought of before simply because of how counterintuitive it is. It would only ever be useful in something like FMC and only if it were very easy:
> Solve a 2x2x2 block
> Solve another 2x2x2 block completely opposite the other one (ex. First solve BOY and then GRW)
> Solve the remaining 6 edges as you would once you two pairs solved in heise.
> Solve the remaining corners with commutators.


I don't know about the rest of it, but I've certainly played around with doing the first two steps (2x2x2 block and opposite 2x2x2 block). Usually then I'd try to blockbuild most of the rest, and solve the end with either commutators or Tripod algs.


----------



## molarmanful (Feb 25, 2015)

Ok, I have created an accompanying last slot alg set for my Pang method called PLS. The algs and info are here: http://www.molarmanful.com/pls.

PLS is different in that it disregards LLEO and only cares about LLCO, so it is compatible with Pang method (and maybe other methods). Enjoy!


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 25, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Ok, I have created an accompanying last slot alg set for my Pang method called PLS. The algs and info are here: http://www.molarmanful.com/pls.
> 
> PLS is different in that it disregards LLEO and only cares about LLCO, so it is compatible with Pang method (and maybe other methods). Enjoy!



Your "Pang Method" is still almost exactly the same as Michael Gottlieb's Column's First Method, the only difference being that orienting LL corners can be done in a different spot if you don't want to learn COLS algs. The COLS algs are cool, and might be cool with Michael's Method, but aren't really useful for any other method unless you're willing to learn a massive number of algs for the 1LLL finish (If I remember correctly, because I've generated bad algs for all of the cases, it's 156), and without that, it's just less efficient CLL-ELL.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 25, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Ok, I have created an accompanying last slot alg set for my Pang method called PLS. The algs and info are here: http://www.molarmanful.com/pls.
> 
> PLS is different in that it disregards LLEO and only cares about LLCO, so it is compatible with Pang method (and maybe other methods). Enjoy!



I've looked at your method and made the suggestion of VLS algs, and looking at it now I'm curious what you think:
what are the advantages of the pang method over CFOP? or Roux? (because it's more similar to these 2)

one thing i notice is this concept similar to MGLS, but MGLS never really took off.


----------



## lerenard (Feb 25, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Ok, I have created an accompanying last slot alg set for my Pang method called PLS. The algs and info are here: http://www.molarmanful.com/pls.
> 
> PLS is different in that it disregards LLEO and only cares about LLCO, so it is compatible with Pang method (and maybe other methods). Enjoy!



I looked on your website, and for the advanced version you basically just said you can solve the first F2L-1x2x2 however you want, then insert last slot and simultaneously solve CO, which can be done with WV, although you've made an optimized set of algs, which is cool. Then you insert the last edge and do EO, and then PLL. This just sounds like a variant of FreeFOP people may not have thought of. It's not a bad idea, but it just seems like a reordering of steps we already know of. I believe the issue here is that EO step is too slow in some cases, and you don't really gain any benefit from waiting to solve the DF edge. It's just easier to so it during the cross or block building. Whenever I try to do something like this, I always accidentally solve my cross edge anyway.


----------



## molarmanful (Feb 25, 2015)

Smiles said:


> I've looked at your method and made the suggestion of VLS algs, and looking at it now I'm curious what you think:
> what are the advantages of the pang method over CFOP? or Roux? (because it's more similar to these 2)
> 
> one thing i notice is this concept similar to MGLS, but MGLS never really took off.



Advantages over CFOP and Roux:
----------
1) MORE WAYS TO START. If you use CFOP or FreeFOP, you can make a Cross - 1E and solve F2L pairs or something like that in any order. If you use Roux, you can build 1 or 2 1x2x3 blocks and finish up the F2L pairs if you haven't already. If you use Petrus, you can build a 2x2x2 and/or a 2x2x3 block, then finish up F2L pairs.

2) AUTOMATIC OLL SKIP (for those who use PLS). Okay, who doesn't love skips? Besides, an OLL skip increases the chance of a PLL skip. MOAR SKIPZ!

3) PREDICTABLE. It is super easy to predict your last layer by the time you start EFL+LLEO. Because EFL+LLEO uses only slice moves, corner orientation is not affected, meaning you can predict either your OLL/COLL case if you don't use PLS, or whether you have headlights PLL, no headlights PLL, or an EPLL case if you use PLS.


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 25, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Advantages over CFOP and Roux:
> ----------
> 1) MORE WAYS TO START. If you use CFOP or FreeFOP, you can make a Cross - 1E and solve F2L pairs or something like that in any order. If you use Roux, you can build 1 or 2 1x2x3 blocks and finish up the F2L pairs if you haven't already. If you use Petrus, you can build a 2x2x2 and/or a 2x2x3 block, then finish up F2L pairs.
> 
> ...



First, more ways to start isn't much of an advantage when you only have 15 seconds of inspection time, which all 3 of the methods you listed take advantage of quite well (ok, CFOP doesn't if you're not CN and don't want to go for first pair during inspection, but switching methods isn't the solution to that).

Second, CFOP and Petrus also have algsets that force automatic OLL skips (Roux doesn't really do OLL), this is not unique to this method. Also, an OLL skip does not change the chance of a PLL skip, it only changes the chance of an LL skip.

Third, lookahead later in the solve comes at the cost of difficult lookahead early in the solve, since you have lots of pieces hidden where you'd normally have cross edges, were you doing CFOP. This is one of the weaknesses normally ascribed to Roux, but with far more hidden pieces than Roux.

Overall count: 1 slight advantage, 1 not an advantage, 1 advantage at a huge cost.


----------



## GuRoux (Feb 25, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Advantages over CFOP and Roux:
> ----------
> 1) MORE WAYS TO START. If you use CFOP or FreeFOP, you can make a Cross - 1E and solve F2L pairs or something like that in any order. If you use Roux, you can build 1 or 2 1x2x3 blocks and finish up the F2L pairs if you haven't already. If you use Petrus, you can build a 2x2x2 and/or a 2x2x3 block, then finish up F2L pairs.
> 
> ...



doesn't seem like a bad method. probably around as good as any colunm's first method.


----------



## molarmanful (Feb 26, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> First, more ways to start isn't much of an advantage when you only have 15 seconds of inspection time, which all 3 of the methods you listed take advantage of quite well (ok, CFOP doesn't if you're not CN and don't want to go for first pair during inspection, but switching methods isn't the solution to that).
> 
> Second, CFOP and Petrus also have algsets that force automatic OLL skips (Roux doesn't really do OLL), this is not unique to this method. Also, an OLL skip does not change the chance of a PLL skip, it only changes the chance of an LL skip.
> 
> ...



You seem to be the biggest critic of my method; you've been blasting it from the day I proposed it to this site. I'd like to ask how you would improve this method to your liking. Or do you think that this method is hopeless and that I should just abandon my work? I've heard enough about your misgivings; I have similar doubts. Now it's time I hear other things.


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 26, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> ADVANCED
> Build a 2x2x2, 2x2x3 (recommended), 1x2x3, or a combination of the previously-mentioned blocks and insert remaining F2L pairs to solve all columns and some FLE's. Move count is lower, but gets even lower with F2LL. This is highly recommended and will force an OLL skip.
> 
> *PROS*
> ...



i think it's a really good method.

2x2x2
2 F2L pairs.
pair and PLS
permute U-layer corners while inserting a D-layer edge
last 5 edges per columns first.

or

2x2x2
3 F2L pairs
CLL (of some sort)
insert 1 D-layer edge while orienting U-layer edges.
EP5 (really good alg set)


----------



## lerenard (Feb 26, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> i think it's a really good method.
> 
> 2x2x2
> 2 F2L pairs.
> ...



Where are last five edges algs? I've looked before and can't find them.

ALSO:
not really a full idea, but when I tried and failed to solve a square one intuitively (just got it and didn't know any method) it was not in a square shape but I managed to solve everything but three pieces: two edges and a corner. I determined it would be impossible to solve them with a commutator because of the irregularities in shape making too many turns impossible, but it got me thinking: would a "direct solve" method be competitive? It would be something like this:
Solve cube shape
Get as many pieces as possible solved relative to each other, maybe one or two blocks misplaced and a few pieces totally unsolved (even in the wrong layer)
Solve the rest with algs.

Like I said, this is totally undeveloped, I'm just asking if something like that could be fast.


----------



## Berd (Feb 26, 2015)

lerenard said:


> Where are last five edges algs? I've looked before and can't find them.
> 
> ALSO:
> not really a full idea, but when I tried and failed to solve a square one intuitively (just got it and didn't know any method) it was not in a square shape but I managed to solve everything but three pieces: two edges and a corner. I determined it would be impossible to solve them with a commutator because of the irregularities in shape making too many turns impossible, but it got me thinking: would a "direct solve" method be competitive? It would be something like this:
> ...


Sounds similar to the roux and screw method.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 26, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Advantages over CFOP and Roux:
> ----------
> 1) MORE WAYS TO START. If you use CFOP or FreeFOP, you can make a Cross - 1E and solve F2L pairs or something like that in any order. If you use Roux, you can build 1 or 2 1x2x3 blocks and finish up the F2L pairs if you haven't already. If you use Petrus, you can build a 2x2x2 and/or a 2x2x3 block, then finish up F2L pairs.
> 
> ...



1) If you started with Roux blocks, there's no reason to switch to Pang because Roux is perfectly good by itself. I can see this as a variant of CFOP or Petrus though. But for CFOP, that cross edge slot will be a huge problem if you cant take an edge out of there quickly, in case you need it for F2L. Plus it hinders lookahead, plus it's VERY difficult to take advantage of the open space if you dont have either edges oriented or a free M slice. And in either of those 2 cases it'd just be ZZ or Roux.

2) You don't skip OLL. You have PLS for OLL and the EO step for OLL. That's 2 steps for OLL and therefore nothing was skipped. And PLL skip chance doesn't change.

3) Okay if we continue to talk about this method, just assume that everyone knows PLS. If anyone's gonna use this method properly there's no reason to not know it. I agree that PLL will be much more predictable as an advanced user of this method can quickly see which stickers are gonna join together, which is probably enough to get a good sense of PLL after glancing at CP.

And going back to #1, more ways to start is not an advantage to this method over CFOP because you can just FreeFOP it anyway. The main difference between Pang and FreeFOP in the F2L stage is you ignore that one cross edge. It doesn't really make a difference, so in that respect, FreeFOP is just as good as Pang.


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 26, 2015)

lerenard said:


> Where are last five edges algs? I've looked before and can't find them.



yeah, they are Athefre's algs. i think his site is down. but here are the algs

http://s140.photobucket.com/user/Athefre/media/EP5Final.png.html


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 26, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> You seem to be the biggest critic of my method; you've been blasting it from the day I proposed it to this site. I'd like to ask how you would improve this method to your liking. Or do you think that this method is hopeless and that I should just abandon my work? I've heard enough about your misgivings; I have similar doubts. Now it's time I hear other things.



Yeah, going back through the thread, I seem to come off as antagonistic. Sorry about that, I've been having a really bad week.

Honestly, I'd probably turn it into Roux or one of the methods MdiPalma suggested (probably the second one). Basically, both of the methods he recommends address the main concern I have with the method, that being, the sheer number of hidden pieces at any one time, which makes lookahead very difficult. Smiles explained that part better than I can.

If you can come up with a way to deal with those hidden pieces, you've made a fairly decent method. I don't think a Columns First method is ever going to be better than any of the big 4, but I'd love to be proven wrong.


----------



## molarmanful (Feb 26, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Yeah, going back through the thread, I seem to come off as antagonistic. Sorry about that, I've been having a really bad week.
> 
> Honestly, I'd probably turn it into Roux or one of the methods MdiPalma suggested (probably the second one). Basically, both of the methods he recommends address the main concern I have with the method, that being, the sheer number of hidden pieces at any one time, which makes lookahead very difficult. Smiles explained that part better than I can.
> 
> If you can come up with a way to deal with those hidden pieces, you've made a fairly decent method. I don't think a Columns First method is ever going to be better than any of the big 4, but I'd love to be proven wrong.



Oh, it's fine. Thanks for the feedback, though.


----------



## Thomasthecuber (Feb 28, 2015)

*Roux F2L?*

Is roux f2l (I don't now a good name) fast?
I mean that first do the roux left and right side and then permute the last two or one corner with M and U.

Edit: Sorry I mean the last two or one edges
So that you have yor f2l done and than oll and pll or something like that.


----------



## TDM (Feb 28, 2015)

This has been suggested many times before and isn't a good method. Either use CFOP, or use Roux. Don't try combining them like this.


----------



## Thomasthecuber (Feb 28, 2015)

Ok thanks, I'm cfop user and I will not learn roux so I think a mix of them. But ok


----------



## sneaklyfox (Feb 28, 2015)

This makes me think of that cyoubx video about rotationless F2L in CFOP being a silly way of doing Roux. Anyone able to find the link?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 28, 2015)

sneaklyfox said:


> This makes me think of that cyoubx video about rotationless F2L in CFOP being a silly way of doing Roux. Anyone able to find the link?



this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js1LZscj18A


----------



## GuRoux (Feb 28, 2015)

Thomasthecuber said:


> Is roux f2l (I don't now a good name) fast?
> I mean that first do the roux left and right side and then permute the last two or one corner with M and U.
> 
> Edit: Sorry I mean the last two or one edges
> So that you have yor f2l done and than oll and pll or something like that.



i don't know if this is much worse if at all to cfop f2l. i think it is less moves and no rotations, but sometimes hard to lookahead and M moves. so maybe it's just as good. of course you can't do last slot and edge control stuff as easily.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 28, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i don't know if this is much worse if at all to cfop f2l. i think it is less moves and no rotations, but sometimes hard to lookahead and M moves. so maybe it's just as good. of course you can't do last slot and edge control stuff as easily.



harder to look ahead. one of CFOP's big advantages is how easy it is to look head.

but 2 D edges + OLL + PLL i assume is slower than CLL + LSE.

the only advantage i can see out of doing RouxF2L is if you do EO during the last 2 edges (and corner recog) and finish with ZBLL.


----------



## TDM (Feb 28, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i don't know if this is much worse if at all to cfop f2l. i think it is less moves and no rotations, but sometimes hard to lookahead and M moves. so maybe it's just as good. of course you can't do last slot and edge control stuff as easily.


Would it be more moves if you have to then add in the two cross edges afterwards?


----------



## GuRoux (Feb 28, 2015)

TDM said:


> Would it be fewer moves if you have to then add in the two cross edges afterwards?



i thinks so. those edges take about 6-7 moves? roux f2b is 25 for me in a speedsolve.


----------



## TDM (Feb 28, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i thinks so. those edges take about 6-7 moves? roux f2b is 25 for me in a speedsolve.


Oops, I meant to say more, not fewer


----------



## lerenard (Feb 28, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> yeah, they are Athefre's algs. i think his site is down. but here are the algs
> 
> http://s140.photobucket.com/user/Athefre/media/EP5Final.png.html



Thanks! Most of them are intuitive, and the rest are easy to understand and remember.


----------



## calci (Mar 2, 2015)

Here is my idea: after F2L is done, you do an algorithm that permutes corners of the last layer and flip all edges. After that you use 2gen algorithms to complete the rest. So for example:





instead of doing OLL and PLL, do F U R U' R' F' then you will have this 2gen case:




This can be useful for OH...


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Mar 2, 2015)

That's CPEOLL/2GLL. You can find algs for the CPEOLL step here.


----------



## calci (Mar 2, 2015)

oops thank you i didnt know that


----------



## Berd (Mar 8, 2015)

Can I be sneaky and make a really basic WV subset when there is a 1x2x3 block solved on the top layer before last slot? Its only ~3 cases I think...


----------



## Randomno (Mar 8, 2015)

Berd said:


> Can I be sneaky and make a really basic WV subset when there is a 1x2x3 block solved on the top layer before last slot? Its only ~3 cases I think...



3 with or without mirrors?


----------



## TDM (Mar 8, 2015)

Randomno said:


> 3 with or without mirrors?


3 without mirrors.


----------



## Berd (Mar 8, 2015)

Is it a subset already!?


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 8, 2015)

This is probably a really bad idea. But I will post it nonetheless. 
Steps are as follows.
1. EOline (Left to Right)
2. F2B
3. COLL
4.LSE 

Pros: LSE is shorter, as you have no bad edges.

Cons: Doing Eoline removes the possibility of using M for F2B
Must use COLL, otherwise, there was no point in using EO

I could see this being helpful for people that use ZZ, that want to learn Roux.
Also question about this. Could you use M2 for the F2B?
That is All.
Thanks for taking this into consideration,
2180161


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 8, 2015)

Another Method, but more of an Idea.
If you did your Roux blocks on F and B, When you wanted to do M, you could do D or D'.
I'm just saying because say you dont want to rotate, but your FB is really easy on F.


----------



## Ollie (Mar 8, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another Method, but more of an Idea.
> If you did your Roux blocks on F and B, When you wanted to do M, you could do D or D'.
> I'm just saying because say you dont want to rotate, but your FB is really easy on F.



Have you tried block building on F or B?


----------



## mDiPalma (Mar 8, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another Method, but more of an Idea.
> If you did your Roux blocks on F and B, When you wanted to do M, you could do D or D'.
> I'm just saying because say you dont want to rotate, but your FB is really easy on F.



How does D/D' replace S or M?



Ollie said:


> Have you tried block building on F or B?


blockbuilding on B is fine. that's how I thought most Petrus solvers did the 3x2x2 (which includes more EO-involved pieces than Roux blocks).


----------



## TDM (Mar 8, 2015)

Berd said:


> Is it a subset already!?


I've never seen anyone suggest it, but we have all the algs already, as you're just looking at a couple of the WV cases.


----------



## Berd (Mar 8, 2015)

TDM said:


> I've never seen anyone suggest it, but we have all the algs already, as you're just looking at a couple of the WV cases.


Yeah, I kinda see it as a subset you learn first, similar to 2 look oll.


----------



## obelisk477 (Mar 24, 2015)

Has anyone generated multi-slotting algs for the last two slots for CFOP? Once you form one of the pairs, shouldn't it only be 5*3*5*2=150 algs? You would have to plan to save two adjacent slots for the last two (which I normally do anyway), and then rotate so that they're on R, make the FR pair, then perform the alg.

Then there's split pair as well (another 150), but this seems to me a more profitable enterprise than learning ZBLL for CFOP, and requires less algs.


----------



## Smiles (Mar 24, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Has anyone generated multi-slotting algs for the last two slots for CFOP? Once you form one of the pairs, shouldn't it only be 5*3*5*2=150 algs? You would have to plan to save two adjacent slots for the last two (which I normally do anyway), and then rotate so that they're on R, make the FR pair, then perform the alg.
> 
> Then there's split pair as well (another 150), but this seems to me a more profitable enterprise than learning ZBLL for CFOP, and requires less algs.



this would only be beneficial for the few bad cases. if it's 2 gen or another good case, just solve it normally because you'd be looking ahead anyway.

for this alg set:

Advantages
- saves moves

Disadvantages
- force adjacent slots (or use it less frequently, which means less practice & less habit)
- can only be used when the front pair is solved first (F/B mirroring would be a pain, especially if there are F/B moves)
- cannot combine with other LS techniques like OLS, sledgehammer
- harder to predict OLL because rather than normal inserts there are sooo many algs
- is barely faster than slot + slot, *assuming your recall is perfect and you've practiced all these algorithms*.
- i assume that many algs would be the same as slot + slot, therefore for those, any time spent recognizing the case would be wasted.

edit: multislotting techniques already exist, i think that any multislotting algorithms will not be largely beneficial.


----------



## JemFish (Apr 9, 2015)

*[PROPOSAL] 2.5-Step Ortega (using Winter Variation)*

[PROPOSAL] ORTEGA WINTER VARIATION (OWV)

-----

The three steps of Classic Ortega (CO) are:


FL - first layer (ignoring permutation)
OLL - orientation of last layer
PBL - permutation of both layers
I'm proposing a variation of CO - OWV - where the number of steps is reduced to "2.5," and very often only 2.

*[STEP 0.5]* - FL-1 (first layer minus 1 piece). I say this is half a step because the move count is at most 5 (I think; correct me if I'm wrong).
*[STEP 1]* - WVLP (Winter Variation Last Piece), just a 2x2 version of WVLS (Winter Variation Last Slot).
*[STEP 2]* - PBL (permutation of both layers)

*[STEP 0.5]* will, I think, average of 2.5 moves (again, correct me if I'm wrong).
*[STEP 1]* will, according to the speedsolving wiki, average 8.07 moves (maybe less if the WVLP is specially done for 2x2).
*[STEP 2]* will, if using my algs, average 7.8 moves.

The total move-count for OWV, on average, would be 18.37. This is an improvement from CO by about 1.7 moves.

-----

*PROS*: Ehh...don't really have any good ones, but there is one interesting point about OWV:


WVLP can be used for 2x2 every time during *[STEP 2]*, whereas on 3x3 (during CFOP, at least) you need the edges to be oriented correctly.
...
*CONS*: 


Ortega requires 12 algs to be learnt, whereas OWV would require 58 algs to be learnt, and isn't really worth the 1.7 move reduction.
...
*THOUGHTS*:

[JemFish] I think this variation might be helpful if a 2x2er has already learnt EG (or some of the subsets), as well as TCLL (maybe?), and would like even more algs under his belt in case a scramble that is already in the FL-1 position turns up. Those cases would be easy to one-look if the cuber understands exactly what all the WVLP cases do to the last layer.

-----

Thoughts! I need your thoughts on this, and some points to enter into my PROS and CONS list.

~JemFish (Jeremy Lindsay)


----------



## waffle=ijm (Apr 9, 2015)

Soooo Stern-Sun? https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/SS_Method


----------



## JemFish (Apr 9, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> Soooo Stern-Sun? https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/SS_Method



What the heck...they stole my idea...travelled into the future and stole my idea...

(What a waste of time...*sigh*)


----------



## Berd (Apr 9, 2015)

JemFish said:


> What the heck...they stole my idea...travelled into the future and stole my idea...
> 
> (What a waste of time...*sigh*)


I thought of that a while ago... I still use some winter variation in my solves


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 9, 2015)

If ur using WV which is quite a few algs, its better to just learn full CLL and get it over with.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 13, 2015)

Soo... Tell me if this is Roux-by-4
it is for 4x4
solve two opposite centers
solve a 3x3x4 block on both centers
solve the rest of your centers using M,M', R and L (inner slice)
solve your l6e pairs.
CMLL 
LSE
OR after the rest of your centers
CMLL
F3L (using M and U)
ELL 
The second one is more so of a K-4 style solve, and the first is much better for those who use Roux


----------



## Berd (Apr 13, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Soo... Tell me if this is Roux-by-4
> it is for 4x4
> solve two opposite centers
> solve a 3x3x4 block on both centers
> ...


I have a method like that but you do Cmll before last centers.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 13, 2015)

sooo is it Roux by 4, or no?
also its first is better for roux


----------



## supercavitation (Apr 13, 2015)

2180161 said:


> sooo is it Roux by 4, or no?
> also its first is better for roux



Isn't that just Stadler? I know the second one is KBCM.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Apr 14, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Soo... Tell me if this is Roux-by-4
> it is for 4x4
> solve two opposite centers
> solve a 3x3x4 block on both centers
> ...



well i have never heard of 'roux by four,' but i use a system similar to your second proposition, though i do f2b, corners, centers +drdf at the same time, then ell. and i do not think that pairing the edges after f2b and centers is very good at all, but im open to being proven wrong with some example solves...


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 14, 2015)

I would do an example solve, but seeing as my 4x4 solves are about 125+ moves, I dont feel like doing that.


----------



## Berd (Apr 14, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> well i have never heard of 'roux by four,' but i use a system similar to your second proposition, though i do f2b, corners, centers +drdf at the same time, then ell. and i do not think that pairing the edges after f2b and centers is very good at all, but im open to being proven wrong with some example solves...


I'll do an example solve soon!


----------



## Suzuha (Apr 19, 2015)

I've been messing around with roux and ended up with a 'hybrid' of cfop and roux.
1. F2B
2. CMLL
3. Complete cross
4. OLL (#20, #28, #57)
5. EPLL (U, H, Z)

EDIT:
So far, I only got OLL #20, #28, and #57.


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 19, 2015)

GoldenOak said:


> I've been messing around with roux and ended up with a 'hybrid' of cfop and roux.
> 1. F2B
> 2. CMLL
> 3. Complete cross
> ...


Sigh.

https://youtu.be/qFJE9Ej6-hk


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 19, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qFJE9Ej6-hk



actually this video is not that. it's solve DR and DL edge and two non-f2b edges in the remaining cross slots. then solve like f2l. cmll, lse.


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 19, 2015)

Ah. Nevermind then


----------



## Randomno (Apr 19, 2015)

GoldenOak said:


> I've been messing around with roux and ended up with a 'hybrid' of cfop and roux.
> 1. F2B
> 2. CMLL
> 3. Complete cross
> ...



4 and 5 can be combined into ELL.


----------



## Suzuha (Apr 19, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qFJE9Ej6-hk



Oh awesome. It's kind of cool that it preserves corners.

EDIT: Even though it's not exactly the same, it's still interesting.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Apr 19, 2015)

oh my, golden oak, oh my indeed... im sorry to say but this is probably one of the most common method proposals we get around here (or at least the one that i hear the most often). i would generally say that it does not have much potential so to problems with efficiency. im feeling like the average number of moves needed to "complete the cross" is about 6, and then it would take another 9 moves on average to solve the U layer edges. so in total that is more moves than the average LSE, and the algorithms are less fingertrick friendly; there is less ability to do M2s and consecutive M' moves than during LSE.


----------



## Suzuha (Apr 19, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> oh my, golden oak, oh my indeed... im sorry to say but this is probably one of the most common method proposals we get around here (or at least the one that i hear the most often)..



Seems like everything has been created as a method.


----------



## Pranav Sindura (Apr 19, 2015)

> What the heck...they stole my idea...travelled into the future and stole my idea...
> 
> (What a waste of time...*sigh*)



Yeah me too, I also Thought about it about but Left it and thought it was of no use......

But it can be of use if the MOVE COUNT IS LOW like 4-5 Moves only because there are no EDGES ON A 2X2.......


----------



## Randomno (Apr 19, 2015)

GoldenOak said:


> Seems like everything has been created as a method.



That's why the last big 4 method is from 2006.


----------



## Berd (Apr 19, 2015)

Randomno said:


> That's why the last big 4 method is from 2006.


Which one was it?


----------



## Randomno (Apr 19, 2015)

Berd said:


> Which one was it?



ZZ.


----------



## Berd (Apr 19, 2015)

Randomno said:


> ZZ.


What was the order that they were devolved?


----------



## Randomno (Apr 19, 2015)

Berd said:


> What was the order that they were devolved?



CFOP/Petrus - both some point in the early 80s.

Roux - 2003.

ZZ - 2006.


----------



## TomasCZ (Apr 19, 2015)

*New CFOP substep ? cross EP+CO*

*I know, that this is not the first method, which skips cross edge permutation.*


Hi guys !
Sorry for my english.
I have created a method, which allows me to have a shorter cross (in some cases)
I would like to explain briefly what this method basically does: It orients LL corners ans simultaneously permutes cross edges.

All substeps I had known only solved LL edges or corners, but I thought, that there should be a method, which does something with cross.
So basically it allows me to have 2 edges on cross swapped, and still solve the cube normally. Sometimes cross is VERY easy when I dont care about edge permutation.

So the solve would look like this:

cross (2 edges swapped)
F2L + edge orientation
OLL + cross edge permutation
PLL


Pros:
-only 16 algorithms (basic method)
-good lookahead for F2L
-better cross-F2L transition
-shorter cross

Cons:
-edge control is needed
-algorithms average cca 11 moves


Algs: View attachment KralVariation(KV).pdf


I was also considering permuting the edges, when doing PLL or full OLL, but that would need a large alg set.
Also, all 6 edges could be solved with corners orientation (large alg set again)



What do you guys think of this ? What are your opinions ?


----------



## Randomno (Apr 19, 2015)

Unpermuted cross > F2L + EO > COLL > last edges.


----------



## IQubic (Apr 19, 2015)

Randomno said:


> Unpermuted cross > F2L + EO > COLL > last corners.



But Randomno, the last corners were solved in the COLL step.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Apr 19, 2015)

TomasCZ said:


> *I know, that this is not the first method, which skips cross edge permutation.*
> 
> 
> Hi guys !
> ...



good job coming up with some algs that are actually nice to preform. but isn't the cross usually pretty easy to make anyway? if you are opposite colour neutral i dont think there would ever be a cross bad enough to justify this. maybe this could be useful for fixed cross colour solvers?? on a related topic, a few weeks ago i actually decided to generate a bunch of algs to swap two D layer edges and permute the last layer. im pretty sure i got them all done, but some of them are far from fingertrick friendly. i'll return with an update on that when i next access that hard-drive. 

in all, my experiences tell me that the best methods are both straight forward, and relatively efficient(move-cont efficient, look-ahead efficient, regrip efficient, etc). intentionally solving the cross incorrectly is not straight-forward (it is rather counter intuitive, really) and this over complication is detrimental to its efficiency (having to position the D layer before executing the alg, and it might mess up f2l look ahead). 
but experimental method is experimental. who knows what may become of it.


----------



## supercavitation (Apr 20, 2015)

Ross The Boss said:


> good job coming up with some algs that are actually nice to preform. but isn't the cross usually pretty easy to make anyway? if you are opposite colour neutral i dont think there would ever be a cross bad enough to justify this. maybe this could be useful for fixed cross colour solvers?? on a related topic, a few weeks ago i actually decided to generate a bunch of algs to swap two D layer edges and permute the last layer. im pretty sure i got them all done, but some of them are far from fingertrick friendly. i'll return with an update on that when i next access that hard-drive.
> 
> in all, my experiences tell me that the best methods are both straight forward, and relatively efficient(move-cont efficient, look-ahead efficient, regrip efficient, etc). intentionally solving the cross incorrectly is not straight-forward (it is rather counter intuitive, really) and this over complication is detrimental to its efficiency (having to position the D layer before executing the alg, and it might mess up f2l look ahead).
> but experimental method is experimental. who knows what may become of it.



It's actually pretty useful to do pseudo cross with sufficient practice, especially if you do a lot of CP during OLL. The usual finish is a "parity" EPLL alg.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 2, 2015)

Just a slight variation to Yau on bigger cubes, maybe it's been done before.
1) solve cross+centers à la Yau
2) freeslice 4 edges and place them on the top layer
3) finish the last 4 edges like L4E with redux.
4) 3x3 stage

I've been playing with this and I can get pretty close to my normal 5x5 timings.

Thoughts?


----------



## 2180161 (May 2, 2015)

Sooo I post a lot of things that get rejected here, but have come up with a method that has semi-efficient movecount (more than Roux, Less than CFOP) at least for me
Step 1.EO Cross
Step 2. Solve All E-slice pieces
Step 3. Permute LL edges
Step 4. Solve All Corners using about 40,000 Algs ( I think)
LOTS AND LOTS OF ALGS, but there are ways to reduce it .


----------



## 2180161 (May 2, 2015)

Soo I have brought up this method before, but I have recently modified it.
Step 1. 2x2x3 Block
Step 2. EO
Step 3. Solve BL F2L Pair
Step 4. L5C while preserving EO
Step 5. L5E while preserving CO
Also, Because I would like to find algs for this method, could someone tell me how many algs there would be, and if it would be worth it to learn them all


----------



## supercavitation (May 3, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Soo I have brought up this method before, but I have recently modified it.
> Step 1. 2x2x3 Block
> Step 2. EO
> Step 3. Solve BL F2L Pair
> ...



Both would be well in excess of 100. Definitely not worth it to learn them all.


----------



## 2180161 (May 3, 2015)

Well, the L5C would basically be COLL+1, which I was told is ~96 Algs, and then for the L5E, It would end up being EPLL+1, which would be around 120 algs I believe, so It would be a total of 216 Algs and some subsets have much more than than like OLLCP and Full EG.


----------



## supercavitation (May 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Well, the L5C would basically be COLL+1, which I was told is ~96 Algs, and then for the L5E, It would end up being EPLL+1, which would be around 120 algs I believe, so It would be a total of 216 Algs and some subsets have much more than than like OLLCP and Full EG.



COLL+1 is very different from L5C, it's COLL, and solving a single LL edge, which is just learning one extra alg for each COLL case (it's 80 algs), while L5C is 5 corners. L5C would have as many algs as full EG (126, if I haven't counted wrong) for cases when the bottom corner is permuted alone (depending on its orientation, think CLL and TCLL), never mind the number of cases where it's in the top layer. I don't know how many algs L5E is, but this method would require huge numbers of algs.


----------



## ThePieguy321 (May 9, 2015)

*How to use OP (Owen Petrus) Method*

So, my friend owen has invented a new method. (Sort of) There is a back-story behind this which I will explain to you.

So, I have been learning Petrus method, and I told my friend owen about it. Problem was, I only remembered the first two steps, the 2 by 2 block and 2 by 2 by 3 block. I told him this and he tried it. After doing so, he said, "Oh, i get it, Petrus method is a strange way of doing 2 f2l pairs and most of the cross." I told him that was nowhere near it, but he replied " Well in my petrus method that is how it works." And so he called it OP method, for Owen petrus method. I will explain it to you.

You begin with doing the 2 by 2 and 2 by 2 by 3 blocks like in regular petrus method, and you should have some 2 F2L pairs and 3 of 4 cross pieces inserted. You finish the cross and the rest of F2L like a normal layer by layer solve, and finish the rest of the cube like it was a regular layer by layer solve. We have both tried it with mixed results. I actually made my record on the 3 by 3 with this, and I am wondering how the rest of you might do with this.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 9, 2015)

EO + blockbuild the remaining F2L would be a lot more efficient though...


----------



## TDM (May 9, 2015)

This has been invented _so many_ times and is not as good as CFOP or Petrus in most situations.

Also OP is the name for another method, so don't call this method OP.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (May 9, 2015)

TDM said:


> This has been invented _so many_ times and is not as good as CFOP or Petrus in most situations.
> 
> Also OP is the name for another method, so don't call this method OP.



yeah old pochmann


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (May 9, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> yeah old pochmann



i was also thinking Original Post but that works too...


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (May 10, 2015)

quickalt said:


> How is Original Post a method?



lol idk i was confused reading the title...


----------



## ThePieguy321 (May 14, 2015)

TDM said:


> This has been invented _so many_ times and is not as good as CFOP or Petrus in most situations.
> 
> Also OP is the name for another method, so don't call this method OP.



I know, Owen found it funny, and so it stuck. I preferred witpot, for what is the point of this. The funny name wasn't enough.


----------



## 2180161 (May 17, 2015)

Ok, so here goes the idea for a method for 3x3
I feel that this could be used for FMC but maybe not who knows?

1. Cross
2.F2L-1
3. EO (because you did F2L-1 there will only be a max of 4, so less algs to learn to fix this)
4.F2L-1E
5. COLL
6. L5E
An example Solve:
Scramble:U F2 L F2 L2 F' D' F2 B' D2 B R2 D2 R2 B' D2 U
Solution:
U D F L F2 //2x2
U2 R' U' R2 U R U R' U2 R U' R' d2 U M' U2 M //F2L-1
U' M' U M U2 M' U M//EO
U2 R U R' //F2L-1E
U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R// COLL
U R U' R' F2 U' L' U L F2 //L5E


----------



## mDiPalma (May 17, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Ok, so here goes the idea for a method for 3x3
> I feel that this could be used for FMC but maybe not who knows?
> 
> 1. Cross
> ...



:tu

you can combine steps 3 and 4

place the corner at UFR (3 orientations) 

check the EO (11 misoriented possibilities)

so thats only 33 algs (plus the ones with solved EO, but I don't consider those "algs")


----------



## 2180161 (May 17, 2015)

so i made the algs for it in cubeexplorer. Now, to optimize them all...


----------



## 4Chan (May 18, 2015)

I just came up with this concept. I haven't fully hashed it out yet, and I wanted to throw it out here for some input. I'm thinking about calling it WF2L

Personally, this is how I solve 3x3:
1. EOLine
2. Finish F2L
3. ZBLL

Step three is divided into four main substeps:
A. Look at the rotation of the case, and rotate it into recognisable state by using U, U', or U2.
B. Once rotated, figure out the ZBLL case.
C. Execute alg.
D. Adjust the U layer with a U, U', or U2


I realised that substep A can be combined with the final F2L slot by including a lot of F2L algs.
I think if I can search for the easy cases, this would really help out!

For example:

U' B' F U' R2 U R U' R U F' R B

If I were to do the normal approach with U R U' R', _then I'd have to do look at the alg, then do a U, and then look at it again._

However! If I were to do a U2 R U2 R', I can skip that nonsense and go straight into recognition, *AND* I'd know the corner orientation before I even finish F2L.

I've considered other options to remove that stupid substep A such as:
1. Using a conversion factor to recognise ZBLL from different angles.
2. Using alternate recognition styles.
3. Learning alternate algs to do from other angles. (Ew)

*tl;dr: By learning lots of F2L cases, one can omit a ZBLL substep and recognise corner orientation before finishing F2L.*

EDIT: Under further consideration, that's A LOT OF ALGS.
I think just learning to recognise from different angles is a better approach.


----------



## Ross The Boss (May 18, 2015)

4x4x4 direct solving thing: (for the lolz)

1) opposite centers (not using your bottom/top colours)
2) build a 3x3x1 square off of one of them 
*one can and should deviate from this order depending on case*
3) expand 3x3x1 into 3x3x2
4) expand oncemore into a 3x3x3
5) you guessed it, turn this ***** into a 3x3x4!
6) (holding the cube so two unsolved centers are on F & U) build column/pair things to solve the two remaining D corners and FR&FL edges. 
7) solve DF edges and the last two centers at the same time 
8) CLL
9) ELL with comms

git gud, sun!


----------



## supercube (May 25, 2015)

I noticed that I can do sune twice faster than I can do car once. sune is 7 moves car is 14 moves. %50 of car case require a U move or cube rotation to setup. %25 of sune case require a U move. the U move between a double sune is predictable so you can compare them as 15 moves for double sune (car case) or 14 for car. some have said on reddit that car is faster but I would disagree. maybe someone can post a video of how to finger trick RUR'U'. I use all 4 fingers to sune (no thumb), I use pinky and thumb for car. I think car is a waste of time to learn. what do you think?


----------



## Thecuber1 (May 25, 2015)

*FreeFOP/Fridrich Substep: FBCLE*

Hey everyone, I have been experimenting with my cubes lately and found this substep pretty cool. The method is as follows:

F2E: First two edges, basically solving half the cross.

Blocks: Basically doing Roux 1x2x3 blocks, on the faces with the first two edges.

CMLL: Orienting and permuting the corners of the last layer simultaneously.

L2E: Last 2 edges, putting in the last 2 edges of the F2L

ELL: Edges of the last layer, orienting and permuting them simultaneously.


Pros: 

Higher chance of getting an OLL skip

Less rotations than normal CFOP

Cons: 

CMLL and ELL can be tough to learn

It can be tough to adjust to

Is it too much like Roux? Please leave your suggestions below.


----------



## TDM (May 25, 2015)

supercube said:


> I noticed that I can do sune twice faster than I can do car once. sune is 7 moves car is 14 moves. %50 of car case require a U move or cube rotation to setup. %25 of sune case require a U move. the U move between a double sune is predictable so you can compare them as 15 moves for double sune (car case) or 14 for car. some have said on reddit that car is faster but I would disagree. maybe someone can post a video of how to finger trick RUR'U'. I use all 4 fingers to sune (no thumb), I use pinky and thumb for car. I think car is a waste of time to learn. what do you think?


What? What's car? If you mean this case:

then definitely learn it.
I think the 14 move alg you're talking about is F (R U R' U')3 F'; if it is, try R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'. It's shorter, and easier to fingertrick. It's two consecutive antisunes with cancelled moves. You could also do two sunes: y R U R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'.




Thecuber1 said:


> Hey everyone, I have been experimenting with my cubes lately and found this substep pretty cool. The method is as follows:


no, please no, this has been invented so many times now. Please read the thread at least a bit. This is not a good method and leaves you with almost none of the advantages that CFOP or Roux has.


----------



## penguinz7 (May 25, 2015)

Thecuber1 said:


> Hey everyone, I have been experimenting with my cubes lately and found this substep pretty cool. The method is as follows:



I cry everytime.


----------



## molarmanful (May 26, 2015)

I was just thinking whether the whole cube could be solved using Sune/Antisune algorithms, and I decided to go ahead with it. It is essentially an edges-first method.

Here it is. I'm not planning on making this a speedsolving method, but more like a just-for-fun or beginner's method. The method will be called SASS, or Sune-AntiSune Spam. Here we go!
------
For clarity, all Sune/Antisune algorithms will be called S algorithms in this description.

1. EDGES
Do this step first, so that you won't have to worry about corner orientation. This step is almost entirely intuitive.

To start, solve as many edges as possible using intuition. You should be able to get at least 8 edges done. Then, use an S algorithm to orient and permute the last edges into their solved positions.

You can use separate algorithms for EO and EP, or you can use setup moves so that only an EP algorithm is required.

2. CORNERS
This step favors users who know L4C Sune/Antisune cases.

Basically, use different S algorithms to cycle around corners and orient them into a solved state without disturbing edges. It is generally easier to do CO and CP separately, but using setup moves makes it possible to group CO and CP together. You may need the use of a buffer to make things easier.
------


----------



## supercube (May 26, 2015)

TDM said:


> What? What's car? If you mean this case:
> 
> then definitely learn it.
> I think the 14 move alg you're talking about is F (R U R' U')3 F'; if it is, try R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'. It's shorter, and easier to fingertrick. It's two consecutive antisunes with cancelled moves. You could also do two sunes: y R U R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'.



yes that is what I was trying to say. I just noticed that you can cancel 4 moves into 1 when you double sune. U2 R' R U = U' so it is actually a shorter alg and I learned some group theory today thanks to you.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 2, 2015)

*OLSLL - Solving the LS and OLL simultaneously in <40 algs!*

So I've been thinking and I think I've derived a cool new method for solving the last slot on any Friedrich solve while also doing OLL. This will be a 2-look system, but isn't normal LS/OLL 2-look also?

OLSLL stands for "Orient Last Slot and Last Layer." Essentially, you do the following steps:
LSP - Last slot pairing: Pair up the two pieces for the last slot. They do NOT have to be oriented at all (disoriented edge and twisted corners are fine). This should be very quick.
L5EO - Last 5 edges orientation: Insert the pair and orient the last 5 edges on the puzzle in one algorithm (one of 16). Most of these are 3-gen, but some are 4-gen. :/
L5CO - Last 5 corners orientation: Orient the last 5 corners on the puzzle in one algorithm (one of 23). These are all <R, U> 2-gen sexiness.

To show you what a solve could look like, I have one here to show you guys: 

Scramble: L2 U' B' U2 R' F2 L2 B' L F' L2 B2 L U2 R2 U B' R2 D' B2
Cross (on bottom): x' z D U' R L2 B' U' L2
F2L Pair 1: y' R U' R' U2 y R' U' R
F2L Pair 2: U' F' U F
F2L Pair 3: L' U L y' L' U' L
L5EO: U2 R U2 R' F' U' L' U2 L U' F
L5CO: U R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U R'
PLL: U' Dw2' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U'

You may visually see the solve executed here. I do not currently have public algorithms available.

NOTE: This is not MGLS, EJF2L, VHLS, or anything like that. Similarities are intentional, but this method is not any that I've seen before.

ALSO NOTE: This method is purely an alternative to LS+OLL, similar to how CLL+ELL is an alternative to OLL+PLL.

What are you guys' thoughts on this? I think this is pretty cool and am currently learning the algorithms to put it in practice myself. Please keep this to a nice thread. I don't want this thread cancerous with all of this "YOUR METHOD SUCKS JUST USE NORMAL CFOP" stuff. This is a new idea. Also, if you want more example solves, just ask! I can do a few for you guys if you want.


----------



## cashis (Jun 2, 2015)

YOUR METHOD SUCKS JUST USE NORMAL CFOP
joking. 
But this is a cool idea. Idk if its been thought of before, but this *could* be just as fast as LS & OLL.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Jun 2, 2015)

I think because of the two lookiness, LS+OLL will beat this unless they are "the Homeschooler"
But you can try to be an MLG pro like ZZ and generate the full algs.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 2, 2015)

cashis said:


> this is a cool idea. Idk if its been thought of before, but this *could* be just as fast as LS & OLL.





theROUXbiksCube said:


> I think because of the two lookiness, LS+OLL will beat this unless they are "the Homeschooler"
> But you can try to be an MLG pro like ZZ and generate the full algs.



Thanks for feedback. Also, Rouxbiks, Roux will always have a special place in my heart as it was my first ever speedsolving method I used (before I changed to CFOP). Awesome job getting fast with it. I guess full CMLL?


----------



## cashis (Jun 2, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> But you can try to be an MLG pro like ZZ and generate the full algs.



If you one alg for both, thats just VLS. but if you mean algs for L5 E & C, sure


----------



## pdilla (Jun 2, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> L5EO - Last 5 edges orientation: Insert the pair and orient the last 5 edges on the puzzle in one algorithm (one of 16). Most of these are 3-gen, but some are 4-gen. :/
> L5CO - Last 5 corners orientation: Orient the last 5 corners on the puzzle in one algorithm (one of 23). These are all <R, U> 2-gen sexiness.



Less algs than OLL. Hell yeah.

Just need that recog to catch up I guess...



theROUXbiksCube said:


> I think because of the two lookiness, LS+OLL will beat this unless they are "*the Homeschooler*"


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 2, 2015)

cashis said:


> If you one alg for both, thats just VLS. but if you mean algs for L5 E & C, sure



About half of the L5EO algs will be simple VHLS. However, the other half will need to be generated because those are the cases where the LS edge itself is disoriented. The L5CO algs can actually be borrowed from the MGLS I and Im cases. When I post these algorithms, I'll make sure to give appropriate credit.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 2, 2015)

Also, off topic from my previous OLSLL posts, is it possible to combine ZZ and Roux in any way? What I mean is this: 

Solve EOLine
Solve <L, U, R> ZZF2L _without_ the other bottom two edges (RD and LD). 
COLL
Roux-style last six edges

Like this.

Just a bit more thinking (I won't put this into active practice however, unlike OLSLL).


----------



## TDM (Jun 2, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> *Solve EOLine*
> Solve <L, U, R> ZZF2L _without_ the other bottom two edges (RD and LD).
> COLL
> Roux-style last six edges


Don't you mean EO, not EOLine?
also I don't think this will be any better than Roux. You're making the entire solve much less efficient. You'd at least have to do COLL and ULUR in one step, but it still won't be as good.


----------



## cubingbrothers (Jun 2, 2015)

cool


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 2, 2015)

TDM said:


> Don't you mean EO, not EOLine?



Did you see my example solve? I meant EOLine. Anyway, it was just an idea. I wasn't thinking about practicality. Probably should'nt have put this under the speedsolving place.


----------



## adimare (Jun 2, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Also, off topic from my previous OLSLL posts, is it possible to combine ZZ and Roux in any way? What I mean is this:
> 
> Solve EOLine
> Solve <L, U, R> ZZF2L _without_ the other bottom two edges (RD and LD).
> ...



Biggest issue with this idea I see is running into something like this:
click

A bit forced here but the point is that if you're not solving RD and LD it could happen that a piece you need gets trapped on one of those two spots between two solved pairs.


----------



## TDM (Jun 2, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Did you see my example solve? I meant EOLine. Anyway, it was just an idea. I wasn't thinking about practicality. Probably should'nt have put this under the speedsolving place.


Sorry, didn't see that part. I read it as
EOLine
solve Roux blocks with LUR
COLL
"Roux-style LSE", which if it was what I read would just be EPLL.

But what I said is still true. What I said there was actually about a method very similar to yours, except without the extra rotation. I think my misinterpretation could be slightly better, but only slightly, since it's only missing one rotation. I still don't think it's as good as Roux.


----------



## supercavitation (Jun 3, 2015)

TDM said:


> Sorry, didn't see that part. I read it as
> EOLine
> solve Roux blocks with LUR
> COLL
> ...



Yours is better, and has been suggested before. It's usually called EORoux, and its main flaw is that you basically lose your slice moves, which are one of Roux's greatest strengths, for little gain. Yo also need to build your first block on the fly, at least partly, which is difficult to do efficiently.


----------



## TDM (Jun 3, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Yours is better, and has been suggested before. It's usually called EORoux, and its main flaw is that you basically lose your slice moves, which are one of Roux's greatest strengths, for little gain. Yo also need to build your first block on the fly, at least partly, which is difficult to do efficiently.


I know. It's not worth using for speedsolves (or, not as a main method at least).


----------



## 2180161 (Jun 7, 2015)

About your whole "OLSLL" idea,
You could just solve with ZZ, and use Winter Variation, or use any method to solve your F2L and then orient LL edges, and then WV. your idea is not very different. The only thing you have that isdifferent is that you pair the pieces for the last F2L slot and then solve the pair, and so forth

Also, an Idea for a method that could be used for FMC I think, if put into practice.

Step one. Solve two columns on opposite sides of the cube

Step two. Expand those columns to 2x2x3 blocks each

Step three. Solve the cube using ? amount of algs.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 7, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Also, an Idea for a method that could be used for FMC I think, if put into practice.
> 
> Step one. Solve two columns on opposite sides of the cube
> 
> ...



Interesting. Do you mind doing a solve with https://alg.cubing.net/ ? That'd be cool.


----------



## TDM (Jun 7, 2015)

2180161 said:


> About your whole "OLSLL" idea,
> You could just solve with ZZ, and use Winter Variation, or use any method to solve your F2L and then orient LL edges, and then WV. your idea is not very different. The only thing you have that isdifferent is that you pair the pieces for the last F2L slot and then solve the pair, and so forth
> 
> Also, an Idea for a method that could be used for FMC I think, if put into practice.
> ...


Looks like too many slice moves to be good for FMC, but you could be solving it differently to how I'm doing it.
The number of cases for the last step is double ZBLL (NMZZLL + NMZLL with two flipped edges), so 335 not including solved. If you can force edges to be oriented then you can setup to a NMZZLL case, but imo it's not worth it.


----------



## 2180161 (Jun 8, 2015)

Sure. Here is the example solve: here

Oh, and yeah, forgot slice moves count as 2 moves XD
BTW the alg that solved the cube after the blocks were made, was made in cube explorer (had to modify it for HTM so R R was R2)


----------



## 2180161 (Jun 8, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> So I've been thinking and I think I've derived a cool new method for solving the last slot on any Friedrich solve while also doing OLL. This will be a 2-look system, but isn't normal LS/OLL 2-look also?
> 
> OLSLL stands for "Orient Last Slot and Last Layer." Essentially, you do the following steps:
> LSP - Last slot pairing: Pair up the two pieces for the last slot. They do NOT have to be oriented at all (disoriented edge and twisted corners are fine). This should be very quick.
> ...



This is just MGLS


----------



## TDM (Jun 8, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Sure. Here is the example solve: here


Please could you split this into separate lines and comment what you're solving on each step? I can't follow what you're doing here.



> (had to modify it for HTM so R R was R2)


What do you mean by this? Doesn't Cube Explorer use HTM?


----------



## 2180161 (Jun 8, 2015)

Sure. the updated version is here

I wasnt sure how to do that XD


----------



## TDM (Jun 8, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Sure. the updated version is here
> 
> I wasnt sure how to do that XD


This is a bit like a ZZ variant... what would you say the advantages of this over regular ZZ are? The second block has more moves than a normal SB and leaves you with something harder to solve, with less control over what you're able to do.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 8, 2015)

TDM said:


> This is a bit like a ZZ variant... what would you say the advantages of this over regular ZZ are? The second block has more moves than a normal SB and leaves you with something harder to solve, with less control over what you're able to do.



you can just do:

eoline

block 1

block 2 with double premove, while phasing to solve UF, UB

undoing the double premove

do some weird algs (same amount as ZZLL).


it might actually be LESS moves than ZZ, because you could always do the premoved block first or second, depending on when it seems easier.



but at that point its almost better to just leave the premoved block on D and just do regular ZZLL, undoing the premove at the end.


----------



## 2180161 (Jun 8, 2015)

Well, normally I wouldnt do EOline, but I felt the easiest way to prevent a certain case, was to do EOline


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 16, 2015)

So recently I've been playing around with columns first methods and came up with this method. Its similar to PCMS; the other columns first method I came across but different in how the columns are formed.

Step 1) solve the e-slice
It doesn`t actually have to be the e-slice as long as the e-edges are permuted and oriented in relation to each other even if the centres are not solved. However I prefer to do the e-slice because I find it easier to plan out the moves so inspection time can be spent predicting the corner orientation cases.

Step 2) correct corner parity
1 in 2 chance of a skip. A corner parity is where the corners are oriented in such a way that cannot be corrected with standard roux algorithms as they belong to a slightly different, less restricted subset.

Step 3) orient all corners
I usually do this by orienting four corners first then bringing them to the bottom and then using roux algs for the top layer. This step can probably be made more efficient by using an alg that does a sune on the top and a sune on the bottom and then repeating or altering some of the orientation algs on a 2x2 and making them e-slice safe. This would create a new set of algs. However, this could be quite a large alg set. An alternative method for this step could be to orient three corners as in guimond then edit the algs to be e-slice safe .

Step 4) bring corners to the correct layers
Intuitive, takes no more than five moves

Step 5) permute all corners 
This can be done using the algs for corner permutation on a square one.

From here you can either use the other columns first method or fill in the Rd and Ld edges as you would have in roux then do LSE.

Personally I prefer to do the last bit in three additional steps;
1) orient all edges in a manner similar to roux again.
2) pair the two Rd and Ld and insert in their respective positions (this is similar to the second last step on roux but upside down)
3) standard LSE with all edges oriented

NOTE: Although it is probably possible to combine steps 2 and 3 using algs that orient all corners on the u-face while also twisting a corner on the d-face so that it will reduce the corner space to that covered by COLL, i have not yet created the required algs for this. The permutation of these corners, which I have currently divided into 2 steps can likely also be combinded into one step though again I have no algs for this. In addition to not yet having the algs, I would reason that it is indeed better to keep each of the steps seperate as this would be unlikely to dramatically increase the move count (correcting the parity and bringing the corners to the correct layers will take no more that 5 moves) and would speed up recognition time.

This is dissimilar to the belt method as it deals with corners and edges seperately so is more like roux and the belt method is more like CFOP/fridrich.

I've done some research and not found anything exactly the same as this method. What does everyone else think?

UPDATE: I found this very helpful post on Ryan heise's website that helps with the corners; "Now for the corners, we can twist two corners at a time. Start with one
corner at LUF (corner A) and the other corner at FDR (corner B). Then
do:

R'D - twists the B corner
L2 - swaps the B and A corners
D'R - twists the A corner on the way back

Do this repeatedly until all corners are twisted the right way" this could be used either as suggested or be done to correct corner parity.


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 16, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> So recently I've been playing around with columns first methods and came up with this method. Its similar to pcmc? ( I think that's what its called) the other columns first method I came across but differentin how the columns are formed.
> 
> Step 1) solve the e-slice
> Step 2) correct and corner parity (1 in 2 chance)
> ...


Seems a lot like the Belt method...


----------



## Berd (Jun 16, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> So recently I've been playing around with columns first methods and came up with this method. Its similar to pcmc? ( I think that's what its called) the other columns first method I came across but differentin how the columns are formed.
> 
> Step 1) solve the e-slice
> Step 2) correct and corner parity (1 in 2 chance)
> ...


Very cool variation. Some PBL algs on 2x2 can be edited to be "E slice safe" if you're not into square 1.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 27, 2015)

4x4 method- Meyer variant
1) Solve a 1x3x4 block on the left side
2) Solve a 1x3x3 block on the right side
3) solve the centres using only U, R and M moves
4) Use the six edge method to solve other edges.
NOTES:
1) i break the first step into solving it as the outer edges first at the same time as two 1x1x3 blocks and then placing and the doing essentially the same technique for the centre-edge triplets. The second block is the same as in standard reduction/ Yau sort of stuff.
2) steps 3&4 are essentially the same as Yau but rotated 90 degrees so is in a similar orientation to the one that Yau himself uses.


I prefer this method for three reasons'
1) I prefer m moves to e moves as they are more ergonomic in my opinion (I use roux as my main method)
2) there is only one "hidden" edge as opposed to the two in Yau (small difference I know but I find it helps me)
3) it sets up to a roux 4x4 3x3 stage nicely- in the same way Yau sets up to CFOP by granting the cross, it gives almost the first entire two blocks.

overall this method is probably not any better (and may be slower) than Yau. But its the method i sometimes use for solving so i thought i might as well share it.

It's probably also not much use on anything bigger than a 4x4 because the m slices are too hard to pull off efficiently.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jun 27, 2015)

What is the 6 edge method? And I assume that we are to solve the centers after the second block square thing, right?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 27, 2015)

It just occurred to me that L5E would be a great way to finish off Petrus. The steps are as follows:
1) Build a 2x2x2 block
2) Extend to 2x2x3 block
3) Place fr and br edges (this is the orientation I use for Petrus)
4) Orient corners
5) Permute corners
6) y (because I don't want to use s moves in a speedsolve)
7) L5E

All steps from 3-5 are 2-gen.
Step 7 can be treated as 2-gen as well using only U and M moves.

This method can also be used in conjunction with Yau and and the fourth cross edge can essentially not be a required step for Yau and can be done along with the other edges.



Ross The Boss said:


> What is the 6 edge method? And I assume that we are to solve the centers after the second block square thing, right?



Yes, you do solve the centres after the second block. Sorry I forgot to say

The six edge method is also used in Yau but uses e-slices rather than m-slices. It's kind of hard to explain through words but there are some good YouTube tutorials.


----------



## TDM (Jun 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> It just occurred to me that L5E would be a great way to finish off Petrus. The steps are as follows:
> 1) Build a 2x2x2 block
> 2) Extend to 2x2x3 block
> 3) Place fr and br edges (this is the orientation I use for Petrus)
> ...


Step 5 is not 2-gen. Also, steps 4-5 can be done with CLL which isn't a very big alg set at all. Also you need to solve the DR corners at some point - maybe solve pairs in step 3.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 27, 2015)

TDM said:


> Step 5 is not 2-gen. Also, steps 4-5 can be done with CLL which isn't a very big alg set at all. Also you need to solve the DR corners at some point - maybe solve pairs in step 3.



step 5 can be done as 2 gen- use the algs for square one (barring two cases which are still only three gwn so are still quite fast)
Steps 4&5, while they can be combined, cannot always be done using CLL (although CLL is a subset of the set required) as it requires the orientation and permutation of 6 corners rather than the 4 that CLL deals with.


----------



## Berd (Jun 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> step 5 can be done as 2 gen- use the algs for square one.
> Steps 4&5, while they can be combined, cannot always be done using CLL (although CLL is a subset of the set required) as it requires the orientation and permutation of 6 corners rather than the 4 that CLL deals with.


If you only have an adgecent swap on top or a diagonal swap, it needs to be 3 gen.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> So recently I've been playing around with columns first methods and came up with this method. Its similar to PCMS; the other columns first method I came across but different in how the columns are formed.
> ~snip~



Using this method I managed to get a 34 second ao12 with no specific practise using the method (I am 29sec ao50 using roux- my main method. It is also faster than what I can do with any other method- including CFOP, petrus, ZZ and heise.) I would say that the method could easily be even better as I used no specialised algs- only square one corner permutation and COLL were used.


----------



## TDM (Jun 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> step 5 can be done as 2 gen- use the algs for square one *(barring two cases which are still only three gwn so are still quite fast)*


The probability of them being solved with 2-gen is 1/6. Saying it's "only two cases" is true to an extent, but those two cases are far more likely than the 2-gen case.


> Steps 4&5, while they can be combined, cannot always be done using CLL (although CLL is a subset of the set required) as it requires the orientation and permutation of 6 corners rather than the 4 that CLL deals with.


Looks like I misunderstood steps 4 and 5 to only mean LL corners. However I think solving pairs for step 3 could make this method faster since it would allow you to quickly solve steps 4 and 5 in one alg.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 27, 2015)

TDM said:


> Looks like I misunderstood steps 4 and 5 to only mean LL corners. However I think solving pairs for step 3 could make this method faster since it would allow you to quickly solve steps 4 and 5 in one alg.


Good suggestion. It does seem to be more efficient. I guess I just used the R edges because I'm not an F2L user really.

But then, this essentially turns petrus into roux with L5E as opposed to LSE...


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 27, 2015)

I've recently started thinking about making a last slot method, and here are my ideas so far.

1) SITS (Skipping in the Snow - play on words for Winter Variation and LL skip): Skip the LL entirely if there is a 1x2x2 LL block, all edges are oriented, and the last F2L pair can be inserted using R U' R'.
2) RU'R'LS: Skips LL entirely if the R U' R' WV case occurs.
3) COPLS (Corner Orientation Permutation Last Slot): Basically CxLL, but performed from the last slot when the last F2L pair can be inserted using R U' R'. Can be used to replace COLL, CLL, or CMLL.
4) SuperEJF2L: Forces an EPLL case from after EJF2L case is set up.

I'm thinking that either COPLS or Super EJF2L is the most practical and usable, but I'd like to hear what you guys think.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 27, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> I've recently started thinking about making a last slot method, and here are my ideas so far.
> 
> 1) SITS (Skipping in the Snow - play on words for Winter Variation and LL skip): Skip the LL entirely if there is a 1x2x2 LL block, all edges are oriented, and the last F2L pair can be inserted using R U' R'.
> 2) RU'R'LS: Skips LL entirely if the R U' R' WV case occurs.
> ...



the first idea sounds an awful lot like the tripod method but I would be interested to explore the other ideas!


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> the first idea sounds an awful lot like the tripod method but I would be interested to explore the other ideas!



Yeah, I was thinking of calling it something Tripod-related like "Snow-Covered Camera" or something like that but SITS was a better acronym. The main reason I included the 1x2x2 block was to decrease the amount of cases needed to learn and to improve recognition.


----------



## NeilH (Jun 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Step 1) solve the e-slice
> Step 2) correct and corner parity (1 in 2 chance)
> Step 3) orient all corners- I usually do this by orienting four corners first then bringing them to the bottom and then using roux algs for the top layer. This step can probably be made more efficient by using an alg that does a sune on the top and a sune on the bottom and then repeating
> Step 4) bring corners to the correct layers- intuitive
> Step 5) permute all corners (can be done using the algs on square one)



This sounds similar to solving a cuboid, but I'm not sure.


----------



## 2180161 (Jun 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> It just occurred to me that L5E would be a great way to finish off Petrus. The steps are as follows:
> 1) Build a 2x2x2 block
> 2) Extend to 2x2x3 block
> 3) Place fr and br edges (this is the orientation I use for Petrus)
> ...



Or, you could do EO, and skip a step for the L5E.


----------



## supercavitation (Jun 28, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> I've recently started thinking about making a last slot method, and here are my ideas so far.
> 
> 1) SITS (Skipping in the Snow - play on words for Winter Variation and LL skip): Skip the LL entirely if there is a 1x2x2 LL block, all edges are oriented, and the last F2L pair can be inserted using R U' R'.
> 2) RU'R'LS: Skips LL entirely if the R U' R' WV case occurs.
> ...



Rob Yau proposed COPLS a while back, I think the conclusion was that recognition was too nasty, though I suppose with sufficiently good lookahead, it could be done.

Super EJF2L, on the other hand, sounds pretty interesting. How many algs would it have?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 28, 2015)

NeilH said:


> This sounds similar to solving a cuboid, but I'm not sure.



Thanks for the idea! I edited the post I made yesterday to include this concept


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 28, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Rob Yau proposed COPLS a while back, I think the conclusion was that recognition was too nasty, though I suppose with sufficiently good lookahead, it could be done.
> 
> Super EJF2L, on the other hand, sounds pretty interesting. How many algs would it have?



Yeah, I thought that someone would have proposed COPLS before me.

I think Super EJF2L would be 96 algorithms (16 EJF2L cases, 6 possible corner permutations). But that's a bit much...


----------



## supercavitation (Jun 28, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Yeah, I thought that someone would have proposed COPLS.
> 
> I think Super EJF2L would be 96 algorithms (16 EJF2L cases, 6 possible corner permutations). But that's a bit much...



It's not terrible, though. No worse than TCLL, unless the algs suck.


----------



## 2180161 (Jun 29, 2015)

So, I came up with a method for 2x2, and is very similar to the tripod method for 3x3. 

Step one: Layer-1

Step 2: Corner in BLU

Step 3. Choose from one of 42 algs to solve the cube. These would all be 3 gen [R,U,F], and would be fairly efficient.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 29, 2015)

Stupid 2X2 idea that might not be possible, but oh well.

Make a 1x1x2 block on the left

Make the cube so that you can solve the rest using only U, U', U2, and R2


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 29, 2015)

I have a question. I've "created" (not sure if the idea has been thought of before) a "new" (not sure if you could call it that) method (extension) for 2x2 called Twisty Ortega, or TO. It basically enhances the first step of Ortega to make it extremely quick and easy at the small expense of a few extra algorithms for the second step. Also, it suggests learning more PBL algorithms to reduce cube rotations and AUFs. Here's the basic idea:

Solve a side with one corner permitted to be disoriented. This step rarely takes more than 3 moves, making lookahead to the second step very quick and easy.
In one of 23 algorithms, orient all corners on the cube (7 OLLs + 14 algs for OLLs with a twisted first side corner). This step is called TOLL, or Twisty OLL. All of these are <R,U> 2-gen
In one of 14 algorithms, solve the rest of the puzzle. This step is called PBL/P2L, or I sometimes call it EPBL for "Enhanced Permutation of Both Layers."

I have learned all of the algorithms and have this method in complete, active use. I use this method for all solves and even used it at the Peach State 2015 competition and got a sub-5 Round 1 average (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-yluXWOL30) and ended up in the top 10 (I think) for that first round. I globally average around 4.6-4.7 with this method. I also like this method because it provides a much wider array of options on how to solve the first side. I'll often work out multiple ways to solve a side to try to find a nice, fingertrickeable (that's a new word, I guess) 1st step with an easy 2nd step. I was wondering, since this method is fully developed and in use, if I should create a separate thread for this. Here are some example solves on alg.cubing.net

Example solve #1
Example solve #2

If you want more example solves, please tell me.


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 29, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Stupid 2X2 idea that might not be possible, but oh well.
> 
> Make a 1x1x2 block on the left
> 
> Make the cube so that you can solve the rest using only U, U', U2, and R2



Wouldn't that be Sortega?



IAmAPerson said:


> I have a question. I've "created" (not sure if the idea has been thought of before) a "new" (not sure if you could call it that) method (extension) for 2x2 called Twisty Ortega, or TO. It basically enhances the first step of Ortega to make it extremely quick and easy at the small expense of a few extra algorithms for the second step. Also, it suggests learning more PBL algorithms to reduce cube rotations and AUFs. Here's the basic idea:
> 
> Solve a side with one corner permitted to be disoriented. This step rarely takes more than 3 moves, making lookahead to the second step very quick and easy.
> In one of 23 algorithms, orient all corners on the cube (7 OLLs + 14 algs for OLLs with a twisted first side corner). This step is called TOLL, or Twisty OLL. All of these are <R,U> 2-gen
> ...



Do you have algs for TOLL/EPBL? I'd be interested in learning this method, either for fun or as a main method. This seems extremely interesting and easy to use, so I'm willing to learn it.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 29, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Wouldn't that be Sortega?



I just looked it up, it isn't sortega it seems.
The important part is that you make the cube so that you can solve the rest using only U, U', U2, and R2.


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 29, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> I just looked it up, it isn't sortega it seems.
> The important part is that you make the cube so that you can solve the rest using only U, U', U2, and R2.



Oh, whoops. It reminded me of Sortega because of the 2-gen properties and the bar. Didn't read too carefully, sorry 

How will you approach this?


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 29, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Do you have algs for TOLL/EPBL? I'd be interested in learning this method, either for fun or as a main method. This seems extremely interesting and easy to use, so I'm willing to learn it.



I actually learned a different set of TOLL algs that include <R, U, F> 3-gen algorithms, and those are what's posted on my Google Sites page. I'll finish generating the <R, U> algorithms and link later today (Monday). It's quite a fun method to use. Plus, a lot of algorithms are super-easy to learn (one is a double sexy, another is a double sledgehammer, etc.)

Also, I've been thinking about a way to do the 2x2 method you were talking about. Could it be like ZZ for 2x2, but with CPBar instead of EOLine? I would definitely learn this. CPBar would be a butt to master, though. EDIT: Would this be an example solve?


----------



## TDM (Jun 29, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Also, I've been thinking about a way to do the 2x2 method you were talking about. Could it be like ZZ for 2x2, but with CPBar instead of EOLine? I would definitely learn this. CPBar would be a butt to master, though. EDIT: Would this be an example solve?


BRASS

I was actually trying this just an hour or so ago using ZZ-porky v2 for CP. It's great for 2x2 since the setup is so minimal compared to 3x3 (you can often skip it, or maybe do 1-2 moves) - but recognition is a pain. Finding a decent side to start on takes me 15 seconds  I only started learning ZZ-d two days ago though so I'm still not very good at it. I'm sure it could be better with practise.


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Jun 29, 2015)

So wayyy back in 07 i learned the rubiks cube "7 step solution" and i thought hm there has got to be a faster method for placing the corner edge pairs in f2l. so rather than doing research i developed my own method. turns out its basically edge first keyhole (cross 3 edges last f2l pair hopefully forcing a yellow cross) with this method and up to 6 look last layer i got a sub 30 avg. 22.98 pb, I switched 2 months to full cfop and (1pll 2oll) but i think edge first keyhole paired with oll and pll is a fantastic method for begginer- intermediates who dont want to figure out each f2l case.

my method used triggers RUR' and the lefty mirror, i held white on left side

nothing super new but yeah


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jun 30, 2015)

Okay, so some of the TOLL- algorithms are still from the old algorithm set, and most of the EPBLs aren't generated, but here you go. All of the OLLs and TOLL+ algs are <R, U> 2-gen, but some affect bottom layer permutation to produce a better algorithm (one alg swaps the DRF and DRB corners, but is 4 moves shorter (and much more fingertrick-friendly) than the alg for that case that preserves bottom layer permutation).


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 30, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Okay, so some of the TOLL- algorithms are still from the old algorithm set, and most of the EPBLs aren't generated, but here you go. All of the OLLs and TOLL+ algs are <R, U> 2-gen, but some affect bottom layer permutation to produce a better algorithm (one alg swaps the DRF and DRB corners, but is 4 moves shorter (and much more fingertrick-friendly) than the alg for that case that preserves bottom layer permutation).


Perfect, thanks!


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 2, 2015)

I was also thinking of this: What would happen if we combined the second and third steps of Twisty Ortega? We'd get the Twisty Erik-Gunnar method, or TEG. Would it be practical? Probably not.

There would be 15 subsets with 42 algorithms each (minus CLL which has 41 algs).
CLL (41)
TCLL+/- (84)
EG-1 (42)
TEG-1A+/- (84)
TEG-1B+/- (84)
TEG-1C+/- (84)
TEG-1D+/- (84)
EG-2 (42)
TEG-2+/- (84)
This would mean that you would have to recognize from 629 different cases (over 130 more than ZBLL), solvable by a _minimum_ of about 220 algorithms.

Bleh, example solves (this method is for the lulz)
Solve using TCLL+
Solve using TEG-1A+
Solve using TEG-1D-

This is a method I dream of learning, but simply way too many algorithms (I haven't even learned full CLL yet). ZBLL's 490+ cases are solvable by a minimum of "only" about 140 algorithms.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 3, 2015)

3x3 method

1. F2L-2 edges

2. CLL

3. LSE ( a more algorithmic approach)

Example solve:

Scramble: L2 B' L2 U2 R2 B' D2 F' L2 B' L2 U F U2 L' B R2 B2 F2 R' 

x2 y' L2 D' L' U' R' U' F L F L' B' R B R U2 R' R' U' R U R' U' R 

U' R U R' U R U L' U R' U' L 

U2 R' U2 R2 F R' F' B U B' R2 U2 R 

Now, I dont have any good algs for this, other than well, CLL, so I just used cube explorer for the LSE stage.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 3, 2015)

2180161 said:


> 3x3 method
> 
> 1. F2L-2 edges
> 
> ...



Sounds kinda like the Roux-CFOP Hybrid method. I use that whenever I solve Roux (I suck at blockbuilding).


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 3, 2015)

How is that a Roux-CFOP hybrid? you dont have two F2L edges solved. i.e One full layer, +2 edges

Edit: BTW learned all the TO algorithms.


----------



## cashis (Jul 3, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> twisty stuff



I'm sure as soon as the concept of TCLL was thought of, this was also thought of. 
The main problem is sheer number of algorithms.
Last night (bit coincidental) I was thinking about this, too.
I think another big problem with this is the stress involved during inspection. Imagine looking at a 2x2 and seeing an easy EG-1 face, or an easy TEG-2- face, or a TEG-1C+ case, and having to decide which to do, all under 15 seconds. The problem with knowing this many methods is making the choice of what to do in any given situation.
Speaking realistically, I think TEG-2 is perfectly do-able, considering it's just as many cases as TCLL.
TEG-1 is just too much, though if you were to learn it, you'd be (theoretically) better off, because EG-1 faces are more common than CLL and EG-2 cases combined.
iirc, if you're building faces efficiently, the chances of an EG-1 case is 4/6, and CLL and EG-2 are both 1/6 each.
has anyone analyzed the chances of a TCLL, TEG-1, or TEG-2 face if building efficiently? I would think it would be the same as their regular counterparts, but I can't be sure
sorry if that post was unorganized


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 3, 2015)

2180161 said:


> How is that a Roux-CFOP hybrid? you dont have two F2L edges solved. i.e One full layer, +2 edges


Nevermind. I see


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 4, 2015)

Another one 

EOCross

F2L however the corners do not have to be in the correct permutation

OCLL

PBL 


I dont know if this has been thought of, or if the number of algorithms is just too much. Seems cool to me though


----------



## TDM (Jul 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another one
> 
> EOCross
> 
> ...


Why not EOLine? Also you'll have to do either rotating or some awkward moves for PBL, so I don't think it would be very fast.

There would be 12*22 = 264 cases, 263 excluding solved.


----------



## Lyn Simm (Jul 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another one
> 
> EOCross
> 
> ...



I think that PBL is too many algorithms!!  I hate algorithms!! its probably awkward also! But you don't need ANY algorithms if you do it this way:

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?50964-ZZ-Edges-First-discussion

did I mention I hate algorithms??

-Lyn


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another one
> 
> EOCross
> 
> ...



What about (if you really like EOCross):

EOCross.
F2L minus CP.
OCLLEP (Orient corners and permute edges in one algorithm). This is about 8*11=88 algorithms.
PBL. This is quite a few algorithms, but not as much as before. Too lazy to calculate.

The PBL won't be as many algs as before, but with the addition as OCLLEP instead of OCLL, the number of algs may still be too high for practicality.


On another note, what about Ortega for 3x3?

Solve a side
Solve the E-slice edges
OLL
PBL

PBL would only have 7743 cases! Not too much, right? And if we allow AUF/ADF, it reduces to _only_ 484 cases!

*EDIT*: Maybe the ZZ/Ortega Hybrid-ish method would look like this?

*EDIT TO THE EDIT*: I love this thread because I get to make example solves for methods that I've never seen before


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 4, 2015)

One way to do CFOP, for a guaranteed x-cross 

two 1x2x2 blocks opposite each other, with two extra edges solved.

EO (M,U)

Solve x-cross, 

COLL

EPLL

Example solve: here


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> One way to do CFOP, for a guaranteed x-cross
> 
> two 1x2x2 blocks opposite each other, with two extra edges solved.
> 
> ...



seems interesting but isn't the solving two extra edges a little move wasteful? you insert those edges, then you have to solve the corners, might as well do them at the same time but that would be roux or some type of free fop.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 4, 2015)

The reason I say to insert the edges is because when you solve your corners, you can easily recognize the OLL, so you could just do OLL then PLL, but COLL would be more efficient. I also realize that almost all methods now are made to be efficient. But just because it is not efficient doesn't mean it cant be good. also, I just got a 15.894 single doing this, and my PB overall is actually 11.405 (my signature is a liar)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 5, 2015)

So regarding my post on my columns first method that I posted a week or two ago, I recently updated that post to contain this alg (r' d l2 d' R) by ryan heise to help with the corner orientation (it twists the ufl and dfr corners) which should help to reduce the move count below 60 (which was what I had my solves usually coming to).


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 5, 2015)

What about a 1LLL with ZBLL style, but using Winter/Summer variation instead of VHLS/ZBLS? The number of LL algs would be <=150 as opposed to almost 500 ZBLLs. I know this idea has been thought of before, but I haven't seen much discussion on it. I would also think that recognizing CP+ELL would be much faster than EP+CLL.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 5, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> What about a 1LLL with ZBLL style, but using Winter/Summer variation instead of VHLS/ZBLS? The number of LL algs would be <=150 as opposed to almost 500 ZBLLs. I know this idea has been thought of before, but I haven't seen much discussion on it. I would also think that recognizing CP+ELL would be much faster than EP+CLL.



That's been done a lot of times before. I actually have bad algs generated for all of the cases (well, good algs for a couple). Recog is much easier, it's a bit harder than PLL. 

Also, the number of algs is actually >150. Sorry.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 5, 2015)

Do you know the exact number, and do you mind sending me the algs? Because to be very honest, I would be very interested in learning this (maybe instead of EG/TCLL for 2x2). I know about half of ELL and almost all PLL (I procrastinate a LOT) so I think I already have a descent start. Also, all algs would be able to be <R,U,F> 3-gen.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 5, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Do you know the exact number, and do you mind sending me the algs? Because to be very honest, I would be very interested in learning this (maybe instead of EG/TCLL for 2x2). I know about half of ELL and almost all PLL (I procrastinate a LOT) so I think I already have a descent start. Also, all algs would be able to be <R,U,F> 3-gen.



Half of ELL and most of PLL isn't really much of a start towards COALL, I know both and I wouldn't consider myself to have much of a start on COALL. The algs (156 of them) are on a google doc somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 5, 2015)

I know it isn't much of a start toward COALL (What does that stand for? I thought it's be CPELL), but it's better than starting from 0 algs.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 5, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> I know it isn't much of a start toward COALL (What does that stand for? I thought it's be CPELL), but it's better than starting from 0 algs.



Stands for Corner Orientation- All (everything else).

Seriously, finish a full 2LLL system before learning a 1LLL system. Advice that was given to me a couple of times before I took it, but I really wish I had taken it immediately.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 5, 2015)

I'm learning my G perms right now, and then I'll have PLL. I currently use VHLS->OCLL->PLL as a 2LLL system. Works great.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 5, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> I'm learning my G perms right now, and then I'll have PLL. I currently use VHLS->OCLL->PLL as a 2LLL system. Works great.



Best expansion for that is probably learning COLL. COALL would be the exact opposite of where you're going right now.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 6, 2015)

I actually think I wanna try doing 1LLL using VHLS, Pure OCLL, and a different type of PLL recognition system which I've already worked out. Basically: 

Recognize OCLL. 
Recognize CP. 
Recognize EP. 
Execute Pure OCLL. 
Execute a special set of PLLs I'm generating. 

Also, you can do CxLL Recog+EP Recog. It's harder, but quicker, which is what I'm going for. Using this system, you can spam the crap out of the LL TPS with literally no breaks (if done correctly, it should be like one single long algorithm).


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 6, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> I actually think I wanna try doing 1LLL using VHLS, Pure OCLL, and a different type of PLL recognition system which I've already worked out. Basically:
> 
> Recognize OCLL.
> Recognize CP.
> ...



So longer and less efficient ZBLL with easier recognition. Not original, but it could work.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 6, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> So longer and less efficient ZBLL with easier recognition. Not original, but it could work.



I _would_ learn ZBLL if it weren't for the crazy 493 cases. No way I'm doing that. This is simply a 2-alg version of ZBLL. There's another way you could make this work, but I chose not to do it this way:

Recognize COLL.
Recognize EP.
Execute Pure COLL (doesn't affect EO or EP).
Execute EPLL.

I chose to do it not this way because any COLL 2-corner swap would have to be a 3-corner rotation, which is harder to track during recognition (also, very long algorithms). Plus, there's more algs (still not many, though).


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 6, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> I actually think I wanna try doing 1LLL using VHLS, Pure OCLL, and a different type of PLL recognition system which I've already worked out. Basically:
> 
> Recognize OCLL.
> Recognize CP.
> ...



where is a list of pure ocll, can be very helpful in roux lookahead into lse.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jul 6, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> I _would_ learn ZBLL if it weren't for the crazy 493 cases. No way I'm doing that. This is simply a 2-alg version of ZBLL. There's another way you could make this work, but I chose not to do it this way:
> 
> Recognize COLL.
> Recognize EP.
> ...



you wouldnt even need to use pure coll. just know how your alg affects the edges.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 6, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> I _would_ learn ZBLL if it weren't for the crazy 493 cases. No way I'm doing that. This is simply a 2-alg version of ZBLL.



That's exactly what I was saying. It's been done before, and most say the system isn't great, but good luck!


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 6, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> where is a list of pure ocll, can be very helpful in roux lookahead into lse.



Just Google "pure oll." I'll actually be generating my own algs. I actually prefer generating my own algorithms for a lot of things.

EDIT: 24 hours since starting to learn 2-Alg, 1LLL. New algorithms learned: 0. Time improvement for recognition: 4 seconds (original time: ~8 seconds).


----------



## LyrikTech (Jul 7, 2015)

*LTech | New 4x4 Method*

So LTech is not a speedsolving method, It is a LBL method for adding a bit more thought into the solving but not to much for it to be too hard. The requirements to learn LTech is to have mastered reduction on cubes up to a 6x6 (So you should know basic commutators) and the Last two edges parity, the single edge flip parity, and the one that flips 2 edges that are across from each other. If you meet all those requirements heres the link to my video tutorial (Only 20 minutes to learn) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfebmWkyNQ


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 7, 2015)

It sounds interesting, but there is 1 problem. I don't mean to be rude, but what is the point of this method? It isnt for speedsolving but it is probably too hard for a beginner soo.....?


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Jul 7, 2015)

LyrikTech said:


> So LTech is not a speedsolving method, It is a LBL method for adding a bit more thought into the solving but not to much for it to be too hard. The requirements to learn LTech is to have mastered reduction on cubes up to a 6x6 (So you should know basic commutators) and the Last two edges parity, the single edge flip parity, and the one that flips 2 edges that are across from each other. If you meet all those requirements heres the link to my video tutorial (Only 20 minutes to learn) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvfebmWkyNQ


Solving the 4x4x4 LBL is pretty "well-known". I hate to sound rude, but at this point in your video, you use 3 commutators to move a single green piece into the second layer when you only need to use one. LBL is inefficient as it is, and thus if you are making a video to draw people to "your method", you need to be as efficient as possible! 

EDIT:
And I don't think mastering the reduction method is a prerequisite. I would say knowing the Cage Method is more relevant.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 7, 2015)

So what is the difference between this and K4 exactly?


----------



## LyrikTech (Jul 7, 2015)

I'm not exactly trying to draw people to my method because It's a horrible method in terms of efficiency, It's just a different way to solve a 4x4.


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Jul 7, 2015)

LyrikTech said:


> I'm not exactly trying to draw people to my method because It's a horrible method in terms of efficiency, It's just a different way to solve a 4x4.


Please don't misunderstand us.  You made it perfectly clear that this isn't a speedsolving method. My comment was that you can be more efficient with this method, that's all. LBL has been known for a while and is fun to many (here's a 7x7x7 LBL solve video from 2009, the year I taught myself big cube LBL), so don't feel discouraged for sharing for personal discovery. 

Now that you can solve the 4x4x4 layer-by-layer, try solving it from "corner-to-corner" (diagonally from top-right to bottom-left, for example).


----------



## martinss (Jul 7, 2015)

Christopher Mowla said:


> at this point in your video, you use 3 commutators to move a single green piece into the second layer when you only need to use one.


Some people use only one commutator for each ordit. I mean they known the Niklas for X-centers move this, that and this other X-center and that is sufficient to solve the entire cube and that they may spend more time in finding the needed commutaotr than making 3. I actually prefer using [setup : Niklas fr the orbit]. At this point, I would have down this : [ y2 x' : [2L', U 2R U'] ]

(So sorry for my poor english level...)


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 8, 2015)

Sorry about all of the weird method ideas. I get bored (probably should memorize algs instead of pointless methods). Anyway, I don't do blindsolving. I know about Old Pochmann, M2, memo techniques, etc. but I don't do blindsolving. However, I still find it interesting. I had an idea for corner solving (probably crap, but oh well). It's similar to EG, but does it without affecting edges.

Method:
Use algorithms to make a side.
Use an algorithm to solve the rest.

Example solve

Pros:
No "memorization" needed.
Great for MBLD since no real memorization is needed.
Quick to see corner solving.
Can be 100% <R,U,D> 3-gen (my favourite type of 3-gen). However, I used some <M,U> 2-gen in the solve because it was better for that alg.

Cons:
Lots of algorithms.
Long/awkward algorithms.
An algorithm must be used for any turn while making a "side". (i.e. To make an "F' " turn without messing up the edges, the alg "R D2 R2 U2 R2 U R U' R U R U R2 D2 R' " must be used.)
Long movecount

Probably been thought of before, and probably junk, but here it is.


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Jul 8, 2015)

*New Method! (Generalization of EG in 3x3)*

Hi. this method going to be so faster than Jessica method (if its true). As you know EG is a fantastic method in 2x2 solving (In this method we make one face and then solve the cube with one of 120 EG algorithms).
I was thinking about that why we don't do same in 3x3? of course 3x3 is difference and we are going to face some problems in this way.
I'm writing to say my idea about this generalization and hear your ideas to make it better.

*First stage:*
we make cross on one side. (just make cross. we don't care about permutation)


*Second stage:*
Use F2L algorithms (Jessica method) to make 2 layer but with a difference, in this case we don't care about corner permutation. corner orientation matter. edge orientation and permutation matter.


*Third stage:*
Use one of 120 NEG algorithms (NEG = New EG. These algorithms do not exist yet but we use them in this method) to make first layer corners permutation and third layer corners orientation and permutation (just like EG in 2x2).


*Last stage:*
Use one of 125 (25x5) NELL algorithms (NELL = New ELL. These algorithms do not exist yet but we use them in this method) to make first layer edges permutation and third layer edges orientation and permutation (just like EG in 2x2). so cube is solved.


*Lets compare this method with Jessica's method:*
1. in Jessica method we make cross. but edges permutation matter. in this method we make cross easier and faster because we don't care about edges permutation.
2. in Jessica method we do F2L. but corner permutation matter. in this method we make first 2 layer faster and easier because we don' care about corner permutation so we can match each edge with one one 4 corners.
3. in Jessica method we do OLL and PLL. here we do two another algorithms (NEG and NELL) just like Jessica method. but i think these new algorithms going to be faster than OLLs and PLLs. why? you can just compare this with EG method in 2x2. EG algorithms are faster than CLLs. so here we have same.

please feel free to ask your questions and say your ideas.


----------



## Stewy (Jul 8, 2015)

the cross: although it may be faster to build the cross regardless of permutation, i'd say it's a negligible difference

f2l: yes, f2l by itself for this step would take less moves and less time with this method

NEG or whatever: not only would algs have to be generated, but they would be of a higher movecount, and recognition would be much slower than OLL

NELL or whatever: once again, algs would have to be generated, the movecount would be higher and recognition would be slower



Mohammadahmadi said:


> but i think these new algorithms going to be faster than OLLs and PLLs.



they would never be faster than OLL and PLL



Mohammadahmadi said:


> why? you can just compare this with EG method in 2x2. EG algorithms are faster than CLLs. so here we have same.



no, that's not how things work.


also this belongs in the "New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread", but i suppose it's up to a moderator to move it


----------



## cashis (Jul 8, 2015)

or you could just use petrus
in all seriousness , I cant see this being better than " Jessica method". It's good thoughts, but is it really applicable?
I cant see recognition for any of those stages being easy, and there's a lot of algorithms. (120+125=245=half of zbll??)


----------



## qqwref (Jul 8, 2015)

You're talking about CFOP, right? People call it Fridrich, but nobody calls it Jessica method.

I don't think this method has much potential, except as something to do for fun (but then again, it has soooo many algs). My reasoning is as follows:
- F2L is pretty efficient and fast already, so I'm not sure you would save much time solving it this way. Maybe you could keep track of blocks, but it would certainly be confusing. Pairing up a corner and edge that are a D move off is already kind of tricky.
- Unlike in CFOP, where more and more of the cube is solved (and can be ignored), in this method you would have to keep track of the bottom layer, either by looking at it or by remembering the position. That is generally slower and more difficult.
- Algorithms that move pieces around on the bottom layer are generally not going to be very fingertrick friendly. There might be a few nice cases, but most will be long, or have lots of half turns, or will involve many turns of things other than F/R/U. This will especially be true for ELL + D edge permutation, which will almost certainly have lots of M and S moves. Try generating a few algs and you will see what I mean.
- Just as a side note, there are not 5 cases for bottom layer edge permutation, but (I think) 11.

It's worth mentioning that the big strength of EG on 2x2x2 is not how great the algs are, but rather how easy it is to one-look. Because a face is so short, a good solver can usually look ahead during inspection to figure out what alg they will get, and then they can do the entire solve in one sequence of moves without having to figure out what to do. That advantage isn't present here, so instead you are just solving something incorrectly and fixing it later, without a good rationale for it.


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Jul 8, 2015)

Stewy said:


> the cross: although it may be faster to build the cross regardless of permutation, i'd say it's a negligible difference


anyway its faster



Stewy said:


> they would never be faster than OLL and PLL


are u sure? give me a reason. anyway i have one reason
In CLL we move up corners. in EG we move up and down corners togather. so we are more free ("we save some moves" as Stephan Pochmann said)
In this method (just like EG and CLL) we move up and down togather. so we are more free. so it may be faster (just maybe. its only a reason. not proved)


----------



## cashis (Jul 8, 2015)

Mohammadahmadi said:


> anyway its faster
> 
> 
> are u sure? give me a reason. anyway i have one reason
> ...



hmm read qqwref's post. 
recognition would be not good
algs would also be not good


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Jul 8, 2015)

cashis said:


> I cant see recognition for any of those stages being easy


recognition is just like EG


cashis said:


> and there's a lot of algorithms. (120+125=245=half of zbll??)


yes it is. its double jessica method. i will learn if its faster


----------



## cashis (Jul 8, 2015)

Please just read qq's post.


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Jul 8, 2015)

qqwref said:


> You're talking about CFOP, right? People call it Fridrich, but nobody calls it Jessica method


u right.


qqwref said:


> F2L is pretty efficient and fast already, so I'm not sure you would save much time solving it this way. Maybe you could keep track of blocks, but it would certainly be confusing. Pairing up a corner and edge that are a D move off is already kind of tricky.


we have 4 steps in CFOP. i think F2L is longest step. so i was thinking to make it shorter



qqwref said:


> Just as a side note, there are not 5 cases for bottom layer edge permutation, but (I think) 11


yes. it is. we may fix it (if necessary)



qqwref said:


> Try generating a few algs and you will see what I mean


that's only way to find out?


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 8, 2015)

Mohammadahmadi said:


> that's only way to find out?



Here, have a random 3x3 EG, pulled from earlier in this thread:

R' U' R D R D' R D R U2 R D' R' U' R' U' R2

That's 17 moves, and the fingertricks on it are awful, even with one of the best turning subsets in use.
Once again, read qq's explanation as to why the EGs won't be shorter on 3x3. 3x3 EG has been proposed before, and there's a very good reason why no one uses it. 

Also, point of clarification 78*3=234, while this would (even assuming your incorrect permutation count is accurate) take 245. This is more than 3 times as many algs as CFOP for a very definite disadvantage.


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Jul 8, 2015)

i was trying to generate some algs. but i cant do that with Cube Explorer.
i need some algs like this. corners have a EG style. down edges orientation is fix but they can permute with each other. second layer edges are fix. up layer edges can permute and rotation
please say me how can i generate some of these algs? any other software u know?


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 8, 2015)

Mohammadahmadi said:


> i was trying to generate some algs. but i cant do that with Cube Explorer.
> i need some algs like this. corners have a EG style. down edges orientation is fix but they can permute with each other. second layer edges are fix. up layer edges can permute and rotation
> please say me how can i generate some of these algs? any other software u know?



I usually use Cube Explorer if I don't care if the alg is finger tricky (if you're doing 3x3 EG, you clearly don't), and ACube if I do. Neither will give you good algs for terrible cases, though, so prepare for disappointment. Not an insult, simply advice I wish someone had given me way back when.


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Jul 8, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Just as a side note, there are not 5 cases for bottom layer edge permutation, but (I think) 11



how do u say that's 11 cases? ofcorce its 4+1 cases (4 PLL and one solved face)


----------



## willtri4 (Jul 8, 2015)

Mohammadahmadi said:


> how do u say that's 11 cases? ofcorce its 4+1 cases (4 PLL and one solved face)



You could have an odd permutation. That adds adjacent swap, opposite swap, cw O perm, ccw O perm, and W perm.


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Jul 8, 2015)

willtri4 said:


> You could have an odd permutation. That adds adjacent swap, opposite swap, cw O perm, ccw O perm, and W perm.



we can just fix it with doing some D



Mohammadahmadi said:


> Hi. this method going to be so faster than Jessica method (if its true). As you know EG is a fantastic method in 2x2 solving (In this method we make one face and then solve the cube with one of 120 EG algorithms).
> I was thinking about that why we don't do same in 3x3? of course 3x3 is difference and we are going to face some problems in this way.
> I'm writing to say my idea about this generalization and hear your ideas to make it better.
> 
> ...



after some talking and thinking i understood that this method have following problems.

1. number of cases are high
its 125+120 algs. anyway its possible to learn (down layer have 5 cases not 11. we can change them just with doing some D)
2. algorithms are hard and long
they are going to be somethings like ELL and CLL algs. NELL algs will have so many M just like ELL. and NEG are like CLL (as i checked some cases)
3. recognization is hard
yes it is. the on way to make is better is to memorize 4 corners
4. sometimes we face error! just do M2 U2 M2 U2 to see what i say. so we have 2 way.
---1- memorize 2x125 except of 125 (Approximate)
---2- fix error with doing M2 U2 M2


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 10, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Step 3) orient all corners
> I usually do this by orienting four corners first then bringing them to the bottom and then using roux algs for the top layer. This step can probably be made more efficient by using an alg that does a sune on the top and a sune on the bottom and then repeating or altering some of the orientation algs on a 2x2 and making them e-slice safe. This would create a new set of algs. However, this could be quite a large alg set.
> 
> UPDATE: I found this very helpful post on Ryan heise's website that helps with the corners; "Now for the corners, we can twist two corners at a time. Start with one
> ...



Generated basic algs for this step. Move count ~23 for all methods of doing this step. that I've looked into.
Total move count for method so far ~45-55

Also finally came up with reasons for this method- more efficient that CFOP (and less alg heavy than either CFOP or ZZ), less intuition than Roux or Petrus (so fast turners will be more able to use it while still using the visually awesome LSE finish) and in addition also quite ergonomic.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 10, 2015)

Alternative method using the same principle as my previous method: 3SSE

So, same basic steps:

1) permute 3 e-slice pieces in relation to each other ~5 moves, 0 algs
2) orient 3 corners- any 3. It doesn't matter as long as they are in the d-layer ~5 moves, 0-3 algs
3) "pair" a corner with the remaining e-slice edge (make sure it is in the U layer) ~3 moves, 0 algs
4) Winter Variation- ~8 moves, 27 algs (the algs could be even shorter on average as there is no full F2L-1 to preserve.
5) Bring corners to correct layers- ~3 moves, 0-3 algs
6) permute all corners. Use algs for square one- ~7 moves, 5 algs
7)Insert rd and ld edges- ~6 moves, 0 algs.
8) LSE, ~13 moves, 0-2 algs.
Any extra setup moves- ~2 moves, 0 algs

Total for method- ~48 moves, min 32 algs (but 48 is still probably quite achievable with only 32)

Please feel free to pick this apart for all the flaws


----------



## KRAMIST (Jul 11, 2015)

1) Solve corners and edges of first layer (for me white)
2) Use CMLL to orient next layer ( Yellow)
3) Use M2, BH,TuRBo for edges 

i don't have an example solve too lazy


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 12, 2015)

KRAMIST said:


> 1) Solve corners and edges of first layer (for me white)
> 2) Use CMLL to orient next layer ( Yellow)
> 3) Use M2, BH,TuRBo for edges
> 
> i don't have an example solve too lazy




```
[https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php?title=Waterman_method&redirect=no]
```
 Waterman


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 12, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> It just occurred to me that L5E would be a great way to finish off Petrus. The steps are as follows:
> 1) Build a 2x2x2 block
> 2) Extend to 2x2x3 block
> 3) Place fr and br edges (this is the orientation I use for Petrus)
> ...



Sorry for bringing up an older post, but what if you randomly inserted a good edge in the D-layer, solve the edges as pairs, full edge control, COLL, and then L5E?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 12, 2015)

2180161 said:


> shadowslice e said:
> 
> 
> > It just occurred to me that L5E would be a great way to finish off Petrus. The steps are as follows:
> ...



Well, for the L5E you would skip the orientation phase or, if you moved the edge in the D-layer to the U-layer, you would get a PLL case (which would happen 1/5 times anyway)

If you stop before the COLL and moved the D-layer edge, you would get ZBLL.


----------



## Phantom777 (Jul 12, 2015)

*EOCFOP Method (EOCross)*

I had never understood the first part of the ZZ method (EO + Line) . But I tried to make a method in which the OLL was reduced from 57 to 7. If LL is oriented without the Eoline , you can orient the edges with a EOCross directly . It can be possible?

Also, if one solves the Rubik's Cube with CFOP , not only the number of faces that need to be resolved ( R , U, L ) are reduced ; the OLL is also reduced from 57 to 7. This is good for people that aren't Full OLL or 2 Look OLL (me)

With normal CFOP, I am sub 30 and I don't like the full OLL (I'm 2 look OLL + Full PLL; 3LLL), I'm trying to learn VHLS.


----------



## United Thought (Jul 12, 2015)

Are you saying you do normal CFOP but you orient the edges and solve the cross at the same time?

If so, I'm not sure how good this would be for beginners or just people generally. Normal EOLine as found in ZZ takes a lot of getting used to as it is and so needing to solve 2 more edges as well would be harder still. 

Personally, I don't think normal CFOP suffers enough in F2L from having unoriented edges to make this method feasible. It seems to me that the ZZ approach is better.


----------



## UnsolvedCypher (Jul 12, 2015)

EOline is made up of two parts - EO and line.

EO means that OLL is reduced to the 7 cases, and that every edge on the cube can be solved without using F or B. The line means that the FD and BD pieces are solved (so the front and back parts of the cross). The reason ZZ starts with EOline is because if you've done the EO, there's no point in doing the cross when you could just do the FD and BD pieces and solve the rest of F2L very quickly using F, U, and R moves. That's kind of like using beginner F2L instead of CFOP F2L and putting in first the corners then the edges - you could do that, but it's much slower and less efficient. So your method is possible, it just isn't particularly good.

I would suggest that you look more into EOline, particularly at asmallkitten's tutorials on ZZ. It isn't easy at first, but once you get it it's not so bad.


----------



## TDM (Jul 12, 2015)

This has been "invented" so many times. It is not new and it is not faster than CFOP or ZZ. Forcing a cross slows down ZZ solves, though if the cross is easy then I'd say it's worth doing. However EOCross every solve is not good.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 12, 2015)

> "EOCross
> 
> Sometimes, DL and DR are also solved before ZZF2L (3-gen F2L). This is known as EOCross. This practice is common among solvers making the transition from CFOP as it allows F2L to be solved in much the same way as before. Although useful for making the transition, using EOCross is generally regarded as slower than EOLine because it is extremely difficult to plan and execute as a single step, and also results in a significantly less efficient F2L."


From the wiki

```
https://speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/EOLine#EOCross
```
Do research before creating threads else use the "new method, substep, concept thread"


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 28, 2015)

*Megaminx*

So this is nothing revolutionary enough to create a new thread for. It's basically a variation on S2L.

1) Standard F2L (I use white)
2) Pick a face that has already been partially solved by the first F2L and convert it to completely solved with another F2L (I use red)
3) Rotate so the unsolved faces ate on the front/up.
4) S2L although you will only have 3 faces to do and all of the faces will be visible while solving (the other way that I sometimes do this is to create the block that is used in the Bálint S2L on the front. And then you will only have 3 turns to do most of the time (in fact all the time if you orient the edges although this would probably be quite a lot of effort)
4) Last Layer (however you want).

Pros:
1) Better lookahead
2) Less rotations
3) Less block building (this could be a pro or a con depending on your point of view although it doesn't seem to take more moves than the Bálint/Westlund variants.

Cons:
I haven't really found any when compared to the Westlund or Bálint methods although I suppose it could be a bit of a change for the established megaminxers.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 28, 2015)

Not a new method at all. I do this and there is nothing different about it.

That I know of anyway.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 28, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Not a new method at all. I do this and there is nothing different about it.
> 
> That I know of anyway.


Yeah, I had a feeling that this method would have been created before but I couldn't find anything on it anywhere in the wiki so I though I might as well propose it.


..the wiki really needs updating/renetworking so everything is covered and easy to find...


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 28, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> So this is nothing revolutionary enough to create a new thread for. It's basically a variation on S2L.
> 
> 1) Standard F2L (I use white)
> 2) Pick a face that has already been partially solved by the first F2L and convert it to completely solved with another F2L (I use red)
> ...



I'm not quite sure I understand your description, but if I'm understanding correctly, this is what Yu Da Hyun uses. Several others use it as well, I've been trying it out lately and it's pretty good! I just need a lot more practice.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 29, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> I'm not quite sure I understand your description, but if I'm understanding correctly, this is what Yu Da Hyun uses. Several others use it as well, I've been trying it out lately and it's pretty good! I just need a lot more practice.



Well, I just watched this video:https://youtu.be/uE-H3V7XGxE detailing how Yu Da Hyun solves and it's basically the same except I solve a second F2L as opposed to a second face (although he probably meant to say F2L so it would be exactly the same)


----------



## willtri4 (Jul 29, 2015)

*"New" Sq-1 Alg Set: Pure CO*

If after cubeshape all edges are oriented, you can execute one of these algs to skip EO. It's not really new because all of these algs are CO, just shifted.

1-1 (UFR + DLB): (0, -1) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-2, -2) / (-1, 2) / (-3, 0)
adj-adj (B): (0, -1) / (-3, 0) / (-2, -2) / (5, 2)
diag-diag (FL + BR): (-2, 0) / (2, 2) / (0, -2)
adj-diag (BL + UBR + DFR): (0, -1) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-2, -2) / (-1, 2) / (-5, -2)
3-3 (R + ULB + D): (1, 0) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (2, 2) / (-3, 0) / (-3, 0)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 29, 2015)

*Megatripod: Megaminx alternative last layer*

Ok, so this is similar to tripod on 333 (obviously).

1) Build a block with 3 solved edges and 2 solved corners
2) insert the last S2L slot
3) solve using one of 58 algs (or 26 if you already orient the edges first)

The tripod approach may be more effective than on 333 because it is possible to "hide" two pairs without having to reorient the pairs (so it is easier to break the S2L and then fix it again).

EDIT: THIS IS FOR MEGAMINX (happy berd? ;-))


----------



## Berd (Jul 29, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Ok, so this is similar to tripod on 333 (obviously).
> 
> 1) Build a block with 3 solved edges and 2 solved corners
> 2) insert the last S2L slot
> ...


Might want to add it's for megaminx


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 29, 2015)

Berd said:


> Might want to add it's for megaminx



It's in the title...


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 29, 2015)

Introducing Lazy Man's PLL!

This is basically a PLL alg set where you learn some "core" algorithms (T-perm, A-perm, J-perm, etc.), and the rest of the algorithms are setup moves into a core PLL (N-perms, R-perms, F-perm, etc.)! NOTE: This is a stepping stone into full PLL. This algorithm set is designed to be easy to learn and get you into 1-look PLL, but should not be used long-term.

Some core algorithms (just some examples):
T-perm: R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'
J-perm: R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L U'
The other J-perm: R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U'

Some Lazy Algs (just some examples):
F-perm: R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R (Explanation: R' U' F' setup into T-perm, then cancel into undoing the setup)
N-perm: L' U' L R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L U' L' U L (Explanation: L' U' L setup into J-perm, then undo setup)
Y-perm: R U R2' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L U' R U' R' (Explanation: R U R' setup canceled into J-perm, then undo setup)
R-perm: L' U' L U R U2 R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U' R' U' L' U L (Explanation: L' U' L U R U R' setup cancelled into T-perm, then undo setup) <--This is why this alg set should be in short-term use
V-perm: R U R' U R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R U' R U' R' (Explanation: R U R' U setup into F-perm, then undo setup)

Great for quickly learning 1-look PLL, and easy to learn shorter algs to learn normal PLL.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 29, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Introducing Lazy Man's PLL!
> 
> This is basically a PLL alg set where you learn some "core" algorithms (T-perm, A-perm, J-perm, etc.), and the rest of the algorithms are setup moves into a core PLL (N-perms, R-perms, F-perm, etc.)! NOTE: This is a stepping stone into full PLL. This algorithm set is designed to be easy to learn and get you into 1-look PLL, but should not be used long-term.
> 
> ...



That's a great idea for beginners especially, and some of them are still very good! I like that V-perm example alot! The F-perm is the normal F-perm alg, but I think there would be a better R-perm tho.
in my opinion anyway.

other N-perm R U R' U Jb perm U2 R U' R' 



Method for 3x3:

Essentially HTA, but slightly different.

1. Solve E-slice edges

2. Orient Corners ~ ? #of algs

3. Permute Corners using ~ 5 algs (Square-1 algs)

4. Orient Edges using [M,U,D] 

5. Bring Edges into their correct layer (algs are not needed, but can be used) using [M,U,D]

6. solve the cube using ~29 algs if I did the math right.

The difference is that you orient the edges later in the solve. not as move efficient, but is more suited for speedsolving, imo


----------



## TDM (Jul 29, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Introducing Lazy Man's PLL!


I've taught this to a guy in school. He doesn't know the names for most PLLs; he just solves them intuitively. I taught him T perm as swapping the two halves of Y perm though, so he doesn't cancel the moves between them...


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 29, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Method for 3x3:
> 
> Essentially HTA, but slightly different.
> 
> ...



That's Belt...
Step 3 isn't going to have particularly good lookahead, nor will steps 5 and 6, and I'd be very surprised if it averages fewer moves than CFOP. Also, when do you orient the DR and DL edges (do you rotate during step 4)?


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 29, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> That's Belt...
> Step 3 isn't going to have particularly good lookahead, nor will steps 5 and 6, and I'd be very surprised if it averages fewer moves than CFOP. Also, when do you orient the DR and DL edges (do you rotate during step 4)?



How will it not have good lookahead? the algs are J-perm on top, J-perm on bottom, Dual N-perms, Dual J-perms, and N on top and J on bottom (rotate for that one) and you should know how the algs affect the EP. All the corner algs are [R,U,D]. 

Also I meant for 3 to bring corners into correct layer, then do CP. 

You can find an example solve here

btw I'm terrible when it comes to move-count, so I'm sure others can find better solution using this method, but it isn't much less efficient. Also, I dont have very many fingertricky algs, as I havent made any of them yet.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 30, 2015)

Another method for 3x3 (I should be practicing, but I like trying new ideas)

2x2 block in BDL

EO 

F2L

OLL

PLL

I believe this is very similar to pet rock, but I don't believe it is the same


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 30, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another method for 3x3 (I should be practicing, but I like trying new ideas)
> 
> 2x2 block in BDL
> 
> ...



Or you could just use petrus

How do you orient edges relative to RUF to conplete F2L????


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 30, 2015)

Place in bad edges in F, perform F or F'. C'mon PDF


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 30, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Place in bad edges in F, perform F or F'. C'mon PDF



But then they are oriented relative to R, restricting to RUL and F2 and thats just dumb becase its just ZZ petrus hybrid but its not efficient or ergonomic so... 

Edit: this is the stupid way to do an eoXcross


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 30, 2015)

It is ergonomic. You have 2 less edges as well, so at max you are left with 10 edges, and you can build the block, and it then becomes a 4-gen f2l [RULF2]

Also while doing an average of 12 (20.05) I noticed that like 7/12 solves had solved CP. Was I just incredibly lucky? (I noticed it in OLL, so I did 2GLL [but OLL and PLL])


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 30, 2015)

2180161 said:


> It is ergonomic. You have 2 less edges as well, so at max you are left with 10 edges, and you can build the block, and it then becomes a 4-gen f2l [RULF2]
> 
> Also while doing an average of 12 (20.05) I noticed that like 7/12 solves had solved CP. Was I just incredibly lucky? (I noticed it in OLL, so I did 2GLL [but OLL and PLL])



Have you ever seen a 2x2x2 block? 3 edges, not 2. 9 edges left in F2L and LL. EO would be hard to lookahead to, and ZZ and petrus are already very well developed. They are perfect for what they were made for. 

Yes, thats just luck.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 30, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Have you ever seen a 2x2x2 block? 3 edges, not 2. 9 edges left in F2L and LL. EO would be hard to lookahead to, and ZZ and petrus are already very well developed. They are perfect for what they were made for.
> 
> Yes, thats just luck.



I meant 3, I'm sorry, I was up late last night and I'm tired as ****....... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## NeilH (Jul 30, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Or you could just use petrus



lmaooo


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 30, 2015)

NeilH said:


> lmaooo



I wasnt around for that so I had to search it up after seeing the cubicle's petrus t-shirt


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 30, 2015)

2180161 said:


> How will it not have good lookahead? the algs are J-perm on top, J-perm on bottom, Dual N-perms, Dual J-perms, and N on top and J on bottom (rotate for that one) and you should know how the algs affect the EP. All the corner algs are [R,U,D].
> 
> Also I meant for 3 to bring corners into correct layer, then do CP.
> 
> ...



Move count wasn't terrible (though you had the shortest step 2 case), but I didn't mean lookahead from step 3, I meant lookahead into step 3. It won't be terrible, but it won't be particularly good. Can you predict CP for PLL coming out of OLL consistently? If so, good, but add in trying to predict the bottom and lookahead becomes harder than with most speedsolving methods, with none of the move count advantages in the ones with harder lookahead.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 30, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another method for 3x3 (I should be practicing, but I like trying new ideas)
> 
> 2x2 block in BDL
> 
> ...



Wait guys, let's not discount this completely. I think it may have some OH potential.

I would still alter this slightly though.

1) 2x2x2 block in BDL,
2) EO ZZ style
3) Form 2x2x1 block in FUR and do a U2 to finish the 2x2x3 *
4) 2nd half of ZZF2L
5) LL however you would like (I like WV/ PLL)

I like the steps 2-4 as they are easier to get used to than the Eoline and (for the most part) only use R and U moves so the a lot of the ZZF2L L moves (in the first half) are eliminated leading to a mostly 2-gen mid-solve that could go straight into PLL

*an experienced solver could probably do steps 2&3 in 1 step.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 30, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Another method for 3x3 (I should be practicing, but I like trying new ideas)
> 
> 2x2 block in BDL
> 
> ...



The main reason I came up with this was for some OH style stuff, but also for those that want to swap from Petrus to ZZ, and from (I have no idea why, but..) ZZ to Petrus.

It would be more move-efficient to CFOP, and maybe ZZ (i dont know ZZ movecount) and has good look-ahead after the EO step.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 30, 2015)

2180161 said:


> The main reason I came up with this was for some OH style stuff, but also for those that want to swap from Petrus to ZZ, and from (I have no idea why, but..) ZZ to Petrus.
> 
> It would be more move-efficient to CFOP, and maybe ZZ (i dont know ZZ movecount) and has good look-ahead after the EO step.



but the eo step would be hard to do without a lot of pauses, unless you do it like petrus (2 at a time) but will be inefficient.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 30, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> but the eo step would be hard to do without a lot of pauses, unless you do it like petrus (2 at a time) but will be inefficient.



Well, the 2x2 block should take very little moves once you get used to it (4-5), and then you should be able to do it blind, so you can track your bad edges, or at least know how many bad edges you end up with.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 30, 2015)

Also, what about this CFOP variation I've been thinking of for a while?

Solve Cross
Pair up and insert F2L pairs, but not necessarily in their correct spots
OLL
PAL (Permute all layers. Should be ~130 algorithms when learned to its fullest extent, but you can learn some subsets and it still be useful)

Advantages:
Much faster and easier F2L, the longest part of the solve.
PLL recognition is never affected by F2L pair permutation.

Disadvantages:
High algorithm count
Descent amount of long and awkward algorithms



Spoiler



Example solve - Scramble: _L2 R' F' R2 D' F' D' U' B2 D2 U2 L' B' R' B' D F' L2 D2 R2 B' F' L' R' U2_
I'm colour neutral, but I'll solve white side for this example. Also, I use intuitive F2L, so all of my "algorithms" are made by myself to work for me (be fingertrickable/fast), so my F2L may be crap for you to execute.

Also, the PAL alg I used is not optimized for speed. It was the first thing that popped out of Cube Explorer. I'm sure there's a much better alg out there.

Cross: x2 D F' D2 R L2
Pair 1: U' R U' R' U R' U R2 U' R'
Pair 2: y2 U2' L' U L R U' R'
Pair 3: R' U R U R' U R U R' U R U' R' U R
Pair 4: U2 L' U2 L U' L' U L
OLL (Antisune): U' R U2' R' U' R U' R'
PAL (E-perm with CCW Pair Permutation): R F' U F2 U' F R U' L2 D M2 x2 F2 U L2 D' x' U2 M2

Here's the solve with alg.cubing.net.


----------



## Small Poster (Jul 30, 2015)

Is this where I post new ideas? sorry I'm new.

If so, here is a method for 3x3

Solve a 2x2x3 block. 

Make it so the cube can be solved using only R Ri U Ui moves.

Solve the cube.


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 30, 2015)

Or you could just use Petrus.


----------



## Small Poster (Jul 30, 2015)

Petrus? What is that?


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 30, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Also, what about this CFOP variation I've been thinking of for a while?
> 
> Solve Cross
> Pair up and insert F2L pairs, but not necessarily in their correct spots
> ...



i think you have to be very good about saving moves in f2l, quick insert like keyhole should probably be pretty common. looks promissing, how are the PAL algs?


----------



## Berd (Jul 30, 2015)

Small Poster said:


> Petrus? What is that?


A very similar method. However, to make the rest of the solve 2 gen (R and U only) you need to correct edge orientation and corner permutation. Tricky stuff.


----------



## supercavitation (Jul 30, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i think you have to be very good about saving moves in f2l, quick insert like keyhole should probably be pretty common. looks promissing, how are the PAL algs?



The one he just posted was 6-gen, which is worrying, but it may just be a bad case.


----------



## Smiles (Jul 30, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> i think you have to be very good about saving moves in f2l, quick insert like keyhole should probably be pretty common. looks promissing, how are the PAL algs?



xcross is also easier, maybe at least an xcross every single solve? didnt try any solves myself but just an idea.

PAL, as far as the alg in the example solve, looks really tricky to do compared to PLL, and idk if you'll actually save enough time during F2L to make PAL algs worth it.

also i think F2L will require a bit more thinking than before, but nicer finger tricks so i guess it balances, but one of the great things about F2L is how you really dont have to think while you do it.

maybe certain PAL subsets (determined by permutation of the F2L slots) will be bad and others will be okay, so you could influence your slots based on that.

btw i just realized, doesnt inserting into the wrong slots only save like 1 move per slot on average? unless you start getting fancy with keyhole of course, but then theres so much thinking and colour mismatching going on that i dont even want to think about it...

maybe someone can tell me why im wrong here


----------



## IAmAPerson (Jul 31, 2015)

Smiles said:


> btw i just realized, doesnt inserting into the wrong slots only save like 1 move per slot on average? unless you start getting fancy with keyhole of course, but then theres so much thinking and colour mismatching going on that i dont even want to think about it...



It doesn't save too many moves, but for me personally, it removes many cube rotations. I solve at around 22-23 seconds, and my F2L has an average of 3-4 cube rotations (2 if I'm lucky). There was only 1 cube rotation in my example solve. Plus, this allows a window for mostly <R,U,L> rotationless F2L since you can insert a pair with a bad edge into a separate slot.

The 6-gen PAL alg was probably just a bad case. I generated the E-perm with a couple other F2L Permutation cases.
Adjacent swap: F R U R' U' R U' R2 F' R U' F U2 F' U'
Opposite swap: U2 R L U R' U R L' U R' L' U R U' M' (You can do a R' L here instead of an M')
CW 3-cycle: R2 F R2 U2 R' U' F2 U' F2 U2 R' F' R' U2 R' F U' F' U' (Long and not the best, but it's still decently good (and 3-gen!))

Also, I have some bad news. There are more cases than I thought. Here are all of the subsets of PAL (22 algs per subset).
Solved F2L (one solved case in this subset)
Adjacent Swap
Opposite Swap
CW 3-cycle
CCW 3-cycle
CW 4-cycle
CCW 4-cycle
Double Adjacent Swap
Double Opposite Swap
W-perm

That's 175 algorithms. To be honest, you could've learned full EG + most of OLL by that point. However, people have learned full ZBLL, so learning this is far from impossible.

I might learn the Adj. and Opp. swap cases so I can solve F2L allowing two slots to be misplaced.



Smiles said:


> maybe certain PAL subsets (determined by permutation of the F2L slots) will be bad and others will be okay, so you could influence your slots based on that.



I have found that the two-swap subsets are the best. The opposite swap subset can be done all <R,U,L> 3-gen, and the adjacent swap and 3-cycle subsets can be done all <R,U,F> 3-gen. All of the other subsets would have to be <R,U,L,F> 4-gen.


----------



## Hssandwich (Jul 31, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Or you could just use Petrus.



Good old days.


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 1, 2015)

For 4x4

2 opposite centers

1x3x4 block on r and l

create 1x2 center blocks

finish edge pairing while solving centers

3x3. 

Any thoughts on this? or is this a terrible idea, or has been come up with already?


----------



## cashis (Aug 1, 2015)

2180161 said:


> finish edge pairing while solving centers



lol pls


----------



## Michael Womack (Aug 1, 2015)

2180161 said:


> For 4x4
> 
> 2 opposite centers
> 
> ...



Sounds like Hoya in a way.


----------



## Username (Aug 1, 2015)

Michael Womack said:


> Sounds like Hoya in a way.



not really


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 1, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Or you could just use Petrus.



:tu
filler


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 1, 2015)

2180161 said:


> For 4x4
> 
> 2 opposite centers
> 
> ...


The most common method it resembles is meyer. But it more closely resembles stadler or my variant of meyer (shadowslice-meyer). 

How do you plan to do the edges with the centres (or edges at all)? The reason I use a 1x3x4 on the right and a 1x3x3 on the left is because otherwise it becomes very difficult to pair edges efficiently intuitively. 

Stadler uses algs after centres because doing the edges and centres simultaneously would have a lot of algs when there are perfectly good intuitive(ish) methods that are just as fast/efficient.

Sent from my M1005D using Tapatalk


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 1, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> The most common method it resembles is meyer. But it more closely resembles stadler or my variant of meyer (shadowslice-meyer).
> 
> How do you plan to do the edges with the centres (or edges at all)? The reason I use a 1x3x4 on the right and a 1x3x3 on the left is because otherwise it becomes very difficult to pair edges efficiently intuitively.
> 
> ...



yeah solving edges and centres would be a pain in the ***. if you go through all the trouble of building half centres, just finish em ***. then edge pairing with only M and U layers would be weird. shadowslice meyer and normal meyer are much better.


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 4, 2015)

Method for 3x3

Solve corners. (2x2 method, or any method you like)

solve F2B

LSE

F2B would be done algorithmically allowing for better look-ahead (setup, then alg, undo setup style)


Example solve: Here


Advantages:


Spoiler



Algorithmic approach allows for good look-ahead. reduces alg count from 9 to 8, or 42 to 8 (2-look cmll vs full look) good for a beginner so they can transfer to full roux. (ROUX FTW!)



Disadvantages:


Spoiler



INSANELY HIGH MOVECOUNT,


Now, LET THE HATE BEGIN!


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Method for 3x3
> 
> Solve corners. (2x2 method, or any method you like)
> 
> ...



actually, i think the movecount will be pretty good, this is just corner's first with roux lse, probably better movecount than cfop, let me do some solves.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 4, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> actually, i think the movecount will be pretty good, this is just corner's first with roux lse, probably better movecount than cfop, let me do some solves.



yeah this doesnt seem all that bad. splits would be like 3-10-2.5, and with a little practice, I could sub 15 this.


----------



## TDM (Aug 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Method for 3x3


isn't this _exactly_ what CF is?


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 4, 2015)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?35847-TRIM-a-k-a-the-rice-method


----------



## TDM (Aug 4, 2015)

I don't usually post ideas here, but I can't remember seeing this before. It's a Skewb method similar to Sarah's intermediate:

1. Solve a layer
2. Solve corners and two opposite sides (L and R or F and B)
3. Finish with L3C: U perm or skip

Would it be any/much worse than Sarah's intermediate? How many cases would there be for step 2?


----------



## Hssandwich (Aug 4, 2015)

TDM said:


> I don't usually post ideas here, but I can't remember seeing this before. It's a Skewb method similar to Sarah's intermediate:
> 
> 1. Solve a layer
> 2. Solve corners and two opposite sides (L and R or F and B)
> ...



Quite a few I think and I don't thing that the would be very nice.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 5, 2015)

Megaminx alternative LL (reducing algs to learn)

Beginners
1) Orient edges
2) form a 1x2x2 on the LL
3) permute edges (2 algs (or 1+inverse (1/3 chance of a skip)))
4) corners (intuitive)

Intermidiate
1,2&3) same as beginners
4) solve corners (42 algs- adapted 3x3x3 CLL?)


Advanced(ish)

1&2) same as beginners
3&4) combined- 126 cases including mirrors I think (<84 without)

Reasoning: 1x2x2 ridiculously easy to form because the 2 pairs can easily be kept together unbroken so fixing of S2L is easy enough.
2) Less algs (pretty much sells it for me ;-))


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 5, 2015)

New megaminx LSLL: 
VHLS
Mega ZBLL


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 5, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> New megaminx LSLL:
> VHLS
> Mega ZBLL


Sorry if I misunderstood, but isn't that something like 1000+ algs?


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 5, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood, but isn't that something like 1000+ algs?



Probably lol I don't do mega.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 9, 2015)

5x5x5+ lolmethod
1)Solve as 4x4x4
2) pair/form remaining edges/ centres
3) solves as 3x3x3 (big block corners)

Just the only real practical way I could find to do BBC

Mega lolmethod:
1) Solve a 2x2x2 (3 centres, 4 edges, 1 corner)
2) solve a 2x2x3 (4 centres, 5 edges, 2 corners on the opposite side
3) solve F2L while orienting remaining edges (extend the 2x2x2 to two adjacent centres and merge with the 2x2x3 somewhat so there are only 3 unsolved faces left)*- (solved section now has 9 faces in it)
4) 3-gen S2L
5) LL

*you could orient then do the F2L but this would be slow
This might be an ok method if someone cleverer than me could work out how to orient efficiently.

Petrus big cube method

So if ZZ, Roux and CFOP have their specific big cube methods, why not Petrus? (this is also a bit of a lolmethod so don't expect greatness)

Even cube variant (4x4x4, 6x6x6 etc)

1) build an nxnxn block where n=the size of the cube/2
. 1a) solve 3 adjacent centres
. 1b) solve the edges between them and the corner
2) solve remaining centres
3) pair edges while orienting (like in Z4)
4) 3x3x3 petrus (2x2x2 is already done)

Odd variant

Same but n= (size of cube/2)+1


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 9, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Petrus big cube method
> 
> So if ZZ, Roux and CFOP have their specific big cube methods, why not Petrus? (this is also a bit of a lolmethod so don't expect greatness)
> 
> ...



What about this for the Petrus 4x4:

1) Solve centres. 
2) Place FLD and BLD corners. 
3) Pair up the LD, FD, BD, FL, and BL edges and place them. 
4) Pair up and simultaneously orient the other 7 edges. 
5) Petrus 2GF2L
6) Petrus LL (OCLL/PLL, COLL/EPLL, etc.)


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 11, 2015)

4x4x4->2x2x2

1) build 4 1x2x2s off the four b-corners
2) solve the centres for them with the last edge (either way round)
3) form the corner edge skeletons for the top corners (basically 2x2x2s without the centres)
4) centres cage style
5) 2x2x2

IDK how efficient this is but you could also use this for big block corners on higher order cubes.


----------



## Cube Is Life (Aug 11, 2015)

TDM said:


> I don't usually post ideas here, but I can't remember seeing this before. It's a Skewb method similar to Sarah's intermediate:
> 
> 1. Solve a layer
> 2. Solve corners and two opposite sides (L and R or F and B)
> ...



I'm actually kind of interested in this. If someone could find algs for step 2 that perferably use sledgehammer and hedgeslammer and there are less than like 50 algs/cases I would stop learning Sarah's advanced and start learning this. It seems to me like this would fall in between Sarah's intermediate and Sarah's advanced in terms of difficulty and speed, but who knows maybe it will be super-duper fast.


EDIT: After messing around with my skewb it seems like regognizing the cases would be hard and solving the corners and 2 opposite centers would not be much more efficient than just Sarhah's intermediate. However, this gives me the idea of this method:

Step 1: Layer

Step 2: Solve corners and 1 center (not the center opposite of your layer)

Step 3: Finish. You will either have triple sledge, one move setup to triple sledge, U perm, one move setup to U perm or a skip


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 11, 2015)

A method I thought of a while ago for skewb was this: 

Normal variation
1) Solve a layer
2) Solve the opposite center (4 moves) 
3) Solve the rest using a subset of Sarah's advanced. 

Advanced variation (2x algs) 
1) Solve a side (not layer) 
2) Solve the opposite center
3) Solve the rest using either a subset of Sarah's advanced or a subset of skewb eg-2.

I would be using this myself if I bothered to learn the algs.


----------



## jjone fiffier (Aug 11, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> A method I thought of a while ago for skewb was this:
> 
> Normal variation
> 1) Solve a layer
> ...


Funny how everybody thinks advanced is so hard.
If you watch Kennans' tutorial everything is clear. 
Btw I think this alredy exsists, 26 algs I think.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Aug 11, 2015)

*3x3 ECL Method*

I call this method the "_ECL_" method, standing for name of the steps.

*Steps:*

1. EOLine (Just like ZZ)

2. Columns (F2L pairs, then COLL)

3. L6E (Must do Y rotation first, Edges already oriented from EOLine)

*Pros:*

-If you know ZZ, learning this method is easy
-Little rotations
-Combination of R/U/L and M/U

*Cons:*

-While building F2L pairs, you have to make sure that no middle edge pieces get "stuck" in DL or DR.

*Possible Variation:*

A possible variant of this method would be to just do EO, without the line and making sure that no ZZF2L piece gets "stuck" in FD or BD, then do ZZF2L, then COLL, and lastly, L6E.
The benefit of this method is how no Y rotation is needed. However, doing EOLine is marginally slower than just doing EO, so I don't think that doing full ZZF2L in exchange for not having to do a line would be worth it.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 11, 2015)

theawesomecuber said:


> I call this method the "_ECL_" method, standing for name of the steps.
> 
> *Steps:*
> 
> ...



Cool method. 

Is this like a ZZ/Roux/PCMS? I did something similar at one point (it was essentially exactly the same as the variant you described) but I founnd that the blockbuilding becomes much more difficult to do quickly as you have a more complex lookahead which is also slower because of restricted moves so I wouldn't go down that path.

The original method is very clever though, combining the blocks with the Eo line. Also, you can still use D,M2/S2 moves to preserve orientation with the pieces so it would not matter too mu h if the piece get "stuck" as they could be fixed quite easily (I use this fact to set up SLS in SSC).

I would therefore list the pros as
1) skip orientation in LSE
2) Ergonomic (<L,U,R,D,M2> and <M,U> for the majority of the solve)
3) Low alg count
4) Easy learning
5) Few rotations.
6) lowish movecount

the cons would be
1) less efficient/restricted block building/pairs
2) slightly more difficult lookahead to the pairs
3) y rotation could be difficult for getting ready for M /moves in the second phase
4) slightly more difficult LSE recognition
But overall, cool method! I think it might be good for you to invest some time to see how fast you can get!


----------



## theawesomecuber (Aug 11, 2015)

Thanks for responding!



shadowslice e said:


> Is this like a ZZ/Roux/PCMS?



Yup, I based it mostly off of ZZ and PCMS, and Roux just happened to work best for L6E.



shadowslice e said:


> Also, you can still use D,M2/S2 moves to preserve orientation with the pieces so it would not matter too mu h if the piece get "stuck" as they could be fixed quite easily (I use this fact to set up SLS in SSC).



That's good to know, but it would still be faster to never get the pieces stuck in the first place.



shadowslice e said:


> I would therefore list the pros as
> 1) skip orientation in LSE
> 2) Ergonomic (<L,U,R,D,M2> and <M,U> for the majority of the solve)
> 3) Low alg count
> ...



For the third con, you could possible do the y rotation right before COLL, so you can have a better transition into L6E. For everything else, I completely agree .



shadowslice e said:


> But overall, cool method! I think it might be good for you to invest some time to see how fast you can get!



Thank you! I doubt I'll be spending much time trying to get good at this method, simply for the fact that I'm extremely bad at EOLine. I guess it's something to practice .


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 11, 2015)

*C4*

ok, so I'm going to call this method C4 (partially because it stands for columns 4x4x4 but mostly because it sounds cool ;-p)

It has 2 variants: direct and redux

Direct (sort of cage but not quite and not the more fun of the variants ;-) )

1) solve columns
2) solve F2L using M,m,U and rotations on y
3) solve LL
4) cage style 3rd layer centres.

Redux (2x2x2)

1) create columns composed of 4 pairs on the bottom and 4pairs on the top- they do not have to match.
2) finish 2x2x2 blocks on the bottom
3) create "skeletons" for the 2x2x2 blocks on the top (no centres normally although you could do 1x2x2s with the extra edge) the edges could be done with OELL then PELL which would be 8 OELL and ??? PELL)
4) Centres cage style
5) 2x2x2


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 11, 2015)

theawesomecuber said:


> *Possible Variation:*
> 
> A possible variant of this method would be to just do EO, without the line and making sure that no ZZF2L piece gets "stuck" in FD or BD, then do ZZF2L, then COLL, and lastly, L6E.
> The benefit of this method is how no Y rotation is needed. However, doing EOLine is marginally slower than just doing EO, so I don't think that doing full ZZF2L in exchange for not having to do a line would be worth it.



I thought of this a while ago. The cons were pretty much that the movecount -- which is what makes ZZ so special -- goes down the drain with LSE, even if you're counting in STM instead of HTM. ZZ was made for efficient movecount and fast F2L, and Roux was made for its freeness of blockbuilding and <M, U> 2-gen. Combining these methods doesn't allow either method to reach its full potential. :/ Although this method does sound freaking cool though.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 11, 2015)

Ok, 3x3x3 method

1) 2x2x3 block
2) last cross edge+ one corner
3) orient edges while inserting the last edge 
4) Orient the corners using a method of your choice while inserting the last pair.
5) PLL

Meh, nothing too special but it might be a viable method

NOTE: if you like cross, F2L etc, you could just do cross+2 F2L pairs+ 1 corner in any order.


4x4x4+ method (orient first(ish)) completely experimental (so pls dont expect anything amazing)

1) orient the centres (so white/yellow, red/orange and blue/green centres)
2) orient edges either using slices or in the same way as as for zz 3x3x3 by pairing misoriented edges
3) pair edges using double slice or wide moves
4) solve centres cage style
5) ZZ 3x3x3?

NOTE: this is a highly experimental method which will need to be fully checked so don't expect it to be fast especially as some of the concepts are almost completely new as far as I am aware.


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 11, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> 3x3x3 method



Some advice from a Petrus user:

In step 2, if there ARE misoriented edges, insert a misoriented edge with the corner (in the F2L edge slot) (any edge will work, except the "correct" F2L edge). Half the edges should be misoriented, so this shouldn't take too many extra moves.

Then intuitively orient the rest of the edges and misorient the actual F2L edge that belongs with the previous corner. Leave the misoriented F2L edge in the U-layer.

Then do keyhole to orient the last 2 edges while inserting the F2L edge (exactly 5 moves every time). In my opinion, that will put you at step 4 in the easiest way possible. I actually do this in speedsolves whenever I notice the case.

Also, given that you now have reduced the number of unsolved corners to 5, it might not be too far-fetched to solve CP at this point and finish the solve 2gen.

If you'd like me to demonstrate, please provide a scramble. (I was once falsely accused of giving myself easy scrambles in a method proposal, so I'm scarred for life)


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 11, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> Some advice from a Petrus user:
> 
> In step 2, if there ARE misoriented edges, insert a misoriented edge with the corner (in the F2L edge slot) (any edge will work, except the "correct" F2L edge). Half the edges should be misoriented, so this shouldn't take too many extra moves.
> 
> ...



Great idea! Thanks 

The last 5 corners could likely be done with L5C so that would only leave the 3 ELL cases.
Thus,
1) 2x2x3
2) Cross edge+ 1 corner+ 1 misoriented edge (if there are any)
3) ^^ see above, idk how to describe it quickly
4) L5C
5) ELL


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 11, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Great idea! Thanks
> 
> The last 5 corners could likely be done with L5C so that would only leave the 3 ELL cases.
> Thus,
> ...



Actually, now I'm thinking that this will only "save" moves if the correct F2L edge is misoriented after the 3x2x2 (but of course, which F2L edge is the "correct" one depends on which corner is easier to solve along with the cross edge....this is getting too complicated). Otherwise, it's better if the inserted "F2L" edge is oriented. I guess you could adjust your approach on the fly to accommodate each case.

And what do you mean L5C? Pair insertion and COLL?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 11, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> And what do you mean L5C? Pair insertion and COLL?



Pretty much, it requires a lot of algs so it might still be more practical to do WV/VHLS/ZBLS etc+ PLL


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 11, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Pretty much, it requires a lot of algs so it might still be more practical to do WV/VHLS/ZBLS etc+ PLL



Have you seen Speed-Heise? I think it would be a good supplement to your methods. In my opinion, I really think it's one of the most efficient 2-step LS/LL approaches possible.

full / easy


Edit: of course, by "most efficient 2-step LS/LL approach," I mean with a reasonable alg count (sorry, ZZLL)


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 11, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> Have you seen Speed-Heise? I think it would be a good supplement to *your methods*.



which ones? ;-p

But no I had not seen speed-heise before, thanks for showing me .

Also, I'm definately putting thus on the wiki


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 12, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> 4x4x4+ method (orient first(ish)) completely experimental (so pls dont expect anything amazing)
> 
> 1) orient the centres (so white/yellow, red/orange and blue/green centres)
> 2) orient edges either using slices or in the same way as as for zz 3x3x3 by pairing misoriented edges
> ...



ok, building on this idea I have completely oriented a 5x5x5 cube to the <double turn> permutation group.

Basically I was seeing if I could do a thistlethwaite-like solve and I'm wondering what order would probably be most efficient.

To get to this stage I did opposite centre (ie. Green/blue, white/yellow, red/orange centres)

Next, I did the tredges by using freeslice/insertion. The orienting dictated that any edges could go with an edge with either the same colours, 1 same and one opposite colour or 2opposite colours (so a white/red edge could be matched with either another white/red, a white/orange, a yellow/red or yellow/ orange edge).

Afterwards, I placed the edges in their slots so each face (ignoring corners) was only opposite colours.

After this I oriented the corners using the same technique as human thistlethwaite.

So, after some experimenting I decided that the best way to do this is to pair the edges first then solve the centres like in a cage solve then do the 3x3x3 stage like the final stage of kociemba or orient first etc.

General evalutation of the solve:

Evaluation of the solve: centres: really easy
Centres (first phase) easy enough, no harder than normal reduction
Edges (first phase) not too bad but needs work for proper efficiency could add some algs for the last few edges. Bit of a hassle to permute them but it could be done like a 3 colour cube so is not too bad.
Parity: potential for really short alg and very easy to spot because the misoriented edges must always be on the last edges you finish.
Edge pairing: very fast, very easy just double moves and set ups
Centres: learn cage. Not too bad but may be slightly inefficient
3x3x3: very fast, fairly easy, very intuitive.

Pros: 
1) Easy to perform once learned.
2) very intuitive.
3) Very easy edge pairing
4) if a way for the edges to be done efficiently, it could have quite a low movecount.
5) Few algs.
6) Potential for a shorter, more ergonomic parity alg

Cons:
1) Lots of small steps, could be good for computers
2) Doubling of standard reduction steps

Final thoughts:

This method might be mostly for fun although it would probably get better and better for the bigger big cubes as well as some applications for computer solving (although people have probably found much better ways to do it).


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 12, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> ok



Have you tried expanding outwards from 3-color 1x1x1 > 2x2x2 > 3x3x3 > ... > nxnxn instead of using reduction to a 3x3x3 cube (and then solving to 3-color cube)? My gut tells me it would be more efficient


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 13, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> Have you tried expanding outwards from 3-color 1x1x1 > 2x2x2 > 3x3x3 > ... > nxnxn instead of using reduction to a 3x3x3 cube (and then solving to 3-color cube)? My gut tells me it would be more efficient



do you mean build from a corner or using big block corners?


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 13, 2015)

Even numbered big cubes suggestion (based on CFCE): 

Redux to 3x3
Cross+F2L
CLL 
ELL (fix parity, orient, and permute edges in one alg) 

Pros:
With CFOP, you can still have up to a 4LLL even with full OLL/PLL because of parity. This method has 2LLL with any solve. 

Cons: 
Lots of algs
oh god no the recognition


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 13, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> do you mean build from a corner or using big block corners?



I mean, building a 3-color cube expanding out from a corner, like Petrus on a 3x3x3. The tricky part is going from n*n-1*n-1 to n*n*n. OBLBL is probably the best way for that, in my opinion.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 14, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> I mean, building a 3-color cube expanding out from a corner, like Petrus on a 3x3x3. The tricky part is going from n*n-1*n-1 to n*n*n. OBLBL is probably the best way for that, in my opinion.



I've done some playing around and I've decided that it is easier and more efficient to do the OBLBL with a 3 colour cube. Perhaps the acronym for this method could be mismatched opposite colour MDPSSOBLBL (you can work out what this stands for) Lol name+ Lol method= awesomeness ;-P

In seriousness though, I'm going to look into this method a bit more to see if I can find a more efficient way to do centres as they will always be opposite each other (maybe make algs for each of the 5 corner centre cases and 5 edge centre cases- I'm not counting skips- maybe even the 35 one-look cases (that would occur on a 5x5x5)) and see if there are any special edge tricks that may work only for the specific cases that occur in the method.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 15, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Even numbered big cubes suggestion (based on CFCE):
> 
> Redux to 3x3
> Cross+F2L
> ...



If I did math right, the total number of cases for ELL exceeds 300. The minimum number of algs needed is something which I don't know how to calculate.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 15, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> If I did math right, the total number of cases for ELL exceeds 300. The minimum number of algs needed is something which I don't know how to calculate.



There would be (for a 4x4x4) 10*(4+6+2+1)= 130 cases wouldn't there?

The minimum number of algs would be 29 (standard ELL) + 20 (parity ELL)= 49 including mirrors I think.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 15, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> There would be (for a 4x4x4) 10*(4+6+2+1)= 130 cases wouldn't there?
> 
> The minimum number of algs would be 27 (standard ELL) + 20 (parity ELL)= 47 including mirrors I think.


Here was my math: 

4 edge pieces with 2 orientations each = 4!*2⁴=384

Anyway, if my math is wrong and there are much fewer algs, I wouldn't be opposed to learning this myself. It would be after I finish normal ELL and learn COLL/WV (for ZZ OH, of course!)


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 15, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Here was my math:
> 
> 4 edge pieces with 2 orientations each = 4!*2⁴=384
> 
> Anyway, if my math is wrong and there are much fewer algs, I wouldn't be opposed to learning this myself. It would be after I finish normal ELL and learn COLL/WV (for ZZ OH, of course!)



actually your case count is probably correct as I accidentally removed some Z-perms from my calculation although I think the alg count I got was slightly off as well- 29 standard ell (from the wiki) and for the parity there are

1 pure flip
4 U-perm 1 flip cases
4 anti-U-perm 1 flip cases,
1 H-perm 1 flip
2 Z-perm 1 flips

1 pure 3 flip
4 U-perm 3 flips
4 anti-U-perm 3 flips
2 Z-perm 3 flips
1 H-perm 3 flip

Total: 24 algs (53 algs)
You can also reduce further by excluding mirrors which I believe would give

1 U-perm
1 Z-perm
1 H-perm

1 pure flip parity
4 U-perm 1 flips
1 Z-perm 1 flip
1 H-perm 1 flip

2 pure flip
6 U-perm 2 flips
2 Z-perm 2 flips
2 H-perm 2 flips

1 pure 3 flip
4 U-perm 3 flips
1 Z-perm 3 flip
1 H-perm 3 flip

1 pure 4 flip
1 U-perm 4 flip
1 Z-perm 4 flip
1 H-perm 4 flip

Total: 14 algs for parity + 19 algs for normal = 35 algs in total excluding mirrors


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 15, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> 35 algs in total excluding mirrors



You forgot the permutation parity. You would have stuff like W and O perms, too.

EDIT: *ANOTHER NEW *(maybe)* METHOD*

This one probably isn't as practical.

3x3 speedsolving method:
Solve corners
1-look edges
M2 BLD

Pros:
If one knows EG, this could be a 2-look solve (it would be a 3-look solve for me).
NO RECOGNITION PAUSES AFTER MEMO IS COMPLETE!
Even if one does not know BLD solving, they could still use this method and just 12-look the edges.

Cons:
HUGE gap for pure memo of edges.
M2 is not as efficient as normal speedsolving methods (though it is a very good method).
Memorize edges incorrectly? DNF unless you pause to make sure the puzzle is solved.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 16, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Mega ZZ
> 1) Solve a 2x2x2 (3 centres, 4 edges, 1 corner)
> 2) solve a 2x2x3 (4 centres, 5 edges, 2 corners on the opposite side
> 3) solve F2L while orienting remaining edges (extend the 2x2x2 to two adjacent centres and merge with the 2x2x3 somewhat so there are only 3 unsolved faces left)*- (solved section now has 9 faces in it)
> ...



EDIT: NOTES: Edge orientation: while doing the f2L you can use partial edge control in the same way as on a 3x3x3 and then fixing any remaining edges using the F face or the Sexy moves.

For the LL, my method could provide a 3-look LL with only about 50 algs and the algs have fairly good recognition as the solved block could be places on the back.

* Alternative (probably better) order: inverse tripod/ZZ/triangle/blockbuilding path thingy*


Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler



*Method instructions*


Spoiler



1) find 3 adjacent centres and solve the edges and corner between them.
2) Pick two of the centres and solve the F2L such that there is now one extra block (as would be created by the Westlund method S2L on the back formed by the previous tripodesc block.
3) Using the centre opposite the block, solve a second F2L that would resemble the second step of the Yu Da Hyun style. However, you should orient the remaining edges on the last 3 faces so that you would get a 3-gen rest of the solve (I would do this by solving one edge between the F2L and the new centre such that there would be a slot for two pairs on each side of the centre/edge pair and then doing VHLS to insert the pair (there are 3 slots to insert for each face so I would recommend solving the one pair on each face then inserting them so that all the edges would be oriented - I think thus works out pretty much 100% of the time (apart from one case where there woild be 2 left over but this could easily be corrected by one sexy) as there would be 16 edges left and each VHLS orients 5 edges))
4) 3-gen ZZish style F2L
5) LL: My minimega tripod would give a 3 look LL with 42 algs using the intermidiate method and 2-look with 128. For standard OLL+PLL, this would reduce the OLL count. It may also be feasible to do a mega WV to give a 1-look LL for mega.


Pros:


Spoiler



1) 3-gen L3F (last 3 faces)
2) reduced LL alg count
3) Both hands can be used for the L3F with the mega oh the table as many of the moves that would be more awkward to perform are removed.
4) potential LS+1LLL
5) few rotations.
6) after the F2L there are no very hidden pieces (all the mega remaining can be seen with very few/no rotations.
7) fewer pieces need to be tracked for the first 2 steps compared to other methods.
8) you can tell people you use ZZ on a megaminx and see their expressions ;-)


Cons:


Spoiler



1) Building something other than an F2L may take some getting used to although for an experience solver there should be no problems.
2) without a fixed colour scheme it could be difficult to work out edge orientation for step 3


Evaluation:
[spoiler
The method has some potential but needs to be tested (like all methods) to determine the overall usefulness as well as ironing out any flaws in addition to finding new tips that could help.


* How the method was created/ reasoning*


Spoiler



Basically, I was trying to manipulate the rules for creating and maintaining oriented edges (mainly that an edge cannot be turned by 3 adjacent faces - like L,U &F on a 3x3x3 or else it will lose orientation- extending to mega we get the rules 1. Each face can only have 2 adjacent mobile faces which are not adjacent to each other & 2. The faces cannot be positioned in a closed ring with an odd number of faces) and finding that the maximum number of oriented faces it is possible to have on a megaminx is 5 in a Horseshoe shape or 6 in a ring. However, I found that it is difficult to get all these edges oriented in an efficient way and basically impossible to keep all the faces in view ( it is possible to keep 4 moving faces oriented and in view as well although it basically removes the last layer always being on top which can be disorientating for people who are not used to it (I'll post a description on how to do this as well at some point as I have created the beginnings of a method but hat needs even more work for improvement than the method I proposed above)) and so concluded that the best way to do this was to use the L3F as presented above using multiple VHLS inserts





Sorry if this is a bit confusing. I don't dealt know how to describe the shapes of blocks on a Mega. If this is the case, then the basic idea is this: solve until there are 5 faces left. Build a block like Yu Da Hyun while orienting the edges of the last 3 faces using something like VHLS or ZBLS. ZZ until last layer. Solve last layer however you would like.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 18, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> : it is possible to keep 4 moving faces oriented and in view as well although it basically removes the last layer always being on top which can be disorientating for people who are not used to it (I'll post a description on how to do this as well at some point as I have created the beginnings of a method but hat needs even more work for improvement than the method I proposed above))



Ok, here is that method ;-)

There are two options: LS orientation and a more ZZ style Eo.

* LS option*


Spoiler



1) Choose 4 centres and solve the corners and edges between them (this is like a 2x2x3 on a 3x3x3) as well as the opposite edge on the centres that only have 2 adjacent centres in the block rather than 3 (like the F and B faces in Petrus)
2) close one of the two centres with the extra edge and create a star with it (basically, solve the two remaining edges adjacent to the centre) in preparation for F2L.
3) Pair the edges for the F2L and move to the face above/adjacent to their slot
4) VHLS/ EOLS/ZBLS etc. You should now have all edges oriented (apart from two cases- one with 2 mosoriented edges (fix with a sexy) and one with 4 (two sexys)
5) you should now have 5 faces which are unsolved (4 in a horseshoe and one above all of them. You should now be have a 4-gen solve remaining (do not turn the U-face) you could do this in quite a few ways- building to an LL or you could do a 2 face final phase (Technique I'm currently working on although tbh I am only doing so because I like symetric patterns and my OCD would kill me to do this step non-symetrically.)



*ZZ Eo option*


Spoiler



1) Same as above
2) Just solve the F2L straight away without worrying about LS or Eo Etc
3) Using U moves, orient the edges in the same way as ZZ but remember to preserve the edge on the bottom.
4,5) Same as above



Pros:
1) 4-gen is very ergonomic and can be placed on the table for easy turning
2) For LL, case reduction
3) Less building for S2L/second stage (I'm not really sure what to compare it to or call it...)
4) ZZ on mega!!!!!

Cons:
1) OH GOD NO THE Eo DETECTION WHEN TRYING TO BE CN (for the ZZ variant)

Could be a fun method in my opinion and I think it has some potential to be fast although it would be intersting to see which Eo method is the best (out of the 3 presented in the 2 posts)


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 18, 2015)

I looked at HTA, and this is similar but not quite the same

EO

place, in any order, 3 e-slice edges in e-slice

orient 3 d-layer corners

insert final e-slice edge with a corner correctly oriented

OCLL

F2l Using [R2,L2,F2, B2, U, D, M, U] but preserving EO 

PLL

Like I said very similar to HTA, but with less algs


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 18, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I looked at HTA, and this is similar but not quite the same
> 
> EO
> 
> ...



More similar to SSC... https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?54056-SSC-(Shadowslice-Snow-Columns)-3x3x3-Method

The only real difference is that I combine a couple of steps (Eo+EoEdge, orient 3 corners+place 3rd eslice piece & insert the final e-slice piece+ orient all corners) and do LEE->LSE rather than LEE->EPLL as the last step (LFE- Last Four Edges) is faster than EPLL.

So not a new method really, but I would like some help to continue to improve SSC (both SSC-M and SSC-O).


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 19, 2015)

I came up with a method similar to OLS except it solves either the EPLL or the CPLL while inserting the R U R' or the R U' R' pair.
This method is more like a supset (not subset) or should I say a group constituted by EPLS (Edge Permutation and Last Slot) and CPLS (Corner ...).
There's a total of 12 cases for EPLS and 12 cases for CPLS (both pairs including) so 24 algs in total that leave a KhLL (Keyhole Last Layer aka pure COLL) which contains 80 algs.
So it's quite similar to KhLS (Keyhole Last Slot) except that it requires EO to be solved for EPLS (therefore using a TSEOLL method or simply ZZ would be a must) and CO to for the CPLS (as the recognition system is really tricky when the corners are not oriented the same way).
The aim of both is to have only one type of cube to solve during the LL

EPLS
Recognition order: RF-LU-RU
-O: opposite edge to RF
-R: adjacent edge to RF on the right side (when looking on the RF's original face, e.g: RF is green-yellow, the Radj would be orange-yellow)
-L: same as above but for the left side

Joint pair (the pair is in UL-ULF)
OL: R U' R'
RL: U R U2 R'
LO: U R U' R' U R U2 R' or R U R' U' R U' R'
RO: L' U2 R U R' U2 L
LR: L' U2 R U' R' U2 L U R U' R'
OR: U' R U' L R' U' R U L' R'

Split pair
OL: R L U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U'
RL: R' D' L F2 L' D R2 U R' U or L U L' U2 R U' L U2 L' U R' U
LO: D2 L2 D F2 D' R L2 U L U L' U' R' D2
RO: R L' U R' U2 L U' L' U2 L
LR: L' D2 L U L' D2 L U' R U R' or R F U2 F D F' U2 F D' F2 U R'
OR: F2 U' L2 D' L2 U L D L' F2 U' or U' L2 U R U2 L2 U' L2 U' R' U' L2

CPLS
Recognition order: RFD-FUL-RUB
O: Oppposite sticker to RFD (e.g: RFD is blue then it would be a green sticker)
L: sticker of the left adjacent face to the original RFD face (e.g: RFD is blue then it would be an orange)
R: same as above but for the right
S: same color than the RFD's sticker

Joint pair
LS: R' U D R2 D' R' D R2 U' R D'
OO: U' L' U2 R U' R' U2 L or y' U r D r' U' r D' r'
LR: U2 R2 F' D2 F R' U2 R F' D2 F R2 or L2 U L' U2 R U R' U2 L' U' L2 U' L2
OS: U' F' L2 U' L' U2 L F U' F' L' U' L' F or R2 U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' F2 U' R2 U2 R2 U F2
RR: U L' U2 R U R' U2 L or d2 F' U L U L' U' F
RO: l' U2 R U2 r' U2 L

Split pair
Recognition order: FDR-FUL-RUB
SR: R L U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U'
OO: L D' L2 U2 L U L D F2 L' U'
LR: U L' U2 R U' L U2 L' U R' U2 L
SO: R2 U' R' L' U2 L U L' U R L U2 R2
LL: R F D' F' U2 F D F' U' R'
OL: U R U R F U R' U' R F' R U2 R' U2 R


Pros of EPLS:
-You will end up with 0-4 corners to solve so it's useful for FMC
-Easy recognition
-No need to worry about LL corners

Cons of EPLS:
-You need to pre-orient the edges before using one of the cases

Pros of CPLS:
-no need to have EO done (so it reduce the LL to ELL so 29 cases)
-if you use the algs I listed and have EO than you would only get an EPLL or a skip)

Cons of CPLS:
-CO needs to be done before

Pros of PLS:
-you will end with either a KhLL case or an ELL case

Cons of PLS:
-for each sets the Orientation stage of the aimed pieces needs to be done before using PLS
-the F2L pair needs to be a 3-mover

If you have any suggestion about algs or anything that I could do to improve that method aside from getting a list of all possible PLS that includes AUF (so about 168-ish cases if I calculated it well)


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 19, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood, but isn't that something like 1000+ algs?



I'd guess even more than that, compare 3x3 PLL (21) to 3x3 ZBLL (492ish), and then remember that mega has somewhere close to 200 algs for full PLL...that doesn't even consider the VHLS.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 19, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> I came up with a method similar to OLS except it solves either the EPLL or the CPLL while inserting the R U R' or the R U' R' pair.
> ~snip~



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?54615-Full-List-of-LPELL-Algorithms I believe that this is what you are doing when you say EPLS and the CPLS sounds vaguely like an LS extention of CFCE so it could be useful there.

The only other question I have is: how do you decide which case to use if you are using PLS? Surely you would have to look at almost all the pieces to recognise which to use (and so the recognition would be almost as bad, if not worse, than ZBLL)


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 19, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?54615-Full-List-of-LPELL-Algorithms I believe that this is what you are doing when you say EPLS and the CPLS sounds vaguely like an LS extention of CFCE so it could be useful there.
> 
> The only other question I have is: how do you decide which case to use if you are using PLS? Surely you would have to look at almost all the pieces to recognise which to use (and so the recognition would be almost as bad, if not worse, than ZBLL)



Kind of... And it's also useful for Keyhole (more importantly EPLS than CPLS).

As for choosing which set I'm gonna use, depends on how I want my LL to be and as some algs are both in the CPLS and EPLS I could predict the PLL and starting making cancellation straight-away.

And also you don't have to learn both sets, if you know KhLL than EPLS would be more suitable but if you know CFCE or just ELL than CPLS would be more suitable.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 19, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Megaminx alternative LL (reducing algs to learn)
> 
> Beginners
> 1) Orient edges
> ...



Ok, so recently I've been doing some reading around and found that this method is pretty much the same as snyder2 so the algs from there could be used.

it still has a lower alg count than OLL/PLL and I believe it could also end up more efficient, especially when used in conjunction with my other Eo mega methods, when considering how efficient Snyder2 is (apparently it has a 40 move average) so I believe this gives credence to the minitripod LL style.

Regarding the MegaEo methods, I have found that the 4 face LS style I the most efficient as well as the second easiest to perform.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

<ThisIsMyThirdPostAfterMemIntro; IDon'tKnowIfThisIsTheRightPlace> After my made-up CFOP, I currently use a specific order, each influencing the next one: EO, Cross, 1stF2L, MidF2Ls, LastF2L+forced OLL skip(different techniques), PLL(usually uninfluenced). Also, it is apparent to notice the use of D turns, with necessary F or B half turn. I also notice usual opposing turns(ex. U' then D' or L' then R2), which I use to influence the transition for the next(ex. while I orient the cross onto the E-slice centers with a D turn, I AUF for the 1stF2L) and for multislotting during F2L. Other than those on the title, is it still considered ZZ, without only the EO, when D, F, B and cube turns are mostly usually necessary?


----------



## mikolajw (Aug 21, 2015)

This method is not efficient. Simply practise CFOP or ZZ but don't mix them.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 21, 2015)

The biggest strength of ZZ is that having EO done before F2L makes efficient block building during F2L easier. If you just do a normal CFOP solve, then you're missing out on ZZ's biggest strength, in my opinion.

What you describe (the first half, at least) is a common beginner variant of ZZ.

However, since you can already do EO first, transitioning to a full EO line is not that difficult, and learning to block build when you already know CFOP F2L is simply a matter of getting used to the idea that you have more options than simply placing the cross edge first and then the pair.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

I actually found some advantages: Pairing edge-to-edge, or edge-to-corner is easier. A turn during an opposite turn can be oftenly made so half-turn time can manage not just the half turn, or a quarter turn, but also another opposite turn. You can now not limit to F-B line only; You can also do L-R line first then follow the F and B edges, or freely do the cross. It is easier to find the L-R cross edges than a ZZF2L case. After the cross, you can now search an F2L edge or corner each in just 8 places since the 12 places of the edges are deducted by the cross by 4; then, edges on LL whose top stickers are not the U color simply belong to the E slice. It is easier to do an F2L case with mispairs. Keyholes are a lot easier, too. Switched E-slice edges are manageable. And the most important are the smooth transitions. In my opinion, very efficient.



AlphaSheep said:


> The biggest strength of ZZ is that having EO done before F2L makes efficient block building during F2L easier. If you just do a normal CFOP solve, then you're missing out on ZZ's biggest strength, in my opinion.
> 
> What you describe (the first half, at least) is a common beginner variant of ZZ.
> 
> However, since you can already do EO first, transitioning to a full EO line is not that difficult, and learning to block build when you already know CFOP F2L is simply a matter of getting used to the idea that you have more options than simply placing the cross edge first and then the pair.



In my opinion, initially, this is a ZZ because of the EO and, if you consider the cross, it is just like the EO line plus the two other edges; also in ZZ, there will appear a last F2L edge-corner pair at the end. Just think of it that the two pieces are replaced by the other edges of the cross. But then also Fridrich because of the cross and edge-corner pairs. I can't classify this definitely so I just consider the EO for it to be a ZZ Variant.


----------



## TDM (Aug 21, 2015)

Yeah, this has been invented many, _many_ times before. It's slower than CFOP and slower than ZZ. If you like LUR and no rotations, use ZZ. If you want a solved cross, use CFOP. Don't try using both.

The exception to this is if you're doing ZZ and you can force a cross with only a couple of extra moves. Then it could be worth it. However, don't try it every time.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

TDM said:


> Yeah, this has been invented many, _many_ times before. It's slower than CFOP and slower than ZZ. If you like LUR and no rotations, use ZZ. If you want a solved cross, use CFOP. Don't try using both.
> 
> The exception to this is if you're doing ZZ and you can force a cross with only a couple of extra moves. Then it could be worth it. However, don't try it every time.



To clarify, it is initially ZZ but rather than finding a ZZF2L case first, you would find the remaining cross edges; it will not affect the time much. I find the traditional ZZ too limiting. It limits EO line only for F and B cross edges. It limits, not necessarily though, turns for LUR only.


----------



## TheBrutux168 (Aug 21, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> To clarify, it is initially ZZ but rather than finding a ZZF2L case first, you would find the remaining cross edges; it will not affect the time much. I find the traditional ZZ too limiting. It limits EO line only for F and B cross edges. It limits, not necessarily though, turns for LUR only.



Blockbuilding is more limiting than finishing cross and doing F2L? Again, just use CFOP or just use ZZ. This is badly inefficient.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

TheBrutux168 said:


> Blockbuilding is more limiting than finishing cross and doing F2L? Again, just use CFOP or just use ZZ. This is badly inefficient.



As I can see from this ZZ variant, and again, I can not classify this definitely. It is in between. Why to pick only one if you can do both at the same time(okay, not all the time). Advantages of both methods plus additional emanating ones appear with disadvantages only inthe ZZ part: EO.


----------



## ZZTrooper (Aug 21, 2015)

Well you guys gave him your opinions about his question, but he continues to defend himself and is answering his own question.

As for my opinion, even though I may not be the most qualified as I'm not that fast, I don't really care which method you use. However, it's a fairly well known fact that EOcross is less efficient than normal ZZ. If you think that sheer turning speed is more important than efficient than efficiency, then by all means use this method. However, ZZ was pretty much made to avoid "awkward" turns like D, F, and B. EO line has two edge pieces in it in the D layer that afterwards cannot be touched by R,U, and L moves. This maximizes the amount of blockbuilding you can do with R,U, and L. Also, even though F and B moves are not strictly prohibited in the form of F2 an B2 moves, ZZ users tend to stay away from them as they don't give good lookahead. One of the main reasons why I, and probably many others, like ZZ (and Roux) is due to the lack of rotations, and so rotations kind of take away the point of the method. Overall, I think you should classify this more as more a a CFOP variant rather than a ZZ variant, but that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree or correct me about anything (like grammar and spelling errors, since school's been out for a while.)


----------



## Hypocrism (Aug 21, 2015)

ZZTrooper said:


> Well you guys gave him your opinions about his question, but he continues to defend himself and is answering his own question.
> 
> As for my opinion, even though I may not be the most qualified as I'm not that fast, I don't really care which method you use. However, it's a fairly well known fact that EOcross is less efficient than normal ZZ. If you think that sheer turning speed is more important than efficient than efficiency, then by all means use this method. However, ZZ was pretty much made to avoid "awkward" turns like D, F, and B. EO line has two edge pieces in it in the D layer that afterwards cannot be touched by R,U, and L moves. This maximizes the amount of blockbuilding you can do with R,U, and L. Also, even though F and B moves are not strictly prohibited in the form of F2 an B2 moves, ZZ users tend to stay away from them as they don't give good lookahead. One of the main reasons why I, and probably many others, like ZZ (and Roux) is due to the lack of rotations, and so rotations kind of take away the point of the method. Overall, I think you should classify this more as more a a CFOP variant rather than a ZZ variant, but that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree or correct me about anything (like grammar and spelling errors, since school's been out for a while.)



If you have EO, you don't need to rotate during an EOF2L.

But this is still an inefficient speed method. By all means use it as a stepping stone to switch from CFOP to ZZ, but I don't think this is a good idea. It only loses good aspects from each method, and gains no new good aspects.


----------



## DizzypheasantZZ (Aug 21, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> To clarify, it is initially ZZ but rather than finding a ZZF2L case first, you would find the remaining cross edges; it will not affect the time much. I find the traditional ZZ too limiting. It limits EO line only for F and B cross edges. It limits, not necessarily though, turns for LUR only.



Traditional ZZ is limiting, but it won't give you bad times. The limiting gives you more efficient F2L, which will eventually become faster. Actually, I think that this variant is more limiting, after you finish the cross, you can only use quarter turns on faces. There are lots of ZZ tricks that make it faster than this variant, you just need to find them.



zyxantjcae654 said:


> As I can see from this ZZ variant, and again, I can not classify this definitely. It is in between. Why to pick only one if you can do both at the same time(okay, not all the time). Advantages of both methods plus additional emanating ones appear with disadvantages only inthe ZZ part: EO.



Using advantages of both methods doesn't necessarily make a variant better.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

The help I really want is actually on the title. Existence has been confirmed yet not pushed. Suggestions include debunking this idea. But I need more than that. I am hoping for someone who is interested to answer more. The question "what is this?" is a side question. Because declaring it to be ZZ is unfair if it is really Fridrich. I just put "ZZ Variant" so that if it was wrong I would read a post that it is Fridrich. It is so in between that I can not classify. Also, you can use D very often than we thought. For example: solve your cube, use a D turn, sexy move, reverse your D turn. Now, if in ZZ this case shows up, what would you use? Further, I only received, I think, 3 unsure answers from your opinions. The others are about "just use ZZ or Fridrich". I use both. If your opinions are already given by someone, do not repeat. If that question is what I mainly want, I would have asked it in the 1 question. Please, respect.


----------



## ZZTrooper (Aug 21, 2015)

OP said "Other than those on the title, is it still considered ZZ, without only the EO, when D, F, B and cube turns are mostly usually necessary?", which I interpreted as "is it still considered ZZ when D,F,B, and cube rotations are necessary?" 

I use ZZ and I don't use rotations, and I don't really get why he would when he already has EO, but I was simply answering his question the way I thought it meant. Of course, I could have taken it the wrong way, but I'm not too sure. Hope this cleared up the confusion.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

DizzypheasantZZ said:


> Traditional ZZ is limiting, but it won't give you bad times. The limiting gives you more efficient F2L, which will eventually become faster. Actually, I think that this variant is more limiting, after you finish the cross, you can only use quarter turns on faces. There are lots of ZZ tricks that make it faster than this variant, you just need to find them.
> 
> 
> 
> Using advantages of both methods doesn't necessarily make a variant better.



If you are using Fridrich but the scramble shows oriented edges, is it easier? Of course it is.



ZZTrooper said:


> OP said "Other than those on the title, is it still considered ZZ, without only the EO, when D, F, B and cube turns are mostly usually necessary?", which I interpreted as "is it still considered ZZ when D,F,B, and cube rotations are necessary?"
> 
> I use ZZ and I don't use rotations, and I don't really get why he would when he already has EO, but I was simply answering his question the way I thought it meant. Of course, I could have taken it the wrong way, but I'm not too sure. Hope this cleared up the confusion.



I actually use CLS . I also use cube rotations when the D sticker of the corner of CLS is on L or R. I prefer cube rotations than memorizing 7 more algos because from Fridrich, we use them, right? And there's PLL, too.


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 21, 2015)

In my opinion, a lot of proficient ZZ users try to move cross edges to their correct sides (L or R) during the EOLine phase (this can help avoid awkward cases). So yes, this is a viable method.

But one thing you should know is that ZZ derives a lot of its efficiency from "open-slotting" (leaving the F2L slots OPEN, to just slide F2L pairs in) as well as blockbuilding. Forcing an exact cross every time hurts that efficiency.

And if you already know Full OLL (which you likely don't, using a LS substep each solve), you can actually forgo orientation of the LL edges during the EO-Cross step. This is also a popular "variant" for people to come up with.

TL;DR: This is a good method with a lot of strengths, but a few key weaknesses.


----------



## ZZTrooper (Aug 21, 2015)

Ah, I see what you're saying. So you use both methods depending on the situation right? That's not really recommended, and neither is mixing two methods to make a kind of "in between". Because of the fact that most people don't go that route it hasn't really been explored. After all, why spend time on something inferior when there's an already existing method that's been proven to be superior? 
Of course new methods can be better, like how ZZ is probably better than the old corners first methods. Just because the old WR was set with a corners first method doesn't mean it was the best one around. However, using two good methods probably isn't the best choice when you can spend the time getting better at one. I think most people think like me and choose not to use two methods. I don't want this to turn into an argument about "x uses y so y must be the best method," but I think nobody uses 2 methods that's actually really fast. Even though the other answers were kind of blunt, I would generally have to agree and say that you are better off sticking to one method. They're more developed and proven to be able to get very fast times.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

Sorry if the idea is stupid. But as I know, no one has ever stopped someone to use ZZ if the proven fastest method is Fridrich. So anyone will suggest how to upgrade ZZ although pointless. I actually want suggestions of upgrades. But it turns out as if "stop using ZZ and do Fridrich." For users of this idea, I would love to hear your modifications. If you want to hear mine, I can share but some were already given below. Actually, it is 1.5. Not 1 or 2. I just want to know if the 1.5 is near to 1 or near to 2. Because it can be 1.499 just rounded off. If you did not get it, okay, I am stupid.


----------



## DizzypheasantZZ (Aug 21, 2015)

One thing that I have heard of doing (and have used a little) is making a 3/4 cross by inserting one of the cross edges, solving that side, and then using block building for the other side. I think that it is a good approach. I am also not against using D, F, and B moves as I think they provide some amazing shortcuts.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 21, 2015)

New? 3x3x3

1) build a 1x2x3 on the cube anywhere you like but it will be rotated to the D-face so it sits on the LD
2) build a 2x2x2 on the ULF or ULB using Uw and R moves
2a) place one e-slice edge either in LF or LB
. 2b) build the "cap" on top of the 1x2x2 formed in the last substep to finish the 2x2x2
3) keeping orientation, place the 2nd e-slice edge on the left
4) rotate the F2L-1 to the base.
5) orient the remaining edges as in heise/ tripod
6) WV
7) PLL

Pros: 
1) easy block building
2) ergonomic move sets
3) efficient
4) few rotations
5) good for use in combination with Meyer/yau/shadowslice-Meyer/OBTM due to the block formed during the reduction stage

Cons:
1) ... Block building? (if you don't like that)
2) built in rotations could be disorientating but shouldn't be too bad.

I mainly created this method for use in conjunction with the reduction methods although it is quite efficient and easy for the block building.

So, thoughts?


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 21, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> New? 3x3x3
> 
> 1) build a 1x2x3 on the cube anywhere you like but it will be rotated to the B-face so it sits on the LD
> 2) build a 2x2x2 on the ULF or ULB using Uw and R moves
> ...



The first step is confusing, you say to place it on B so it's on LD, is it supposed to be on B or D ?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 21, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> The first step is confusing, you say to place it on B so it's on LD, is it supposed to be on B or D ?



oh, sorry, I meant D


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 21, 2015)

Lol okay


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

DizzypheasantZZ said:


> One thing that I have heard of doing (and have used a little) is making a 3/4 cross by inserting one of the cross edges, solving that side, and then using block building for the other side. I think that it is a good approach. I am also not against using D, F, and B moves as I think they provide some amazing shortcuts.



I experience few cases of that and this is what I do: I do cross, right? But sometimes there is a need for L Cross Edge, or R, not to be placed on the D layer so that there will be an easy F2L case for R CE, or L. Example, I could bring down the L CE to complete the cross but would ruin a connected F2L pair for the R CE; I would just insert the pair as in Fridrich, letting the L CE wander around. Then, I would continue to NoOrientationChange Fridrich Case for the slot left for R CE. Then use ZZF2L on the left side. I know that anyone would probably think that it was still ZZ but my intention to do the cross is for me to deduct possible places for the E-slice edges, making it easier to locate them. As in Fridrich when sometimes an F2L pair comes first than the remaining CEs(XCross).


----------



## adimare (Aug 21, 2015)

This is what most newcomers to ZZ do the first days after learning the method. It is not better, EO cross is sometimes a good start but forcing yourself to do it on every solve is a limitation, not an improvement on the method.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 21, 2015)

I would like to think of myself as one of the "method innovators" you talk about but I would still like to stress the importance of researching each of the methods to see if it has already proposed, particularly if it is an F2L 3x3x3 variant. In this case there is a whole section in the wiki: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/EOLine dedicated to it. Reasons included in the article list reasons against it such as a harder lookahead and a less efficient F2L due to restrictions of moves to only quarter turns for the R&L faces. If you would take my opinion, CFOP works because you can do whatever needs to be done to pair up the edges and corners whereas ZZ works for the opposite reason: you have a restricted move set so you can solve without rotations (a key aspect of CFOP F2L) thus allowing easy block building. In addition, ZZ frequently requires you to use the R face to more easily pair the pairs for the L face and this is somewhat taken away when you add the extra cross piece that you have to preserve.

So, while I admire your determination to promote innovation, I would still like to stress the importance of research. This may also be another useful link for you: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?40975-The-New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread and be sure to take a look in the constructive discussion area (especially the constructive speedcubing discussions section of it.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 21, 2015)

LearntEO+CFOPbeforeLearningZZ

Please consider this, assuming the orientation of the scramble as the orientation of your solve: SCRAMBLE: (D' R' D' U' L2 D2 L D B2 U2 L R2 B L D2 B' F U L B D B F' D F') EO: r' U M' [U' D] F'(F', transition to cross because not on the correct adjacency with the F CE on DR) Cross: D2 R [U' D] [L2 R2](pairing is very obvious) 1st: B2 U2 B2 U2 B2 2nd: D L' U L [U2 D'](U2, transition to 3rd) 3rd: L' U2 L [U' D'](change priority) L' U L [U' D](U', transition to WV) WVLS: L' U L' D' L U L' D L2 PLL: U x z2(set) L2 D2 L' U' L D2 L' U L'. The turns in brackets are opposite turns usually to serve as transition.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 21, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> Please consider this, assuming the orientation of the scramble as the orientation of your solve: SCRAMBLE: (D' R' D' U' L2 D2 L D B2 U2 L R2 B L D2 B' F U L B D B F' D F') EO: r' U M' [U' D] F'(F', transition to cross because not on the correct adjacency with the F CE on DR) Cross: D2 R [U' D] [L2 R2](pairing is very obvious) 1st: B2 U2 B2 U2 B2 2nd: D L' U L [U2 D'](U2, transition to 3rd) 3rd: L' U2 L [U' D'](change priority) L' U L [U' D](U', transition to WV) WVLS: L' U L' D' L U L' D L2 PLL: U x z2(set) L2 D2 L' U' L D2 L' U L'. The turns in brackets are opposite turns usually to serve as transition.



I'm not saying that the Eo cross is always a bad thing, but limiting yourself to doing it every time without variation is not a good idea as there are cases that will be much worse for a cross than a line as the cross, as I said before, is quite restricting even though there are few actually solved pieces.


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 22, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> New? 3x3x3
> 
> 1) build a 1x2x3 on the cube anywhere you like but it will be rotated to the D-face so it sits on the LD
> 2) build a 2x2x2 on the ULF or ULB using Uw and R moves
> ...



Estimated moves count? (HTM and STM). Seems useful for FMC. why not do the first step on D right away to remove a rotation?

Also, a crappy 3x3 method, simply a ZZ variant.


EOline

Left block

Right square in BR

Solve corners while preserving EO (Not sure on number of algs, or recognition) 

OR insert FRD corner, COLL

L5E

Pros: Decent move count, Still RUL, RU after step 4

Cons: Algs, look-ahead into L5E isnt good, also bad Recog for L5E (I think)


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 22, 2015)

Do you use D, F2, B2, and cube rotations? And where do you use them? Also, I notice some relationships in shifting to Roux--at least I know the idea of Roux. I'm beginning to lose hope in this site. I had thought to just research myself. But recently I give in to the fact that this site would really help. If this one is really stupid than any other experimental methods, please tell me to leave. But I got SOME info here about ZZ LS when the corner is permuted and the edge is on U layer. Is that stupid, too?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 22, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Estimated moves count? (HTM and STM). Seems useful for FMC. why not do the first step on D right away to remove a rotation?



~50moves OBTM. Just depends how good you are at block building really. I generally get to the F2L-1 stage in about 20-27 moves on avergae

The only real reason i don't do the block on the bottom is because I use Roux so I'm much better at building on the left


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 22, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> Do you use D, F2, B2, and cube rotations? And where do you use them? Also, I notice some relationships in shifting to Roux--at least I know the idea of Roux. I'm beginning to lose hope in this site. I had thought to just research myself. But recently I give in to the fact that this site would really help. If this one is really stupid than any other experimental methods, please tell me to leave. But I got SOME info here about ZZ LS when the corner is permuted and the edge is on U layer. Is that stupid, too?


ZZ is not my main method bit I think I can speak for many ZZ users as I don't use any real rotations until LS where I may rotate depending on the case. From there I only AUF, not rotate.

With the D, B2 and F2 moves, I simply use them to pair edges if the shortcut they provide is worth the sacrifice of some lookahead (say of it gave me a 2 move pair compared to a 6 move pair) but again I try to avoid using them.

Regarding the use of solved corner+stray edge, this is a useful case to know if it comes up although it could easily be converted with R U R'.

The method you outlined above, as I stated before, is not the most useful variant for the aforementioned reasons. But please do not take this the wrong way. The site is still useful but generally the consensus of the whole community is right and you need to know when to stop arguing about a concept/method (it took me a week or two to really suss out when).

So, please, follow the advice of the other cubers and do research beforehand to make sure your concept is actually new (as far as your research can see) because this is one of the things that annoys poeple the most, especially if they have been on thw forums for a long time as they will doubtless have seen methods proposed dozens of times and each time seen them die out so they will know why the method died out and what makes a method die out.

Again, I hope that I am not being too harsh here, but i do want you to understand the point I'm trying to get across.


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 22, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> Do you use D, F2, B2, and cube rotations? And where do you use them? Also, I notice some relationships in shifting to Roux--at least I know the idea of Roux. I'm beginning to lose hope in this site. I had thought to just research myself. But recently I give in to the fact that this site would really help. If this one is really stupid than any other experimental methods, please tell me to leave. But I got SOME info here about ZZ LS when the corner is permuted and the edge is on U layer. Is that stupid, too?



D, F2 and B2 are good to use. cube rotation for some LS. there are a whole bunch of zz variants like the one you describe. perhaps don't stick to using one all the time but incorporate all of them into your solves. i don't know how bad eo+cross is but i see good zz users doing when it's only a couple moves extra or eo+3edges.


----------



## TDM (Aug 22, 2015)

I use D moves fairly frequently in ZZ since they can be very useful for keyholing in both edges and corners. F2 I use rarely, e.g. F2 R' F2 R in F2L, but I do use it occasionally. Never B2 though.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 22, 2015)

Okay. Just give me a site(no sarcasms), maybe, or threads here about the do's and don't's in cubing, some hard cases, etc. I do not quite understand. Because the posts I am receiving is not related about the general help I want, like on the title. I thought a legal thread would die out if let unanswered. But I still insist some miscellaneous subsets of ZZF2L with cross as base. Treat these as subsets of Fridrich F2L among oriented edges. Okay, not for speed sake but for love. I won't argue that it is the fastest. Oh, about the proposing. Don't worry, I will not name an assumably fastest method for myself. That's hassle. Actually, that was offending. I did not come here to brag. I have read before that EO can be used in various methods so I anticipated someone to know EO+CFOP. Yeah, I think at the link you have given. I would have named it JCAE method. Just kidding.


----------



## Petro Leum (Aug 22, 2015)

i have no clue what you are trying to say.

to the topic before:

I think using D moves in ZZF2L is very important to reduce movecount. although RUD is my best moveset, i rarely do it, and it's a shame. i have some last slot algorithms that indeed use F moves, and some that i do a y/y' rotation for (only the ones where the edge is already solved) just because i can do the mirror faster. i dont usually use y2/F2/B2 during F2L, and i think it's not a good idea.

you can use z and <RU> for the left block if your <LU> is much worse.


----------



## xchippy (Aug 22, 2015)

I think the move count would be way too high in this method. It's hard to be color neutral when you have to orient edges and doing ys in CFOP solves is much better than having to orient edges and not be color neutral


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 22, 2015)

Petro Leum said:


> i have no clue what you are trying to say.
> 
> to the topic before:
> 
> ...



Do you sometimes intend to just insert a mispair, ex. DBL and FL, into the slot of the corner then solve the adjacent corner and edge that should be in the first slot, relative ex. DFL and BL, and just do an edge switch, relative ex. L2 U2 L2 U2 L2? Is it recommended?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 22, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> Do you sometimes intend to just insert a mispair, ex. DBL and FL, into the slot of the corner then solve the adjacent corner and edge that should be in the first slot, relative ex. DFL and BL, and just do an edge switch, relative ex. L2 U2 L2 U2 L2? Is it recommended?



It's possible and perfectly doable but I think it's probably better to do a keyhole in that case.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 22, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> It's possible and perfectly doable but I think it's probably better to do a keyhole in that case.



Do you mean, with the example, D'>>L>>insertMispair>>L'>>D2>>doAnotherCase? Yes or no, thanks. If no, of course you would add another solution, which will help.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 22, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> Do you mean, with the example, D'>>L>>insertMispair>>L'>>D2>>doAnotherCase? Yes or no, thanks. If no, of course you would add another solution, which will help.



https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Keyhole this is the idea of keyhole: basically, move the corner slot, insert the corner, move back the corner slot


----------



## Praetorian (Aug 22, 2015)

sometimes if it's possible without too much effort in the scramble i'll simultaneously orient my F2L edges whilst solving my cross, has only happened to me once or twice before though


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 22, 2015)

Praetorian said:


> sometimes if it's possible without too much effort in the scramble i'll simultaneously orient my F2L edges whilst solving my cross, has only happened to me once or twice before though



I will soon try influencing edges during a Fridrich cross to minimize bad edges after then correct the remaining. A cross then EO rather than EO then cross. I never thought of that. CFOP user!


----------



## Praetorian (Aug 22, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> I will soon try influencing edges during a Fridrich cross to minimize bad edges after then correct the remaining. A cross then EO rather than EO then cross. I never thought of that. CFOP user!



it's definitely only a luck/situational thing, you shouldn't go out of your way to orient all 4 of them for every single solve, take movecount and ..a finished cross into consideration lol

it's only if your cross solution orients your edges at the same time


----------



## lazycuber1216 (Aug 23, 2015)

Lol I know this guy, dude just stop complicating things, you're just embarassing yourself lol
bjbjbj


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 23, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> New? 3x3x3
> 
> 1) build a 1x2x3 on the cube anywhere you like but it will be rotated to the D-face so it sits on the LD
> 2) build a 2x2x2 on the ULF or ULB using Uw and R moves
> ...


 
Ok, I've decided this method while being ok for 2H 3x3x3 solving, would be even better for the following disciplines: FMC (block building for a lower movecount+easy lookahead to F2L-1), Big block reduction 3x3x3 (especially for Yau, Meyer, Shadowslice-Meyer and OBLBL) and OH (mostly 2-gen throughout the whole solve and few rotations)


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 24, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> New? 3x3x3
> 
> 1) build a 1x2x3 on the cube anywhere you like but it will be rotated to the D-face so it sits on the LD
> 2) build a 2x2x2 on the ULF or ULB using Uw and R moves
> ...



Improvements for 2H: combine steps 3-5 as 3) rotate after 2x2x2 is finished
4) WV the corners
5) L5E(ish)- orient the remaining edges and solve the D-face piece
6) PLL

OR

(more efficient but more algs that aren't as nice)

3) CLS
4) L5E
(both straight)

Movecount (in STM, for SQTM add ~3 moves) <45- (easily)
<40-(better at block building still x2,y CN)
<35? (definately possible to average this in my opinion)

Breakdown in STM (mine): roux block:8
2x2x2: 10
pair+insert: <6- sometimes I did the pair during the F2L-2 (missing edge and ce pair) where it averaged about 4-5
CMLL:10
L5E (L5EOP which is slightly less efficient): <10
Total: <44 (I didn't even use CLS when I was doing the solves and it is speed rather than movecount optimised)

Pros: ergonomic (especially compared to other methods that have a similarly low movecount (except maybe Snyder2))
Low movecount
Good lookahead
no abstract concepts like Eoline/edge

Cons: lots of algs for CLS (but the way I do it is still quite efficient with CMLL)
rotation could be disorientating but you could just do Rw&R moves rather than Uw &U which would make this a rotationless method

Could be quite a fast method in my opinion unless you don't do block building.


----------



## frogmanson (Aug 24, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> Okay. Just give me a site(no sarcasms), maybe, or threads here about the do's and don't's in cubing, some hard cases, etc. I do not quite understand. Because the posts I am receiving is not related about the general help I want, like on the title. I thought a legal thread would die out if let unanswered. But I still insist some miscellaneous subsets of ZZF2L with cross as base. Treat these as subsets of Fridrich F2L among oriented edges. Okay, not for speed sake but for love. I won't argue that it is the fastest. Oh, about the proposing. Don't worry, I will not name an assumably fastest method for myself. That's hassle. Actually, that was offending. I did not come here to brag. I have read before that EO can be used in various methods so I anticipated someone to know EO+CFOP. Yeah, I think at the link you have given. I would have named it JCAE method. Just kidding.



Just to keep reality in check, people are giving you good advice in _theory_, but the fastest ZZ method user in the world does in fact use EOcross. Case in point: 

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-32-average-of-12-with-ZZ-by-Hyeon-Kyo-Kyoung

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPmKPzO6bu4


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 24, 2015)

frogmanson said:


> Just to keep reality in check, people are giving you good advice in _theory_, but the fastest ZZ method user in the world does in fact use EOcross. Case in point:
> 
> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-32-average-of-12-with-ZZ-by-Hyeon-Kyo-Kyoung
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPmKPzO6bu4



Maybe... But his default method is CFOP so that's partially why.

I would still say to avoid EoCross. 3 cross pieces is fine but the fourth piece can still sometimes get in the way of efficient CE pairing


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 25, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Improvements for 2H: combine steps 3-5 as 3) rotate after 2x2x2 is finished
> 4) WV the corners
> 5) L5E(ish)- orient the remaining edges and solve the D-face piece
> 6) PLL
> ...



For big cubes if you combine this method with shadowslice-Meyer, you can get a 3x3x3 stage which can be 20 moves long


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 25, 2015)

Big cube Yau variant:

1) solve 2 opposite centres
2) solve 4 D-face dedges and place 2 in the d-face (correctly placed) and 2 in the U face so both have L-shapes (I would go with UL/UB, DL/DB)
3) centres (nicer than straight Yau as you have 2 working faces that can rotate freely although you may have to do some slice moves
4) place the remaining D-face edges
5) edge pairing
6) 3x3x3


Nothing revolutionary, just trying to make the centres easier and more free to do.

Thoughts?


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 26, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Also, a crappy 3x3 method, simply a ZZ variant.
> 
> 
> EOline
> ...


bump.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 26, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Big cube Yau variant:
> 
> 1) solve 2 opposite centres
> 2) solve 4 D-face dedges and place 2 in the d-face (correctly placed) and 2 in the U face so both have L-shapes (I would go with UL/UB, DL/DB)
> ...



I already thought about doing something similar, more like only pairing two d/tr/quedges or having two on BL and DL and one in DR.


----------



## supercavitation (Aug 26, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Big cube Yau variant:
> 
> 1) solve 2 opposite centres
> 2) solve 4 D-face dedges and place 2 in the d-face (correctly placed) and 2 in the U face so both have L-shapes (I would go with UL/UB, DL/DB)
> ...



The only real problem I have with that is the pause between centers and edge pairing while you place the D face edges. Other than that, seems like a reasonable Yau variant, though I prefer standard Yau (tried a few solves, and that pause messed with my lookahead).


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 26, 2015)

2180161 said:


> bump.



This is pretty much exactly orient first Petrus except you combine the pair insert and the COLL (in CLS?)



supercavitation said:


> The only real problem I have with that is the pause between centers and edge pairing while you place the D face edges. Other than that, seems like a reasonable Yau variant, though I prefer standard Yau (tried a few solves, and that pause messed with my lookahead).



Funny you should say that because it's almost the exact opposite for me as the pause for placing seems to allow me to find edges more easily.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 27, 2015)

*MCELL (3x3x3 method)*



shadowslice e said:


> Improvements for 2H: combine steps 3-5 as 3) rotate after 2x2x2 is finished
> 4) WV the corners
> 5) L5E(ish)- orient the remaining edges and solve the D-face piece
> 6) PLL
> ...



Further movecount reducing stuff (but not necessarily better for speed):

1) form 3 2x2x1 blocks with one colour face in common (like heise but without the centre-edge-centre 1x2x2 heise block) (well, I can always do it in <16 STM but someone who is really good at heise blocks can probably do it in <12 STM, maybe average ~10 STM)
2) move to form an F2L-2 (+orient remaining edges) (~5 STM)
3) TCLL (preserving orientation) (~9 HTM)
4) L5E (just permuting) (6.7 STM)

Total: <~30? (STM as well as about the same in SQTM, perhaps even lower in ATM or AQTM) (apparently about the same movecount as Snyder3 but is actually published and the algs are actually known)

Only issue is that the 2 slots (for the edge and the corner) are not always adjacent so it's probably the problem when it comes to speedsolving.

Also, this uses a new(?) LL/double LS variant: L5E, L5C (or TCLL)

Pros
Very low movecount
3-look method
1LLL (if we use 5 cycles for corners)
Still about the same number of algs as CFOP and far less than (for example) ZBLL
Few rotations (potentially none if done correctly)
Can be transfered directly to 2x2x2 where it averages <14 moves (not even CN) and is a 2-look method (although you could lookahead like in actual TCLL)

Cons:
Very heavy reliance on inspection
Orienting edges while doing the blocks could be difficult for a beginner
Still a fair few algs to learn (~84 for TCLL, do the L5E intuitively

Summary: I don't really know what to say here: this could be fast but it would require very good block building (but no worse than that of roux or petrus), the LS/LS style of LL can easily be combined with many other methods as well (notably ZZ where it could give a 1LLL)

Variations with easier F2L-2
CFOP: partial cross (~4 moves), 3 pairs- you could use a ZZ style approach (12 moves), orient all edges (6 moves), TCLL (9 moves), L5E (7 moves)- ~38 moves
ZZ: Eo (6 optimal, 7 realistic) FB+1 pair+1 edges (13 moves), TCLL (9 moves), L5E (7 moves)- ~35 moves
Petrus: 2x2x3 (10 moves), pair (3 moves), orient edges+place the last 2nd layer edge (7 moves), TCLL (9 moves), L5E (7 moves): 35 moves

Average: 35.666... Moves

For future reference I'll probably call this method MCELL (Missing Corner Edge Last Layer solution)

What does everyone else think?


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 27, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> L5E (just permuting) (<6 STM)



u sûr bro?



Spoiler



pretty sure it's ~6.7 moves plus 2*.75 moves AUF

the sole intention of this spoiler is to evade another infraction


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 27, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> u sûr bro?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Meh, I was estimating. Still a pretty low movecount. I'll amend the original post.

Stats I know are correct (as I haven't got full TCLL for 3x3x3)
1) Heise blocks(ish):12
2) orient edges+ place blocks: 6
3) TCLL: 12
4) L5E: 6.7

So definately around (and probably less than): 36.7


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 29, 2015)

Introducing a new extremely fun yet very slow method:

*The ZZ+CFOP+Roux Hybrid Method!*

I was playing around with this on twisttheweb earlier today. I average high 20s with this method.

*Steps:*
Partial EOCross (Only DL and DR are solved, but DF and DB must be U layer or D layer edges)
<R,U,L> 3-gen CFOP-style F2L
COLL
LSE

*Example Solve:*
U2 L B' L R2 U F' R2 U2 R D L R2 D F' L U B D2 U2 R' D U2 B2 D'

Partial EOCross: L' U2 R2 B' R2 U L2 D2
F2L Slot 1: U L2' U L U' L2
F2L Slot 2: R' U' R U2' R' U' R
F2L Slot 3: U R U R' U' R U R' U L U L'
F2L Slot 4: U R U2' R' U R U' R'
COLL: U F R2 U' R U' R U' R' U2 R' U R2 F'
LSE: M' U2' M' U2' M2' U' M2' U M' U2' M U M2'

alg.cubing.net solve ftw

This method is just fun to solve with. I don't expect any serious times with it, but holy crap is it just fun to mess around with.


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 29, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Introducing a new extremely fun yet very slow method:
> 
> *The ZZ+CFOP+Roux Hybrid Method!*
> 
> ...



ughh. CANCER!


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 29, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> slow method:.



i used to experiment with a method I called something like EODB (you can probably find it if you look hard enough). basically you solve EO and the DB edge in the first step (easier than EOLine)

then u solve F2L with R U L F2 moves (more efficient because you can use F2 sometimes) (but it sucks because sometimes the pieces you need get stuck in DF) (but u can get around that by solving a U-layer pieces to the DF slot during the first step. #nbd)

then u solve COLL like usual. the movecount might be less because you have some random lil piece in DF.

then u solve EP5 with Athefre's alg set (which has since disappeared off the face of the interwebs, but if u search hard enough u can probably find it because I posted it like 10 times to this forum. i think he used photobucket or something)

tl;dr it's the same thing as urs with more blockbuilding and less omg-i-cant-see-whats-going-on and fewer moves.


----------



## TDM (Aug 29, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Introducing a *new*


No, it definitely is not.



> extremely fun


Nope.



> yet very slow method


Yep.




mDiPalma said:


> then u solve EP5 with Athefre's alg set (which has since disappeared off the face of the interwebs, but if u search hard enough u can probably find it because I posted it like 10 times to this forum. i think he used photobucket or something)


http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/Athefre/EP5Final.png


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 29, 2015)

TDM said:


> http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/Athefre/EP5Final.png



aw yiss


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 29, 2015)

TDM said:


> No, it definitely is not.
> 
> 
> Nope.
> ...



New-ish

Fun imo

I agree with you on this one


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 29, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Further movecount reducing stuff (but not necessarily better for speed):
> 
> 1) form 3 2x2x1 blocks with one colour face in common (like heise but without the centre-edge-centre 1x2x2 heise block) (well, I can always do it in <16 STM but someone who is really good at heise blocks can probably do it in <12 STM, maybe average ~10 STM)
> 2) move to form an F2L-2 (+orient remaining edges) (~5 STM)
> ...



Here is how I understand the method. 
alg.cubing.net

I didn't do Heise blocks cuz I dont know how 
INEFFICIENCY! YAY!


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 3, 2015)

*Extreme Roux*

Big cube roux style solution/ generalisation without reduction.
1) NxN-1x1 block on left
1b) Same on right
1) (Usually done as 2 centres, 6 edges, blockbuild)
2) CMLL
3) Orient and pair edges in the second from outside layer (Match up misoriented edges and orient as with LSE, pair, solve)
4) Using the M and E slices as well as the U layer, permute the centre pieces in the same layer as the edge
4a) corner centres
4b) edge centres
5) repeat with next layer in.

Meh, mostly a mental challenge to see how to generalise Roux for big cubes without resorting to reducing. Not much use until you get to the big Big Cubes (like 7x7x7 or 8x8x8+) where the centres will become somewhat easier than in standard reduction (as you only have to deal with less at a time) One thing that's worth pointing out though->*Big Block Corners!!!!!*<-

EDIT: Alternative (probably better) variant)

1) F2B (1x(Number of layer)xN blocks on both sides)
2) CMLL
3) Orient edges and pair the ones that will go in F, B, RU and LU with a matching corner centre from F, B R or L (Blue with Blue, Green with green etc in WCA orientation with standard western colour scheme)
4) insert pieces below the U corners so you have 1x1x2 blocks
5) LSE with Uw moves
6) repeat but for step 3) form 1x1x(number of layer) blocks including centres in it.

Well, slightly more practical but still only best on the bigger cubes. Just a bit of fun really. Try it and see how it goes for you.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 4, 2015)

2x2x2 method: OCP
1) Orient all pieces (53 algs- you will pretty much be able to always find an orientation with no parity. If not then orient 4 pieces (~3 moves) then continue or correct the parity (~1 move) and continue)
2) Corners to layers. (Intuitive or 4 algs)
3) PBL (5 algs)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 4, 2015)

You mean Ortega?


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 4, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> 2x2x2 method: OCP
> 1) Orient all pieces (53 algs- you will pretty much be able to always find an orientation with no parity. If not then orient 4 pieces (~3 moves) then continue or correct the parity (~1 move) and continue)
> 2) Corners to layers. (Intuitive or 4 algs)
> 3) PBL (5 algs)



This method already exist and is called Guimond.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 4, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> You mean Ortega?


No, with Ortega you solve a correct face. This method is a face of opposite colours.



Berkmann18 said:


> This method already exist and is called Guimond.



Similar but not quite. Guimond is 2 step ortientation, this is one has more algs and combines steps 1 and 2. It's essentially a 3 look instead of 4 look. The variants if you can't find a OBL set is fairly similar though. You're probably better off learning something like SOAP or EG if you want to get good at 2x2x2 although the algs for this are the same as in SOAP.

EDIT: Or TCLL. I like TCLL

EDIT 2: I'm also not proposing this as a speedsolving method. The movecount/lookahead to time put in learning algs ratio is not very good (see above)


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 4, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> No, with Ortega you solve a correct face. This method is a face of opposite colours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't confuse Orientation and Splitting.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 4, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> Don't confuse Orientation and Splitting.



well, if we're going
0) 3 oriented corners on D
1) Orient remaining corners
2) Separate pieces
3) PBL,
then the method above goes in the same way but merges steps 0 and 1 with 53 algs (I did it as N+1 for the step number) So, if we are going with the above, Guimond is still 2 step orientation whereas the above is 1 step but the bit after that is exactly the same.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 4, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> well, if we're going
> 0) 3 oriented corners on D
> 1) Orient remaining corners
> 2) Separate pieces
> ...



That's beginner's Guimond ! On full Guimond, you 1-look the Orientation step rather than setting up (or not) a case where you would have 0-2 corners to orient.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 4, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> That's beginner's Guimond ! On full Guimond, you 1-look the Orientation step rather than setting up (or not) a case where you would have 0-2 corners to orient.



With Guimond you always start with 3 oriented cubies from matching faces- a step which can be skipped fairly often for CN solvers (hence why it is step 0). You then orient all the remaining 5 cubies in one alg in a way similar to WV/SLS/CLS etc. This will often have algs which are for a secondary or ternary subset of full CO which is found in orientation of both layers that cannot be solved using CLL as it has a corner parity (I'm using the term very loosely) occuring 2/3 of the time. The method I described is always 1 look orientation and does not need to have the V to work. Thus, the aformentioned methid also is fairly difficult to do predicted separation with (which is what advanced Guimond users will do).


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 4, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> With Guimond you always start with 3 oriented cubies from matching faces- a step which can be skipped fairly often for CN solvers (hence why it is step 0). You then orient all the remaining 5 cubies in one alg in a way similar to WV/SLS/CLS etc. This will often have algs which are for a secondary or ternary subset of full CO which is found in orientation of both layers that cannot be solved using CLL as it has a corner parity (I'm using the term very loosely) occuring 2/3 of the time. The method I described is always 1 look orientation and does not need to have the V to work. Thus, the aformentioned methid also is fairly difficult to do predicted separation with (which is what advanced Guimond users will do).



You are right, but it did already existed as Advanced Guimond/2-step Guimond or something like that.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 4, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> You are right, but it did already existed as Advanced Guimond/2-step Guimond or something like that.



Nope, 2-step Guimond still needs a V. It carries out orientation and separation simultaneously to reduce the step count. Essentially Guimond only really refers to mismatched V methods which the method I described is not as it has no V needing to be formed anywhere in the solve. If you really want a method it is somewhat similar to, look up RoFL, a method which Stefan did some number crunching for a few months ago which also eventually led to TCLL bring created


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 4, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Nope, 2-step Guimond still needs a V. It carries out orientation and separation simultaneously to reduce the step count. Essentially Guimond only really refers to mismatched V methods which the method I described is not as it has no V needing to be formed anywhere in the solve. If you really want a method it is somewhat similar to, look up RoFL, a method which Stefan did some number crunching for a few months ago which also eventually led to TCLL bring created



Anyway, have you generated the algs or not yet ?
Did you heard about Sortega ? That might help for some algs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 4, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> Anyway, have you generated the algs or not yet ?
> Did you heard about Sortega ? That might help for some algs.



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGTBDeU8vs-vc61sKA_6GPboZSodYuLVCFjjJmwlxmQ/pub?output=html these are the algs for the step in SOAP although shorter ones are definately possible as this one preserves the separation of the pieces. TBH, I don't really think it too necessary to generate algs for the method as I feel the amount of time spent learning the algs will nit be justified by the times achievable as it is a fixed 3 look method.

The only real application of the orientation algs is in the RC 3x3x3 method maybe to be categorised as RC-c


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 4, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZGTBDeU8vs-vc61sKA_6GPboZSodYuLVCFjjJmwlxmQ/pub?output=html these are the algs for the step in SOAP although shorter ones are definately possible as this one preserves the separation of the pieces. TBH, I don't really think it too necessary to generate algs for the method as I feel the amount of time spent learning the algs will nit be justified by the times achievable as it is a fixed 3 look method.
> 
> The only real application of the orientation algs is in the RC 3x3x3 method maybe to be categorised as RC-c



Okay.


----------



## molarmanful (Sep 5, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> 2x2x2 method: OCP
> 1) Orient all pieces (53 algs- you will pretty much be able to always find an orientation with no parity. If not then orient 4 pieces (~3 moves) then continue or correct the parity (~1 move) and continue)
> 2) Corners to layers. (Intuitive or 4 algs)
> 3) PBL (5 algs)


Or you could use Guimond 

What perceived benefits are there over Guimond (the 3-step one, not the beginner one), anyway? After all, Guimond does have far less algorithms, and it's still relatively easy to predict.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 5, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Or you could use Guimond
> 
> What perceived benefits are there over Guimond (the 3-step one, not the beginner one), anyway? After all, Guimond does have far less algorithms, and it's still relatively easy to predict.



See the last 10 posts above. I'm not saying it's better, I'm just saying it exists and if you learn it you can use SOAP which is quite a good method IMO.


----------



## chaos (Sep 7, 2015)

*A new 3x3x3 Rubiks cube method*

A new 3x3x3 Rubiks cube method

1. cross
2. 3 f2l slot
3. SV or WV (or CLS of MGLS) - I'm gonna make all algs which orients corners and simultaneously insrets last slot. (ZBF2L but orients corners not edges)
4. LL (which permutes corners and solves edges)

I guess that this method will contain lots of algs, so I'm going to make the simplified version.(which is like VH compared to ZB)


How is this?


----------



## Ben Wak (Sep 7, 2015)

cool m8


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 7, 2015)

chaos said:


> A new 3x3x3 Rubiks cube method
> 
> 1. cross
> 2. 3 f2l slot
> ...



I've been doing this with other methods (ZB, Keyhole and Salvia) and it's really good.
I assume you are using the R U R' and R U' R pairs, is that right ?

Anyway, it's a cool method, and for the LL, you won't have to generate everything as there's already a list of all the cases except it doesn't take into account the EP.
http://sarah.cubing.net/3x3x3/oellcp


----------



## chaos (Sep 7, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> I've been doing this with other methods (ZB, Keyhole and Salvia) and it's really good.
> I assume you are using the R U R' and R U' R pairs, is that right ?
> 
> Anyway, it's a cool method, and for the LL, you won't have to generate everything as there's already a list of all the cases except it doesn't take into account the EP.
> http://sarah.cubing.net/3x3x3/oellcp



Great! Thank you for the nice material!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 7, 2015)

Please don't use Salvia.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 7, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> Please don't use Salvia.



Why ? It's really handy in some situations.


----------



## supercavitation (Sep 7, 2015)

chaos said:


> A new 3x3x3 Rubiks cube method
> 
> 1. cross
> 2. 3 f2l slot
> ...



This appears multiple times in this thread. That 3rd step contains a huge number of cases, and that 4th step contains 156, if my memory isn't failing me. If you can come up with good algs for both, perhaps it'll work, but I'd bet that it's more algs than (or at least about as many as) ZBLL, and the algs I found for step 4 were awful.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 7, 2015)

chaos said:


> A new 3x3x3 Rubiks cube method
> 
> 1. cross
> 2. 3 f2l slot
> ...



This is a nice idea in concept but the 3rd step would have well over 100 algs some of which aren't very nice. Also, step 4 algs will have loads of F and B moves which aren't very nice to execute, especially in conjunction with the M moves. The only real application of the 3rd step would be towards and MGLS style LS but this has already been made.


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 7, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> This is a nice idea in concept but the 3rd step would have well over 100 algs some of which aren't very nice. Also, step 4 algs will have loads of F and B moves which aren't very nice to execute, especially in conjunction with the M moves. The only real application of the 3rd step would be towards and MGLS style LS but this has already been made.



the way it's written, i think he wants to make F2L-4, and insert it while orienting LL corners (~27 algs). then solve Edges and CP at once.

for that: one tip would be forcing at least 1 (in reality 2) LL edges to be oriented during/before the WV alg. i'm pretty sure that will cut your LL case count by 4. and will give you a much higher probability of a 3-cycle LL, which will save moves


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> the way it's written, i think he wants to make F2L-4, and insert it while orienting LL corners (~27 algs). then solve Edges and CP at once.
> 
> for that: one tip would be forcing at least 1 (in reality 2) LL edges to be oriented during/before the WV alg. i'm pretty sure that will cut your LL case count by 4. and will give you a much higher probability of a 3-cycle LL, which will save moves



the way I understood it was as an anti-ZB, LS slot orienting corners instead of edges while forming the pair (like ZBLS as opposed to VHLS so would therefore have tons of algs as there are even more permutations than with ZBLS and probably at least 4*27 algs for it) then an anti-ZBLL with oriented (but usually unsolved) corners, and no guarantee of oriented edges- the possibility of misoriented edges automatically leads to some F and B moves (or wide and slice moves but that's not particularly nice with R and L moves either.


----------



## supercavitation (Sep 7, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> the way it's written, i think he wants to make F2L-4, and insert it while orienting LL corners (~27 algs). then solve Edges and CP at once.
> 
> for that: one tip would be forcing at least 1 (in reality 2) LL edges to be oriented during/before the WV alg. i'm pretty sure that will cut your LL case count by 4. and will give you a much higher probability of a 3-cycle LL, which will save moves



It cuts 22 cases out if you can force at least 2 oriented edges, leaving 134 algs.


----------



## biscuit (Sep 7, 2015)

Not sure if anyone has come up with this idea. Would not be surprised if it has.

It's a small change to CFOP but opens up a ton of different options for F2L. This would not work every solve and so would just be an option to look for if it can be done fast at all.

Solve 3 cross edges with the empty edge in front (otherwise look ahead is very hard)

Solve the back two F2L slots. Because you aren't concerned about the front cross piece, you can solve it similarly to SB in roux. Because the back cross piece is important, there are limitations to using M moves but they can still be useful (see example solve below)

Next, you have a choice. You can,

1) Put in the last cross edge and solve the last two F2L slots normally.

2) Continue to not care about the last cross edge leaving many of the same options available as well as easier insertions (F' instead of F' L F L' etc) and then put in the last cross edge. I usually put in the last cross edge before inserting the last F2L slot and after pairing it up.

NOTE: you will want to try to keep the last cross edge out of it's place. Especially if it is flipped.

Lastly do OLL and PLL. Here is an example through F2L. I haven't checked to see if there is a good solution normally with this scramble so this may not be the best solution.

I'm not sure if this can be fast, but it's fun to play with.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 7, 2015)

biscuit said:


> Not sure if anyone has come up with this idea. Would not be surprised if it has.
> 
> It's a small change to CFOP but opens up a ton of different options for F2L. This would not work every solve and so would just be an option to look for if it can be done fast at all.
> 
> ...


Sorry my friend, but this is one way to do FreeFOP.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 7, 2015)

biscuit said:


> Not sure if anyone has come up with this idea. Would not be surprised if it has.
> 
> It's a small change to CFOP but opens up a ton of different options for F2L. This would not work every solve and so would just be an option to look for if it can be done fast at all.
> 
> ...



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...Immune-System-(solving-method-potential-1LLL) I proposed it as one of my F2L-2 variants in M-CELL- specifically T-CELL- but I still really doubt I came up with it first and would say that it's probably a FreeFOP or Petrus variant (or misoriented ZZ which I compared I to in the post).


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Sep 7, 2015)

biscuit said:


> Not sure if anyone has come up with this idea. Would not be surprised if it has.
> 
> It's a small change to CFOP but opens up a ton of different options for F2L. This would not work every solve and so would just be an option to look for if it can be done fast at all.
> 
> ...



Freefop? lol your sig applies to this


----------



## biscuit (Sep 7, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Sorry my friend, but this is one way to do FreeFOP.



But so is CFOP... This is a defined, specific way to do it. Just like CFOP.



shadowslice e said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...Immune-System-(solving-method-potential-1LLL) I proposed it as one of my F2L-2 variants in M-CELL- specifically T-CELL- but I still really doubt I came up with it first and would say that it's probably a FreeFOP or Petrus variant (or misoriented ZZ which I compared I to in the post).



Which one is it? I can't seem to make heads or tails of your post. plus it seems like you do it a bit diffrently to set up for LL. I may be wrong about that though.



theROUXbiksCube said:


> Freefop? lol your sig applies to this



Hmm? I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying either.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 7, 2015)

biscuit said:


> Which one is it? I can't seem to make heads or tails of your post. plus it seems like you do it a bit diffrently to set up for LL. I may be wrong about that though.





> 1) CFOP style:
> 1) solve 3 cross pieces and place on left
> 2) do the CE pairs like ZZF2L using the R-face to match up and then insert
> 3) last two pairs (one with a misoriented corners, insert)



Yes, in the straight method I make some modifications for the LL so that it has nicer look ahead-notably a twisted corner and missing cross piece. However, it is essentially the same F2L concept- 3 cross pieces, 2 pairs, (last cross piece-I don't do this because I find L5E to have a nicer lookahead than OLL/PLL) last 2 pairs (in my case one misoriented although as I don't know full TCLL I do both correctly inserted+ CMLL). It is still essentially the same concept though and the style is almost identical to that of ZZ if we ignore Eo


----------



## biscuit (Sep 8, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Yes, in the straight method I make some modifications for the LL so that it has nicer look ahead-notably a twisted corner and missing cross piece. However, it is essentially the same F2L concept- 3 cross pieces, 2 pairs, (last cross piece-I don't do this because I find L5E to have a nicer lookahead than OLL/PLL) last 2 pairs (in my case one misoriented although as I don't know full TCLL I do both correctly inserted+ CMLL). It is still essentially the same concept though and the style is almost identical to that of ZZ if we ignore Eo



Ahh ok. I see it now!


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 13, 2015)

Regarding MegaZZ

A couple of weeks ago I proposed an Eo method for ZZ. I have been playing around with this and have concluded that the best (speedwise) method is the following:

1) Xstar+1 Westlund block
2) form the remaining F2L pairs and move to faces adjacent to their slot and solve the edge piece above the aforementioned block
3) insert the pairs using VHLS

From here the method diverges I to two: 2Face LL (A4...) and standard LL (B4...)

A4) solve so that there are only two unsolved faces remaining
A5) create two minitripod blocks
A6) permute edges
A7) solve 2 corners
A8) L4C

Alternatively,

A4) solve to one face remaining
A5) 1 minitripod block
A6) Permute edges and solve 1 corner
A7) L3C


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 13, 2015)

Idea for 3x3:

1. FB (1x2x3 block on L) Avg. moves: 10

2. Permute corners (R corners+ Y or J perm ) Avg. Moves: 13

3. solve a 2x2x3 using [R,Rw,M,U] Avg. Moves:7

4. EO using [R,U,Uw,M]but preserving F2L Avg. Moves- ?

5. F2L using [R,U] Avg. Moves-?

6. 2GLL Avg. Moves- 13?

I think this could be very good, because it has the many of the same steps of several methods combined, and it also has a fairly low move-count. (I believe anyway). It also has a good look-ahead, unless you decide to use CPLS instead of inserting the R corners and then doing CMLL, but...

So what do you guys think? Has a few algs to learn, but not any that you shouldn't already know. (i.e: H,Z,U,T,Y perms, and the 7 OCLL's)

Pros:


Spoiler



Fairly low move-count
Ergonomic (3-gen solve after step 2 and 2-gen after step 4)
Low alg count for a less advanced version



Cons:


Spoiler



High alg count for advanced version
EO detection can be difficult for beginners
Recognition for step 2 can be difficult
Colour neutrality can be difficult.


----------



## TDM (Sep 13, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Idea for 3x3:
> 
> 1. FB (1x2x3 block on L) Avg. moves: 10
> 
> ...



This is Noah's CP block method 2.0 (or something like that, I can never remember the name exactly).

A few things though: firstly, FB should be less than 10 moves. However I personally think that since you're doing that in inspection, it would be better to combine it with ZZ-porky v2 to permute the corners while solving the block in about 10-12 moves in total. Steps 3 and 4 could maybe be combined - when doing this method, I usually solve DB, then EO, and then DF, though I'm sure there are better ways to do it.

(also, there's a typo in step 4: EO is done with RrU, not RuU).


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 13, 2015)

TDM said:


> This is Noah's CP block method 2.0 (or something like that, I can never remember the name exactly).
> 
> A few things though: firstly, FB should be less than 10 moves. However I personally think that since you're doing that in inspection, it would be better to combine it with ZZ-porky v2 to permute the corners while solving the block in about 10-12 moves in total. Steps 3 and 4 could maybe be combined - when doing this method, I usually solve DB, then EO, and then DF, though I'm sure there are better ways to do it.
> 
> (also, there's a typo in step 4: EO is done with RrU, not RuU).



No, I do EO with UuR. It is like 3-2-3 with Yau/Hoya, but with bad edges. Slice, insert bad edge, slice back.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 13, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Idea for 3x3:
> 
> 1. FB (1x2x3 block on L) Avg. moves: 10
> 
> ...



I actually quite like this method but I would also like to make one small change: for steps 3 and 4, solve DB, orient, solve DF.

Also, you can permute the corners quite easily if you use something other than j or y perms that permutes but doesn't preserve orientation such as F (sexy) F' for adjacent swap and you can use another similar alg for opposite after you have permuted the two D corners.

So I would say

1) FB (8 moves)
2) Permute remaining corners (<10 moves)
3) orient edges and solve 2x2x3 (~10 moves?)
4) finish F2L (~10 moves?)
5) 2GLL (13 moves)

Total: ~51 moves?

But I think something would need to be done to improve the recognition because atm it's not very nice for at least 2 of the steps, lookahead is not great either and the efficiency could probably be better (maybe by doing steps 1-3 in a merged way such as
1) FB+ DB edge
2) permute corners
3) orient edges (L5E sort of way) and place FD.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 14, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I actually quite like this method but I would also like to make one small change: for steps 3 and 4, solve DB, orient, solve DF.
> 
> Also, you can permute the corners quite easily if you use something other than j or y perms that permutes but doesn't preserve orientation such as F (sexy) F' for adjacent swap and you can use another similar alg for opposite after you have permuted the two D corners.
> 
> ...



I ended up doing an average of 12 and it was sub 30, and it was the first times I ever solved with it. I feel it has potential, if it were to be improved or would have less moves. 
EDIT: an idea for that would be phasing while inserting the last edge to lower the 2GLL cases down a few.
Example solve:


Spoiler



Scramble:L' B' D2 U2 B D2 F' D2 R2 D2 U2 R' F' D B2 U2 F' U F L' F2
x y2//inspection

F' U B D' R' U F'//FB
U2 R L' U R2 U' x'//CP
U2 M' U2 M U' M U' M'//2x2x3
R' U R U2 F B' R F' B// EO
R2 U R2 U2 R U R U' R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R'// F2L with phasing
R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R' U' R U' R' U2 R'//2GLL


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 14, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I ended up doing an average of 12 and it was sub 30, and it was the first times I ever solved with it. I feel it has potential, if it were to be improved or would have less moves.
> EDIT: an idea for that would be phasing while inserting the last edge to lower the 2GLL cases down a few.
> Example solve:
> 
> ...



If you use partial corner control you will end up with 5 cases (ELL) (mostly U-perm) so I think the only barrier to this becoming a very nice method is the recognition for CP as the alg count can be reduced to 32 -or 30 ignoring mirrors (I think edited MGLS or WV would be best).

Alternatively, you could also insert a U layer piece when you finish the 2x2x3 to cause an L5E case which are shorter to my knowledge. Thus
1) FB + 1E (9 moves)
2) CP (10 moves)
3) orient edges + insert U piece to finish 2x2x3 (10 moves)
4a) Square (5 moves)
4b) MGLS/ WV etc (8 moves)
5) L5E (7 moves)

=49 moves?

also, 1LLL!


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 14, 2015)

2180161 said:


> No, I do EO with UuR. It is like 3-2-3 with Yau/Hoya, but with bad edges. Slice, insert bad edge, slice back.



pretty sure that will affect CP.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 14, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> If you use partial corner control you will end up with 5 cases (ELL) (mostly U-perm) so I think the only barrier to this becoming a very nice method is the recognition for CP as the alg count can be reduced to 32 -or 30 ignoring mirrors (I think edited MGLS or WV would be best).
> 
> Alternatively, you could also insert a U layer piece when you finish the 2x2x3 to cause an L5E case which are shorter to my knowledge. Thus
> 1) FB + 1E (9 moves)
> ...



Further modification/ correction stuff

1) FB+DB edge and DBR corner (any orientation) (10 moves)
2) CP (7 moves)
3) Orient edges+place U piece in FD. (L5E style is personal preference- 8 moves)
4) Finish F2L
4a) Square (5 moves)
4b) WV/MGLS etc (8 moves)
5) L5E (7 moves)

Total: 45 moves so I would say that <48 could confidently be the average with this method. However, step 2 is a fairly horrible step for recognition although you could go with the bars method which I will post about when I work out how to explain it properly.

If I were to name this I would probably say something like anti-tripod or tripod first due to the tripod being formed first.

Pros:
Decent lookahead overall, very good after step 2
Very ergonomic (3 gen then 2 gen)
Low movecount
Low algcount (~40)
No very complex steps

Cons
Mainly the horrible recog for step 2 otherwise not too much IMO.


----------



## TDM (Sep 14, 2015)

2180161 said:


> No, I do EO with UuR. It is like 3-2-3 with Yau/Hoya, but with bad edges. Slice, insert bad edge, slice back.


RrU can orient four edges at a time, rather than two. It could be good to use a mixture of the two though, provided you keep things pseudo-2-gen.




shadowslice e said:


> I actually quite like this method but I would also like to make one small change: for steps 3 and 4, solve DB, orient, solve DF.
> 
> Also, you can permute the corners quite easily if you use something other than j or y perms that permutes but doesn't preserve orientation such as F (sexy) F' for adjacent swap and you can use another similar alg for opposite after you have permuted the two D corners.


I suggested that method for EO223 and a better CP method a few posts before 




2180161 said:


> EDIT: an idea for that would be phasing while inserting the last edge to lower the 2GLL cases down a few.


Seen this a few times lately. Unphasing the edges is almost certainly better, thought I might make an except for an easy 2-gen WV case, since you don't want to stop yourself getting a LL skip!




mDiPalma said:


> pretty sure that will affect CP.


Not if he doesn't rotate, since U/E/Uw/R moves don't affect CP.


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 14, 2015)

TDM said:


> Not if he doesn't rotate, since U/E/Uw/R moves don't affect CP.



he's doing u R U' R' u' to orient BR and UR. that surely changes the CP

and slice moves/rotations do affect CP, just not in the way ur thinking


----------



## TDM (Sep 14, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> he's doing u R U' R' u' to orient BR and UR. that surely changes the CP
> 
> and slice moves/rotations do affect CP, just not in the way ur thinking



Given that he's not rotating and treating two adjacent corners in DL as solved, his last layer will still be 2-gen provided he continues to only use R, Rw, U and Uw moves. The centres are treated as other pieces to solve, in the same way that edges are, and can essentially be ignored in this example.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 15, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> he's doing u R U' R' u' to orient BR and UR. that surely changes the CP
> 
> and slice moves/rotations do affect CP, just not in the way ur thinking



Say you do the alg R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U'. It affects CP, but in relation to each other. So, the solve can still be done 2-gen after EO. Now, it does affect CO however, but that is not needed to worry about.



TDM said:


> Given that he's not rotating and treating two adjacent corners in DL as solved, his last layer will still be 2-gen provided he continues to only use R, Rw, U and Uw moves. The centres are treated as other pieces to solve, in the same way that edges are, and can essentially be ignored in this example.


I don't really do Rw very often. Only if my last move was R', will I do that. Otherwise, I use M.


And if you do phase, you lower the alg count to 32 I believe, so you have a total alg count of ~35, which is less than many alg sets. 

So move-count (I took the worst possible scenarios)
FB (9)
CP (7)
2x2x3 (6)
EO while preserving CP (8)
R,U F2L with LL phasing (15)
Reduced 2GLL (13)

Total move count: 58 (I probably have a high move count for my F2L, so someone else's will probably be better.)

Pros: 
35 total algs
Decent movecount
Very ergonomic
1LLL
CP can have look-ahead into since FB should be done in inspection

Cons:
CP recognition can be a pain in the ***
Block-building can be difficult to get a hang of.
EO can be difficult to get a hang of
2GLL recognition isn't necessarily the greatest


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 15, 2015)

if u say that a Uw (D y) move doesn't affect [RU] CP, then u r saying that an L move doesn't affect [RU] CP, by translation. technically u r right, but u r discounting a rotation and a move that breaks the movegroup. that's fine, but u r lying 2 the world

also, using RUu to orient edges is literally the worst way to do it, without avoiding doing it. u can't cancel anything, and ur restricted in what pieces u can solve. even using M moves is better.

u r much better off doing a Petrus EO3x2x2 and porky v1 F2L, followed by RU LPELL. ull save ~10 moves, have less steps, and ur desk wont have dents in it from the amount of times u smashed ur forehead into it

also phasing is bad, here


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 15, 2015)

I have revised it once again, and it is decent. Basically the same thing, except you orient edges, while placing DF and DB. This is done with RUMr


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 15, 2015)

I did some playing around and decided that it would be a good idea to combine this with my F2L method (FB+2x2x2) because you don't really need to affect the DBR corner after CP. Also, it means that you can intuitively 3-cycle or 2-swap the corners during CP which is much easier to recognise and you cut down on the maximum number of misoriented edges that are possible (it is easily possible to get 0,2 or 4 everytime). Lastly, you also save moves because you don't have to double up steps.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 16, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I did some playing around and decided that it would be a good idea to combine this with my F2L method (FB+2x2x2) because you don't really need to affect the DBR corner after CP. Also, it means that you can intuitively 3-cycle or 2-swap the corners during CP which is much easier to recognise and you cut down on the maximum number of misoriented edges that are possible (it is easily possible to get 0,2 or 4 everytime). Lastly, you also save moves because you don't have to double up steps.



Estimated move-count with this? about 45-50?


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 16, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Estimated move-count with this? about 45-50?


A bit higher but the CP can definately be done more efficiently. I did some number crunching and came up with this (note I do this method completely intuitively other than COLL/ WV thing
FB: 8
2x2x2: 8
CP: 10 (but the recog is horrible)
Eo: 6 (if you force good cases)
WVLSish cp preserving thing: 12
L5E: 7 .
Total: 51 moves

Or if you learn 2GLL:
FB: 8
2x2x2: 8
CP: 10
Eo+ DF: 6
LS: 5
2GLL: 13
Total: 50

the main problem ATM (other than horrible CP recog) is that it has too many small steps after SSF2L-2


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 16, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> A bit higher but the CP can definately be done more efficiently. I did some number crunching and came up with this (note I do this method completely intuitively other than COLL/ WV thing
> FB: 8
> 2x2x2: 8
> CP: 10 (but the recog is horrible)
> ...



do u guys brute force all the states, do you find the worst possible state, or are u just randomly speculating movecounts?


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 16, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> do u guys brute force all the states, do you find the worst possible state, or are u just randomly speculating movecounts?



FB is anecdotal evidence. Certainly I can do it in ~9 and I know I have some weak points.
2x2x2 follows on in much the same way- I average ~9
CP, set up moves+ 3 cycle+ undo setup (it can actually be much lower as shown by NCPB2
Eo+DF: I got the statstic from L5E wiki plus a couple of set up moves. This is also if you force a good case (ie. 4 flip or 0 flip.
LS: this one I'm not entirely sure about but I know that it is <7 so I semi-arbitrarily pick 5 as I know ZZLS can have some very nice cases.
2GLL: wiki statistic
The WVLSCP thing is just from the cases that I generated because they came up while I was solving.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 20, 2015)

I have no Idea if this has been thought of, looked on the wiki and found nothing so here I go.
EOline
Left block
CP
reduce cube to ab3c case using only R,U
L3C
Not too sure about move-count, or if it would even be suitable for speedsolving.
Fairly certain about these movecounts below though
EOline: 7
Left block:?
CP:7
RU to ab3c:?
ab3c:8?

OR: 
EOline:7
Left block:12
CP:7
1x2x2 in BDR:?
LPELL:7.4
L4C:11.73

The L4C is actually 2GLL H-case for every OCLL, and then pure OCLL's


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 20, 2015)

2180161 said:


> CP:7
> RU to ab3c:?
> ab3c:8?



the 2-gen l3c r the worst l3c bar none

& its >>8


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 21, 2015)

*Petrus-a (A petrus variant)*

Hello. Before I begin, I have found no such variant of Petrus, or any for that matter, so that is why this is Petrus-a. Anyway, now for the steps, with the approximated movecount following the step:
2x2x2 block:7?
EO:8?
2x2x3:7?
R,U F2L-1:10?
L5C:10?
L5E:13?

Pros:


Spoiler



Ergonomic
fairly low movecount
Easy look-ahead.
EO is done sightly earlier to allow for a more ergonomic solve
L5E can be 2-gen



Cons:


Spoiler



Large alg count
Not as efficient as regular Petrus
L5C recognition may not be very good.



Example Solve:


Spoiler



Scramble:L2 B R2 U2 B U2 R2 F2 L2 B L' R D B2 F' R2 U' B2 U' L
z2 L' F L U2 L' U2 F' U R U2 F'//2x2x2
y D' F D U' F R F//EO
U R' U R' U2 R U D R' D' U' L' U L// 2X2X3
U' R2 U R//F2L-1
U2 R L U2 R' U' R U2 R' L' U'//L5C
M2 U' M U2 M' U' M2//L5E 
Terrible move-count, but that is on my end. I am not very effiecient at all


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 21, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Hello. Before I begin, I have found no such variant of Petrus, or any for that matter, so that is why this is Petrus-a. Anyway, now for the steps, with the approximated movecount following the step:
> 2x2x2 block:7?
> EO:8?
> 2x2x3:7?
> ...



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...Immune-System-(solving-method-potential-1LLL)

This is a variant of the M-CELL method I proposed a couple of weeks ago. The last layer is identical to the one describe in T-CELL.

If you don't like that it is also very similar to the petrus/ZZ method that was proposed in this thread a month or so ago: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ew-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page115

it is also comparable to the method that I was working on but eventually stopped because I saw it would eventually end up with Roux.https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ew-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page112

TL;DR, this method is passable and has a little bit of potential but the LL has been proposed before and the F2L/Eo has as well.


----------



## KRAMIST (Sep 21, 2015)

Roux LS 

i have not done any research because i don't feel like it but here it is

Normal roux till inserting last pair of final block
now using i don't know how many algs solve the CMLL while placeing the last pair


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 21, 2015)

KRAMIST said:


> Roux LS
> 
> i have not done any research because i don't feel like it but here it is
> 
> ...



there would be lots more algs than in CMLL and the advantage for movecount would not be that great because the recognition is not as nice. Also, the aforementioned movecount benefit is not that great (it would probably be around 2 moves saved) and you can't lookahead to the LSE as easily.

So, inconclusion, not many moves saved, worse recognition and lookahead.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 22, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Hi I was wondering if this would work.
> It is an adaption of the Heise method to one I made.
> Solve F2L-1 using the Heise method, and while doing so, fix bad edges
> COLL +1 or Solve first layer, then COLL
> ...





Sorry for bringing up an old post, but this is sort of what I meant. I never generated algs, as it didnt get much attention.



mDiPalma said:


> nice idea! is this what you mean (using your scramble)?
> 
> D2 F2 D B2 U2 // 2x2x2 (5)
> x2 F U' L' F U' // 3x2x2 (5)
> ...



Yep, that's it, only it isn't always going to be ELL


----------



## crafto22 (Sep 22, 2015)

*A 2x2 Method*

Beginner Variation:

1) Build a 1x1x2
2) Permute all corners
3) Expand the 1x1x2 to a 1x2x2
4) Use 2-gen OLL to finish the cube

Advanced Version

1) Build a 1x1x2 and permute all corners
2) Finish the cube 2-gen

General Thoughts and Notes:

So only the advanced variation is viable for speedcubing. The beginner variation is only to ease into the advanced variation. Usually scrambles with give you a free 1x1x2, so you skip a part of step one. CP recognition is bad, but if you have 15 seconds to inspect and recognize, it's definitely possible. In cases when a 1x1x2 isn't pre-made, you can use a bit of lookahead and anticipate the CP during inspection. 2-gen OLL is generally pretty fast, and if algs end up being excessively long, you could use a 3-gen alg. Also, if you learned to predict where pieces will end up after CP, you could 1-look the cube.

*Final Verdict:*

*Pros:*
- 2-look method (like EG)
- potential 1-look method
- very fast last step algs
- not too many algorithms (I think)
- very ergonomic (after step 1)

*Cons:*
- Poor recognition for step 2
- 2-gen algs can be long
- lack of resources (like any new method)

Conclusion:

So I'll be playing around with some concepts from this method to see what I think. What worries me the most is recognition for step 2, which will most likely be horrendous. anyway, tell me what you guys think!

Cheers,
crafto


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 22, 2015)

CP will (1) require moves and (2) oftentimes put the cube further from solved


----------



## crafto22 (Sep 22, 2015)

So, don't know if you read, but that makes no difference. It doesn't matter how the cube is after CP as long as you have the 1x1x2, since the last step in solving is to solve the rest of the cube. Unless you're talking about the beginner variant, in which case I mentioned it was not viable for speedcubing.


----------



## mDiPalma (Sep 22, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> So, don't know if you read, but that makes no difference. It doesn't matter how the cube is after CP as long as you have the 1x1x2, since the last step in solving is to solve the rest of the cube. Unless you're talking about the beginner variant, in which case I mentioned it was not viable for speedcubing.



further movewise, not stepwise. 2-gen is less efficient, inherently

thats because 6-gen includes 2-gen.


----------



## TDM (Sep 22, 2015)

I've been using this a bit for the past few days. It's slow, unless you can find some amazing method for step 2 in the advanced method. Orient (with SOrtega algs) -> Permute (intuitively) is the best I've come up with, and that's not very fast.


----------



## crafto22 (Sep 23, 2015)

Ya, I was worried algs would suck... anyway, how ere you using this method in "the past few days"? My initial post was yesterday


----------



## TDM (Sep 23, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Ya, I was worried algs would suck... anyway, how ere you using this method in "the past few days"? My initial post was yesterday


I was using it before you posted about it. Someone had mentioned using ZZ-d a few days ago and that got me interested in CP methods again.


----------



## crafto22 (Sep 24, 2015)

*3x3 1LLL Method (kind of)*

Quick thought: CFOP Edge Phasing during last slot = way less 1LLL cases?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 24, 2015)

Yeah but probably not worth it


----------



## GlowingSausage (Sep 24, 2015)

Meiler Method for 3x3

Coming soon.
Work in progress.
I'll update this post with new stuff every now and then.

I might refer to this post in the future.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 24, 2015)

GlowingSausage said:


> Meiler Method for 3x3
> 
> Coming soon.
> Work in progress.
> ...


Steps?


----------



## Michael Womack (Sep 25, 2015)

GlowingSausage said:


> Meiler Method for 3x3
> 
> Coming soon.
> Work in progress.
> ...



Whats with this post when not giving any useful info on the method.


----------



## GlowingSausage (Sep 25, 2015)

Oh yeah, sorry. I'll use that post to collect information about the method and then make a new post announcing it's release. I want to generate the alga first and experiment with it before I release it. I should have pointed that out. My bad.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 25, 2015)

GlowingSausage said:


> Oh yeah, sorry. I'll use that post to collect information about the method and then make a new post announcing it's release. I want to generate the alga first and experiment with it before I release it. I should have pointed that out. My bad.


But that's not how this thread works tho...


----------



## crafto22 (Sep 25, 2015)

So I've been posting a lot here lately, but whatever. I guess I just have a lot of ideas.

*New LL system*

Here's what you do: recognize if your edges are phased or unphased during your last slot insertion. Next, apply one of two algorithms for the OLL you have that will either keep the edges phased or that will phase them for you. You then end up with twelve different PLL possibilities: T perm, F perm, E perm, H perm, A perm or solved. EDIT: N perms as well (say goodbye to G perms)

*Pros:*

- Recognition is just as fast for OLL as you recognize EP during LS
- Recognition for PLL is faster as you have less algs to choose from
- 1/12 chance of PLL skip
- Alternate OLL algs can be used to phase edges, so no need to generate new ones

*Cons:*

- 57 new algs to learn
- IMO F perm and E perm kinda suck
- Having to choose from 2 different algs during OLL makes execution slightly slower


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 25, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> So I've been posting a lot here lately, but whatever. I guess I just have a lot of ideas.
> 
> *New LL system*
> 
> ...



another con:
u perms are gone


----------



## supercavitation (Sep 25, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> So I've been posting a lot here lately, but whatever. I guess I just have a lot of ideas.
> 
> *New LL system*
> 
> ...



That seems less worthwhile than just using different OLL algs to avoid Diag cases, since I'll take a G perm over an N perm any day.


----------



## crafto22 (Sep 26, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> That seems less worthwhile than just using different OLL algs to avoid Diag cases, since I'll take a G perm over an N perm any day.



Damn, i forgot about n perms... Okay, this is useless. I hope no one learns this


----------



## sqAree (Sep 29, 2015)

What about this method for 2x2:

1. Bring 4 pieces of one face to the correct spots (aka building a face without paying attention to orientation).
2. OBL (orientation of both layers)
3. PBL

Step should be possible in 3 moves max, if cn probably only 2. Easy look-ahead to the next steps.
Step 2 requires 35 algs, 7 of them are already known OLLs. As I don't know how to generate algs, I have no clue how long / fingertrick-friendly they are.
Step 3 just like in the Ortega method (or whatever it is called now).

Maybe cn has other benefits, like forcing a specific subset of those 36 cases, making one-look possible for the whole method.

Just a random thought, I usually don't invent methods so it's probably gonna be bad, and EG is better anyway (although for this less algs are required).


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 29, 2015)

sqAree said:


> What about this method for 2x2:
> 
> 1. Bring 4 pieces of one face to the correct spots (aka building a face without paying attention to orientation).
> 2. OBL (orientation of both layers)
> ...



This is essentially what Stefan proposed when he researched RoFL(ROtten First Layer). It also eventually led to the creation of TCLL which I think is a pretty good method with some potential.


----------



## sqAree (Sep 29, 2015)

Alright, I see my mistake, there are more than 35 algs required.
But nice to know it has been useful somewhen.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 12, 2015)

this has definitely been thought of before but I really think it has sub 8 potential.

First bock
Second block
EO + F2L
ZBLL

I just got a 8.82 ao 50 with this but using COLL+EPLL


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> this has definitely been thought of before but I really think it has sub 8 potential.
> 
> First bock
> Second block
> ...


Or do EO+ F2l, COLL, EPLL, Less algs, same speed I think personally.


----------



## molarmanful (Oct 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> this has definitely been thought of before but I really think it has sub 8 potential.
> 
> First bock
> Second block
> ...


I smell a Roux-CFOP hybrid lol


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 12, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> I smell a Roux-CFOP hybrid lol



Exactly. And coming from PDF no less.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 12, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Exactly. And coming from PDF no less.



what?


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> what?



Most roux/ anything hybrids are made by beginners
you are not a beginner correct?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 12, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Most roux/ anything hybrids are made by beginners
> you are not a beginner correct?



lol thats true
but still, this is way faster than the usual suggestion which is FB, SB, F2L, OLL, PLL
sub 9 ao 50 with it is pretty decent

edit: also, the movecount is pretty nice. 35 STM + LL


----------



## TDM (Oct 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> lol thats true
> but still, this is way faster than the usual suggestion which is FB, SB, F2L, OLL, PLL
> sub 9 ao 50 with it is pretty decent
> 
> edit: also, the movecount is pretty nice. 35 STM + LL



Still not very fast. No faster than CFOP w/ ZBLS or ZZ imo. Movecount isn't anything special either.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 12, 2015)

TDM said:


> Still not very fast. No faster than CFOP w/ ZBLS or ZZ imo. Movecount isn't anything special either.



not faster than cfop, but maybe faster than roux. F2L+EO is definitely faster than CMLL, ZBLL is about the same as my (terrible) LSE.


----------



## TDM (Oct 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> not faster than cfop, but maybe faster than roux. F2L+EO is definitely faster than CMLL, ZBLL is about the same as my (terrible) LSE.



I think LSE can definitely be faster than ZBLL, and if your TPS is good then CMLL is fast too.

Also, doesn't your post imply you think CFOP is faster than Roux? If so, why use Roux?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 12, 2015)

TDM said:


> I think LSE can definitely be faster than ZBLL, and if your TPS is good then CMLL is fast too.
> 
> Also, doesn't your post imply you think CFOP is faster than Roux? If so, why use Roux?



cmll execution is fast, but recognition kills it. my cmll recog + exec is about 1.7, and I have been doing it for a year. i started practising eo+f2l this morning and its already quite a bit faster. lets not even start about my lse...

yeah, cfop is still faster than roux. I only picked roux because I hate being mainstream


----------



## TDM (Oct 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> cmll execution is fast, but recognition kills it. my cmll recog + exec is about 1.7, and I have been doing it for a year. i started practising eo+f2l this morning and its already quite a bit faster. lets not even start about my lse...


ZBLL recognition is even worse, and that's a fact. I think that if your LSE is bad then you may want to focus on that a bit, since I think LSE can be very fast.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 12, 2015)

TDM said:


> ZBLL recognition is even worse, and that's a fact. I think that if your LSE is bad then you may want to focus on that a bit, since I think LSE can be very fast.



well you would know the COLL case and the corner swap because f2l+eo doesnt affect corners. then just look at edges. 

yeah, thats what i've been doing.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> this has definitely been thought of before but I really think it has sub 8 potential.
> 
> First bock
> Second block
> ...



this looks a lot like M-CELL tbh but with harder recognition and a lot more algs.

I think the COLL works fine but it's better to do L5E rather than ZBLL or EPLL IMO


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 18, 2015)

This has probably been proposed before but: * 2x2x2 Bars NMLL!*

The main reason I think this is a viable method is because you can one look a lot of solves if you know CLL as you will usually have 2 or 3 move first layers so lookahead will not be too hard.

In addition, you can also get a lot more options for cancelling the moves into the alg and out of the algs when you correct the blocks (never more than 2 moves)

Also, you can get very low move counts if you combine this with TCLL as you will often have a 1 or 2 move cancelling first layer.

Like I said before, I will not be surprised if this has been proposed before but I thought i might as well through this out on the table to hear people's opinions on the topic and why (if it has been proposed before) it wasn't adopted more widely.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Oct 20, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> This has probably been proposed before but: * 2x2x2 Bars NMLL!*
> 
> The main reason I think this is a viable method is because you can one look a lot of solves if you know CLL as you will usually have 2 or 3 move first layers so lookahead will not be too hard.
> 
> ...



I don't get the point of that method, is it just a pseudo CLL method ?


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 20, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> I don't get the point of that method, is it just a pseudo CLL method ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk



yes it is a pseudo CLL method. It has a lower movecount, an easier lookahead to the CLL case (as less moves are needed for the first layer) and potentially cancelling both in and out of the alg. Intact, the easier lookahead to CLL could lend itself to an easier 1-look method.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Oct 20, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> yes it is a pseudo CLL method. It has a lower movecount, an easier lookahead to the CLL case (as less moves are needed for the first layer) and potentially cancelling both in and out of the alg. Intact, the easier lookahead to CLL could lend itself to an easier 1-look method.



Oh okay. It looks interesting.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Oct 23, 2015)

*New Megaminx Method*

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13C6raLa8xsL520WfBh7-4Spcn8TrPCYhl5PH4-D88p4/edit?usp=sharing

I don't have a name for this method yet, any ideas?

I basically took a ton of inspiration from 3x3 methods, most prominently Petrus and ZZ.

*PROS*


RUL during later part of solve, allowing Megaminx to be on table
EO on LL
Block building is move efficient

*CONS*


EO is time consuming
Might be harder to learn

Any ideas to improve this method would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## crafto22 (Oct 23, 2015)

*New CP Method that efficiently uses inspection time!*

Hi guys,
I just had this cool idea for a nice method that would effectively use inspection time and give a partially 2-gen F2L and 2GLL.

Steps:

1) 1x2x3 on DL (not like FB) + CP
Explanation:
First, we use a 3 corner cycle to permute all corners, making sure we don't affect the 2 corners in the 1x2x3. Although it would require a complex CP recognition system, you have 15 seconds. This cycle won't affect any other part of the cube, so you can also plan your 1x2x3. I'm guessing this step could be done in ~3 seconds with practise. Average moves: ~15

2) FL and BL edges + EO
Breakdown:
The edges can be oriented through the E slice systematically, and with practise can be down in conjunction with the FL and BL edges. Remember, you're most likely to have 4 edges to fix, so this would mean slicing over twice to do EO. I'm guessing this step could be done in ~3 seconds with practise. Average moves: ~12

3) 2-gen F2L
Breakdown:
It's simple: the remainder of F2L 2-gen. I can currently do this step in ~3 seconds with inspection, so maybe 3.5 with decent lookahead. Average moves: ~10

4) 2GLL
Breakdown:
80-something algs, mostly fast ones, gives you a 1LLL. I think I may just use the 2-gen COLLs and then EPLL, but we'll see. I can currently sub-3 the last layer using that, but I'm sure someone who knew full 2GLL and could execute the algs quickly could complete this step in ~1 second. Average moves: ~13

Theoretical time for completion: A skilled user could most likely achieve ~8 seconds with this method (CP Block = 2 seconds, EO 2x2x3 = 3 seconds, 2GF2L = 2 seconds, 2GLL = 1 second)

Theoretical average move count: 50 (CPB = 15 moves, EO 2x2x3 = 12 moves, 2GF2L = 10 moves, 2GLL = 13 moves)

I'd appreciate thoughts! Sorry if I made mistakes. I'm very tired XD


----------



## theawesomecuber (Oct 23, 2015)

Could you provide an example solve or two?


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 23, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hi guys,
> I just had this cool idea for a nice method that would effectively use inspection time and give a partially 2-gen F2L and 2GLL.
> 
> Steps:
> ...



Ummm... https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?55156-Briggs-(3x3x3-method)
this is identical to the method I proposed except I have a CP recog step...



theawesomecuber said:


> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13C6raLa8xsL520WfBh7-4Spcn8TrPCYhl5PH4-D88p4/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> I don't have a name for this method yet, any ideas?
> 
> ...




With regards to the Eo mega method,


Spoiler: MegaZZ






Spoiler: original proposal






shadowslice e; said:


> Mega method:
> 1) Solve a 2x2x2 (3 centres, 4 edges, 1 corner)
> 2) solve a 2x2x3 (4 centres, 5 edges, 2 corners on the opposite side
> 3) solve F2L while orienting remaining edges (extend the 2x2x2 to two adjacent centres and merge with the 2x2x3 somewhat so there are only 3 unsolved faces left)*- (solved section now has 9 faces in it)
> ...








Spoiler: refined method






shadowslice e said:


> Ok, here is that method ;-)
> 
> There are two options: LS orientation and a more ZZ style Eo.
> 
> ...


----------



## crafto22 (Oct 23, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Ummm... https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?55156-Briggs-(3x3x3-method)
> this is identical to the method I proposed except I have a CP recog step...
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, sorry. Although I do see some differences, your method is basically the same. Okay, I'm dropping any credit for this method.


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 24, 2015)

New substep for 3x3 LL: OCEPLL!
When the LL edges are oriented and phased, orient the corners, and preserve CP, while solving the edges of the Last layer. This reduces alg count for PLL to CPLL (E,H,Ab,Aa).
# of algs: ≈ 42?
Pros:
Quick recognition (sticker recog)
Easy to predict which CPLL you will have.
ALL algs can be 2-gen
Very Ergonomic

Cons:
May take time to get used to
2-gen algs aren't always the most efficient.



other notes: I feel that this, combined with COLL, could help understand ZBLL recog better.


So whaddya think?


----------



## supercavitation (Oct 25, 2015)

2180161 said:


> New substep for 3x3 LL: OCEPLL!
> When the LL edges are oriented and phased, orient the corners, and preserve CP, while solving the edges of the Last layer. This reduces alg count for PLL to CPLL (E,H,Ab,Aa).
> # of algs: ≈ 42?
> Pros:
> ...



Hasn't this been proposed before?


----------



## Listrix (Oct 29, 2015)

Hey Everyone,

I've been spending the last few hours developing my own method only to find out that there's already a method out there that's very similar. My method is an Edges First method, I wanted to make up my own method just for fun and thought this was the way to go because I didn't know of any Edges First methods. These are my steps and how to do them:

1. *Make A Cross:* You can make a cross on any side, I'm not color neutral so I start with white.

2. *Insert Edges On The E Slice:* Hold the cross on the bottom in insert all of the edges on the E slice.

3. *Make The Cross On Top:* I use a very basic F (Sexy Move) F' to make the cross on the top, this come from the old beginners method

4. *Permute The Top Cross Edges:* I use one of 3 algorithms to permute the edges on the top cross. 2 of them come from PLL and 1 of them I had to make up myself. (But I ended up using the algorithm from the other edges first methods because they're more efficient than mine)

5. *Insert 3 White Corners:* I use R U' R' U to insert 3 of the white corners correctly oriented.

6. *Insert 3 Yellow Corners:* I use the last white corner as a keyhole to insert 3 yellow corners

7. *Orient Last 2 Corners:* By this stage, everything on the cube is done except for two corners which need to be flipped.



Steps 5, 6 and 7 are exactly the same as what I've seen in the videos, I kinda copied this from them because it was more efficient. But steps 2, 3 and 4 are different to what they do. They insert 3 edges on the E slice and then use the 4th one as a keyhole to insert the top cross. I do it differently by inserting all the edges on the E slice then orient and permute the top cross.

I was talking to some friends about whether or not I can claim this method as a different method. I came up with it before realizing that someone has already done it, but 3 of the steps in my method are different. I made the argument that Petrus and CFOP are technically the same thing except for the F2L yet they're considered two separate methods. My friend then stated that if one of the steps is different, then it's a different method. But I can't claim it as a new method because it's already been thought of. He then directed me to this thread to get your opinions.

So what do you guys think? I agree that this isn't a new method because the idea of it has already been thought up, but it's a different method to what they've done. Am I allowed to claim this as my own method? Or must I say that it's a variant of a method that already exists?


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Oct 29, 2015)

IMO it looks very similar to the basic method of edges ---> corners, how you're going about this method is basically for the e slice edges and ll edges they are f2l and oll and pll algs, so basically its a edges-cfop hybrid, it may not be original, but you still had the idea, just not necessarily first.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 29, 2015)

This looks like a nice method but what is the movecount like? I'm guessing pretty high...

Also, you may want to look at the BLD methods for some of the corners but this would probably not be particularly nice as it raises the alg count by a huge amount.


----------



## crafto22 (Oct 29, 2015)

Listrix said:


> Hey Everyone,
> 
> I've been spending the last few hours developing my own method only to find out that there's already a method out there that's very similar. My method is an Edges First method, I wanted to make up my own method just for fun and thought this was the way to go because I didn't know of any Edges First methods. These are my steps and how to do them:
> 
> ...



I thought of something similar to this a while ago, but never bothered to post since it seemed like a dumb method that inefficiently builds part of the cube (i.e. the first two layers). Here's my variation of this, in case you're wondering:

Step 1: Cross + 1 or 2 E-slice edges
Step 2: Remaining E-slice edges
Step 3: Orient everything through a one-look two/three-alg approach (OLL on top + pure OCLL on bottom + likely parity)
Step 4: Place bottom layer corners with triple sledges
Step 5: CPLL (E perm, H perm, A perm)

Pros:
First step is planned in inspection and is relatively easy for a CFOP user
Placing E-slice edges has excellent lookahead
Placing corners has excellent lookahead
Orientation algs are just the standard OLLs, which CFOP users will already know

Cons:
High movecount
Crappy F2L strategy
E-perms


----------



## Listrix (Oct 31, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> IMO it looks very similar to the basic method of edges ---> corners, how you're going about this method is basically for the e slice edges and ll edges they are f2l and oll and pll algs, so basically its a edges-cfop hybrid, it may not be original, but you still had the idea, just not necessarily first.



Uh... don't know how this is an edges-cfop hybrid, it's not like cfop at all (or at least in my opinion). You get a cross on each side, then insert 3 of the bottom layer edges (not all 4 creating f2l). You then use the last edge as a keyhole to place 3 edges on the top layer. Then correct the two last edges


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 31, 2015)

Listrix said:


> Uh... don't know how this is an edges-cfop hybrid, it's not like cfop at all (or at least in my opinion). You get a cross on each side, then insert 3 of the bottom layer edges (not all 4 creating f2l). You then use the last edge as a keyhole to place 3 edges on the top layer. Then correct the two last edges



well, anything with a cross is already as quarter of the way to being CFOP. This also has some aspects of having a partial F2L and 2-Look OLL

One tip: it might be more efficient to just construct an F2L-1 as this means that you can reduce steps and movecount (you don't want to have too many pauses in a truly fast method). In addition, after the cross on top, you could use an alg to solve the three U layer corners or do it intuitively (thus would be no more than a 12 move step I believe which is pretty efficient.

On other thing you may want to consider is: permute and orient 3 U layer corners then permute the edges before doing the L2C.

So, if I modified your method, it would become a passably (I believe) efficient LS/LL variant with only a few algs (27 for the corners, 3 for the edges and 2 for L2C-although this would be covered in the first set of corner algs) and go like this:
1) Cross on D (~7)
2) F2L-1 (~19)
3) orient U edges (~6)
4) Solve corners (~9)
5) permute edges. (~6)
6) L2C (~6)
total: ~53ish.

the above is not bad efficiency but the algs may be harder to recog than most other sets (apart from maybe ZBLS or CPLS or some other LS technique). So it may be fun to have a play around with as an alternate LS/LL but it may need some modifications to be really fast.


----------



## Berd (Oct 31, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> well, anything with a cross is already as quarter of the way to being CFOP. This also has some aspects of having a partial F2L and 2-Look OLL
> 
> One tip: it might be more efficient to just construct an F2L-1 as this means that you can reduce steps and movecount (you don't want to have too many pauses in a truly fast method). In addition, after the cross on top, you could use an alg to solve the three U layer corners or do it intuitively (thus would be no more than a 12 move step I believe which is pretty efficient.
> 
> ...


Try orienting 2 corners while preserving their permutation in ~6 moves [emoji14]


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 31, 2015)

Berd said:


> Try orienting 2 corners while preserving their permutation in ~6 moves [emoji14]



Eh, I did say I was guessing and that the method needed some modifications...

Still needs no more than 14


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Nov 1, 2015)

The Plz Read Thingy said:


> _Last layer variants_ - There are for subgroups that the last layer is commonly broken down into. These are corner permutation, corner orientation, edge permutation, and edge orientation. Any combination of these in any order has been thought of before. Also, influencing any one of these in some way while placing the last F2L slot has most likely been thought of.


ok so i was looking at the wiki and i couldn't find algs for advanced edge control... i know this isn't and original idea, it surely has been thought of many times but made a list of all the cases for the LS to force a cross. the are 16 cases + mirrors, combine this with the 2 look Oll algs or CoLL (which i'm currently learning) and the U perms z and H perms if one uses Coll or Pll and you have a decent LL system. this also gives, correct me if I'm mistaken, a ~1/20 chance of an oll skip.
Unpaired edges -  Paired edges - 

Edit: this assumes one has at least one edge oriented, if one does not and has a pair made all one must do is a U2 sledge U2 sledge
Edit2: Ok this looks like it might be MGLS ELS?


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 1, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> ok so i was looking at the wiki and i couldn't find algs for advanced edge control... i know this isn't and original idea, it surely has been thought of many times but made a list of all the cases for the LS to force a cross. the are 16 cases + mirrors, combine this with the 2 look Oll algs or CoLL (which i'm currently learning) and the U perms z and H perms if one uses Coll or Pll and you have a decent LL system. this also gives, correct me if I'm mistaken, a ~1/20 chance of an oll skip.
> Unpaired edges - View attachment 5599 Paired edges - View attachment 5600
> 
> Edit: this assumes one has at least one edge oriented, if one does not and has a pair made all one must do is a U2 sledge U2 sledge
> Edit2: Ok this looks like it might be MGLS ELS?



It's called VHLS. Some of the cases are definitely worth learning (there's a video on Cubing World), but some aren't.


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 1, 2015)

1) 2x2x3 block on left side -lots of approaches, 3/4 cross and 2 pairs, FB with two D edges, 2x2x2 expanded-
2) CP -R U R' U' R' F R F' for adj swap and F R U R' U' F' for diag swap-
3) EO with M moves
4) RU F2L
5) 2GLL or COLL/EPLL


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 1, 2015)

Praetorian said:


> 1) 2x2x3 block on left side -lots of approaches, 3/4 cross and 2 pairs, FB with two D edges, 2x2x2 expanded-
> 2) CP -R U R' U' R' F R F' for adj swap and F R U R' U' F' for diag swap-
> 3) EO with M moves
> 4) RU F2L
> 5) 2GLL or COLL/EPLL



Or you could use Petrus.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 1, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Or you could use Petrus.



Or NCPB2



CubeWizard23 said:


> ok so i was looking at the wiki and i couldn't find algs for advanced edge control... i know this isn't and original idea, it surely has been thought of many times but made a list of all the cases for the LS to force a cross. the are 16 cases + mirrors, combine this with the 2 look Oll algs or CoLL (which i'm currently learning) and the U perms z and H perms if one uses Coll or Pll and you have a decent LL system. this also gives, correct me if I'm mistaken, a ~1/20 chance of an oll skip.
> Unpaired edges - View attachment 5599 Paired edges - View attachment 5600
> 
> Edit: this assumes one has at least one edge oriented, if one does not and has a pair made all one must do is a U2 sledge U2 sledge
> Edit2: Ok this looks like it might be MGLS ELS?



This is more akin to VHLS and can be done intuitively (BTW I think you mean PLL skip?). It's also usually the first step for those who want to do ZB along with learning COLL (it acts as the introductory subset in ZBLS).

The intuitive method mean making a pair and placing it at UFR you then orient the BU and LU edges using techinques from the heise method. You then look at the FU edge. If it is oriented you do standard insertion, if not, you do sledgehammer. At least this is what i do in my CFOP (well it might be more acruarate to call it FreeZB with reduced algs)

So it is a nice idea and you can find the cases online if you want


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Nov 1, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> This is more akin to VHLS and can be done intuitively (BTW I think you mean PLL skip?). It's also usually the first step for those who want to do ZB along with learning COLL



no oll skip because if the cross is oriented there is just the corners which need to be oriented, roughly 1/20 this will orient both edges and corners(i think)


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 1, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Or NCPB2



I know, but if you scroll way back in this thread, there are a lot of people who essentially just developed Petrus variations, so "or you could just use Petrus" became something of a joke.



CubeWizard23 said:


> no oll skip because if the cross is oriented there is just the corners which need to be oriented, roughly 1/20 this will orient both edges and corners(i think)



1/27 chance of OLL skip.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 1, 2015)

Hi guys, here I go again with a new idea. It might be good, who knows.
Steps:

1) Create E-slice edge "bars" (edges will oriented and permuted relative to each other in the E-slice, resulting in bars) + orient 3 corners ~ 6 moves - 0 algs
2) Orient bottom layer edges ~ 6 moves - 1 alg
3) Orient remaining corners ~ 10 moves - 16 algs
4) Place corners ~ 10 moves - 5 algs
5) Permute E-slice edges ~ 5 moves - 0 algs
6) Permute bottom layer ~ 8 moves - 0 algs
7) ELL ~ 9 moves - 29 algs

Average moves: 49 - Optimal: ~ 40
Alg count: 51 algs

Pros:

- Each step is quick and easy
- Efficiently uses inspection time
- Low move count
- Most steps are ergonomic

Cons:

- High-ish alg count
- Lookahead from one step to the next is poor
- z2/x2 is required to move from step 2 to step 3

Tell me what you think!


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 1, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hi guys, here I go again with a new idea. It might be good, who knows.
> Steps:
> 
> 1) Create E-slice edge "bars" (edges will oriented and permuted relative to each other in the E-slice, resulting in bars) + orient 3 corners ~ 6 moves - 0 algs
> ...



This is a pretty good method but it suffers from one main problem: too many small steps eats uses too much recog. This is why speedsolving methods tend to have no more than 5 steps.

Also, back on my first post: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ew-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page103

Also SSC-M https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?54056-SSC-(Shadowslice-Snow-Columns)-3x3x3-Method

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you really do have the potential to become a good method creator but it may do you some good to read over some of my work (look at my bio+ the Briggs method) as we seem to think in such a similar way that it's quite uncanny (especially since I am often told I think at 90 degrees to everyone else).

So, nice method but it's got too many small steps TBH


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 2, 2015)

Thanks! It really means a lot to me for you to say that! My main idea when creating methods is to ditch the classic F2L approach and go for something for abstract, as this promotes efficiency. Hopefully I'll discover something good eventually!


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 2, 2015)

New method: ROCKET BOOSTERS!!!

Step 1: Rocket Boosters
Description: The user builds two 2x2x1 in LD and RD.
Average moves: 9
Move set: All

Step 2: T
Description: The user builds a T on the front face using FLD, FD, FRD and UF whilst making sure
no U layer or D layer pieces get to the E-slice. This is done in an F2L style.
Average moves: 8
Move set: <FMLRU>

Step 3: Finish the corners
Description: The user completes the corners while conserving UF and UB by doing an M move, then
executing an algorithm, then undoing the M move.
Average moves: 9
Moves set: <FMLRU>

Algs:

The algorithms have all been documented and are known as CLLs.

Step 4: Place UB and BD
Description: The user moves the pieces belonging in UB and BD into their position.
Average moves: 9
Move set: <FMU>

This should be intuitive, but here are some algs if you need them:

UL to UB: M2 U' M' U2 M U' M2
UR to UB: M2 U M' U2 M U M2
LU to UB: M' U' M U2 M' U' M
RU to UB: M' U M U2 M' U M
UR to BD: M' U M' U2 M U M
RU to BD: U' M U2 M' U'
UL to BD: M' U' M' U2 M U' M
LU to BD: U M U2 M' U

Step 5: L4E
Description: Similar to ELL, but the pieces are in different locations. A good strategy would be to
just learn new algorithms, as there are only 29 cases.
Average moves: 10

Algs:

I'll generate them later. 29 is a bit too much for now.

Example solve:

Scramble: D2 B' U2 B' R2 B2 L2 B' D2 R2 F2 L R' U B D U R2 B2 U' R'

z2 R B U' B' L2 B' D2 B2 - Rocket Boosters (8 moves)
F' U R' F R2 U2 L2 B' R' L2 - T (10 moves)
R' U L U' R U L' U' - Corners (8 moves)
U' F2 M2 U' M U F2 U M - UB + BD (9 moves)
R E R' E' S R' S' R - L4E (8 moves)

Total moves: 43

Method Ratings:

Inspection use: 10/10
The method solves 6 pieces through inspection - that is two more than CFOP.

Ergonomics: 8/10
Although there are occasionally F moves and slice moves, these can be done quickly with
practise. I myself have a pretty neat fingertrick for S and E moves, so I am fine with them.
Otherwise you're mostly using M, U, L and R moves.

Lookahead: 8/10
Lookahead is nice for some steps such as the corners and the T, but the lookahead for the
UB/BD and L4E steps isn't excellent.

Recognition: 8/10
The only thing keeping this from a 10/10 is the L4E recognition and the fact that pieces might get
stuck in BD during the UB/BD step.

Movecount: 10/10
The movecount is excellent with an average speedsolving movecount of 45 moves, which is great
compared to the most mainstream methods.

Algorithm count: 9/10
This method has a relatively low alg count compared to methods like CFOP. There are only about 60
algorithms.

Ease of learning: 9/10
Any user of one of the mainstream methods will find a transition to this method to be easy.
Although CFOP users may find the first step's blockbuilding a bit challenging, it is easy to get
used to. The others steps are either VERY easy, like the T step and the UB/BD step, or they are
algorithmic.

Overall rating: 62/70
The rating I gave CFOP (my main method): 57/70

BETTER THAN CFOP CONFIRMED!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 2, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> stuff



This is a worse Roux.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 2, 2015)

How so? I don't want to hear "This sucks" "Bad idea" I want critique! C'mon!


----------



## qaz (Nov 2, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> New method: ROCKET BOOSTERS!!!
> 
> Step 1: Rocket Boosters
> Description: The user builds two 2x2x1 in LD and RD.
> ...



Step 1: very similar to roux except with less flexibility (for example, roux could build fb then sb or this and expand). 9 moves seems optimistic

Step 2: basically f2b with different pieces, except you also have to worry about where other pieces end up...

Step 3: CMLL but you have to worry about the m-slice... so more moves

Step 4/5: L6E with horrible movesets


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 2, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> How so? I don't want to hear "This sucks" "Bad idea" I want critique! C'mon!



Ok. This is bad. Just getting it out of the way.

a) Can we see these E and S slice fingertricks? Because without those, that last step is going to be absolutely disgusting.
b) Lookahead is worse than with CFOP, comparable to Roux, maybe a bit worse, just based on unsolved pieces at any given time
c) Most of these steps are similar to Roux, but there's a reason Roux goes from 1 block to the other. The fingertricks are much better doing first block-second block than they are doing them in parts, the way you have it set up here.
d) Where did you get your numbers? The fact that you have UF and FD solved means you basically have to use algs that won't mess with either, which is going to adversely affect move count. I'd guess at least as bad as COLL, which is 9.78, and that's for optimal algs (something closer to L4C, which is 11.73). Also, generate your ELLs before guessing at move count, especially since normal ELL is 11 STM average.
e) Additional ergonomics tip: MRULF isn't that great a move set. I'm trying to execute your example solve quickly, and things like F2 M2 are very difficult to do cleanly.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 2, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> New method: ROCKET BOOSTERS!!!
> 
> Step 1: Rocket Boosters
> Description: The user builds two 2x2x1 in LD and RD.
> ...



It looks nice at a guick glance but really any algset with adjacent F and M moves is not nice. And no one wants to do S or E moves in a speedsolve... Some are even against the idea of M moves so i would give the ergonomics maybe a 2 on a scale of one to ten as they can't be executed anywhere near as fast as PLL or OLL or CMLL even if they are shorter.

Also, 60 algs is more or less average for a speedsolving method nowadays (if we ignore ZB or Heise) so if normal is 5, i would give it maybe a 6 or 7

Also, there's nothing stopping you solving more pieces in inspection with CFOP, many people can plan up to at least Cross+1, most faster ones more than that. So inspection maybe a 5 if CFOP is average as well.

Also, average movecount for CMLL is closer to 10 not 8 unless you learn unfingertrickable optimals.

I would give it (if CFOP is a 5)
Inspection use: 5
Ergonomics: 2
Lookahead: 4 (harder than just looking for pairs in CFOP)
Recognition: 5, no easier than OLL/PLL really.
Movecount: 8 (i still think you're a bit optimistic though)
Algorithm count: 6 (If you want lower, check out my methods or Roux.
Ease of learning: 5, no worse nor better than CFOP, easier than say ZZ but harder than Waterman
Total: 35/50
CFOP:35/50

Also, for speedsolving i would say that it's how everything works together and only really focus on ergonomics, lookahead, recognition and movecounts. In this way the scoring system doesn't quite work.
For example: beginner's method
inspection use: 4
ergonomics: 7
Lookahead: 9
Recognition: 9
Movecount: 2
Algorithm count: 9
Ease of learning:9
Total:49

Ok, everyone, we better switch to the beginner's method!!!!!!!

So, this method is good for movecount (though i think you're a bit optimistic) but the rest is either bad or meh.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 2, 2015)

*Improvement to the Rocket Boosters Method*

This was just a prototype. I'm convinced Rocket Boosters can be good.

Quick responses: Optimal ELL is 9 moves
The move set MFU could be <MxU> e.g. M F M U F U' could be M x U M x' U x U x' U'
I know that kinda sucks, but just sayin


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 2, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> This was just a prototype. I'm convinced Rocket Boosters can be good.
> 
> Quick responses: Optimal ELL is 9 moves
> The move set MFU could be <MxU> e.g. M F M U F U' could be M x U M x' U x U x' U'
> I know that kinda sucks, but just sayin



Speed-optimized is 11, and there's a reason it's used over optimal.

Also, seriously, what are your fingertricks for E and S slices?


----------



## confusedcuber (Nov 2, 2015)

Of you think they're wrong crafto, best thing to do is use the method, get fast with it, and proove them wrong.


----------



## qaz (Nov 2, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> This was just a prototype. I'm convinced Rocket Boosters can be good.
> 
> Quick responses: Optimal ELL is 9 moves
> The move set MFU could be <MxU> e.g. M F M U F U' could be M x U M x' U x U x' U'
> I know that kinda sucks, but just sayin



Read this:


qaz said:


> Step 1: very similar to roux except with less flexibility (for example, roux could build fb then sb or this and expand). 9 moves seems optimistic
> 
> Step 2: basically f2b with different pieces, except you also have to worry about where other pieces end up...
> 
> ...



Sorry, but it's essentially roux with less flexibility and bad movesets


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 3, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Speed-optimized is 11, and there's a reason it's used over optimal.
> 
> Also, seriously, what are your fingertricks for E and S slices?



I position my thumb and index finger and my thumb on the U layer, more specifically thumb on UF and index on UB. I use my middle finger to do E'. My other hand is holding the D layer with the thumb and middle finger and I use my index to to E. The same applies for S. It's pretty fast, and I have sub-oned this alg: M' E' M E' M' E2 M


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 3, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> It's pretty fast, and I have sub-oned this alg: M' E' M E' M' E2 M


Is it just me or can you save 3 moves by just doing M E' M' E?


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 3, 2015)

AlphaSheep said:


> Is it just me or can you save 3 moves by just doing M E' M' E?



It doesn't matter, my point is I can do many slice moves quickly using my fingertrick.


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 3, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> I position my thumb and index finger and my thumb on the U layer, more specifically thumb on UF and index on UB. I use my middle finger to do E'. My other hand is holding the D layer with the thumb and middle finger and I use my index to to E. The same applies for S. It's pretty fast, and I have sub-oned this alg: M' E' M E' M' E2 M


So you regrip to do S moves (i.e., x' E' for S')? I'm trying to reach without one, and can't.

That seems to be the standard Roux finger trick for E-slices?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Nov 3, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> So you regrip to do S moves (i.e., x' E' for S')? I'm trying to reach without one, and can't.
> 
> That seems to be the standard Roux finger trick for E-slices?



we generally try to avoid E moves, but in LSE the most common alg using E moves is E2 M E2 M/M/M2. everyone has a different way of doing it. personally, I tilt the cube 45 degrees like a half z' and double flick E2 with right index and middle.


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 4, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> we generally try to avoid E moves, but in LSE the most common alg using E moves is E2 M E2 M/M/M2. everyone has a different way of doing it. personally, I tilt the cube 45 degrees like a half z' and double flick E2 with right index and middle.



That's pretty good. His finger trick above was what I used for dots when I was a roux user.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 6, 2015)

Ok, so I posted this in the roux thread a while ago but I decided to post it here for those who don't go to that thread.

*pre LSE edge control (case reduction)*
1) Leave 1 misoriented and 1 oriented edge in D after F2B
2) If there are 3 misoriented edges in U, apply COLL algs
If there is one, execute a CLL+4Flip

Algs required:84

This is far less than if you didn't do case reduction for forcing LSE and gives you arguably the best case as you can do pairing easily, more easily even than perhaps a skip.

It is also easy to recognise; only fractionally harder than CMLL or OLL equivalent to maybe OLLCP (or slightly easier)


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 9, 2015)

Okay, so I though of this simply as a quick way to have a method with a decently lower move count then CFOP, yet by using similar concepts. When I note the movecount, I'm referring to someone who is pretty good at blockbuilding.

Steps

1) FB + FD (8 moves)
2) 2x2x2 in BDR (8 moves)
3) Winter Variation for last pair (8 moves)
4) OELLCP (9 moves)
5) EPLL (7 moves)

Movecount:
45 if you have okay blockbuilding
40 if you have pretty good blockbuilding
35? if you can find semi-optimal solutions during blockbuilding steps


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 9, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Okay, so I though of this simply as a quick way to have a method with a decently lower move count then CFOP, yet by using similar concepts. When I note the movecount, I'm referring to someone who is pretty good at blockbuilding.
> 
> Steps
> 
> ...



whats OELLCP do you mean orienting edges whilst permuting corners, and how can it be done in 9 moves?


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 9, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Okay, so I though of this simply as a quick way to have a method with a decently lower move count then CFOP, yet by using similar concepts. When I note the movecount, I'm referring to someone who is pretty good at blockbuilding.
> 
> Steps
> 
> ...



.....no.

WV is off by an extraordinary amount, because you have to form the pair first, and then the cases probably average ~9 moves after that. so maybe ~13 average moves, adding 5 to the total. Add a couple of AUFs in there and you're already up to Roux movecounts with worse lookahead


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 9, 2015)

Praetorian said:


> whats OELLCP do you mean orienting edges whilst permuting corners, and how can it be done in 9 moves?



If so, it's called CPEOLL, and based on Kirjava's algs, a basic (and probably very slightly off) calculation sets the average moves at 8.1 moves on average counting the skip case, and 8.27 without it.

EDIT: This is false, see below.



obelisk477 said:


> .....no.
> 
> WV is off by an extraordinary amount, because you have to form the pair first, and then the cases probably average ~9 moves after that. so maybe ~13 average moves, adding 5 to the total. Add a couple of AUFs in there and you're already up to Roux movecounts with worse lookahead



Winter Variation is an average of 8.07 moves, while F2L is an average of 6.7 moves a slot. Get rid of the insertion, and you've got 3.7 moves per pair, but add back a move for AUF, and you get 12.77 moves on average. Nice call.

This brings our estimate to 44 moves on average, ignoring AUF for both LL algs (so, say 45-46 on average). I'm also skeptical about your move count estimates for the first two steps, but I don't have data to back that up, so I'll use them for now. That's about what good Rouxers get (and you're assuming their level of block building efficiency for the 45-46), and as obelisk said, lookahead is worse.

EDIT: CPEOLL messes with Corner Orientation, so your move count would actually be higher than I predicted


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 9, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Okay, so I though of this simply as a quick way to have a method with a decently lower move count then CFOP, yet by using similar concepts. When I note the movecount, I'm referring to someone who is pretty good at blockbuilding.
> 
> Steps
> 
> ...



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...Immune-System-(solving-method-potential-1LLL)


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 9, 2015)

AlphaSheep said:


> Is it just me or can you save 3 moves by just doing M E' M' E?


http://niceme.me/


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 9, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> EDIT: CPEOLL messes with Corner Orientation, so your move count would actually be higher than I predicted



I took a look at some OLLCPs that don't mess with Corner Orientation, but do permute Corners and orient Edges (20,28, and 57, and PLLs for EO skips), and came up with an average of 10.15 moves counting the skip case and 10.35 not counting it. So to redo my math from last night (accepting your move counts for blockbuilding for lack of a better option):

First Block+FD: 8
2x2x2 in BDR: 8
Winter Variation for the last pair: 12.77
EOLLCP: 10.15
EPLL: 6.75 using the usual MU algs

Total Movecount: 45.67

Add in 1 or 2 moves for AUF in LL, and move count becomes almost identical to Roux.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 9, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> I took a look at some OLLCPs that don't mess with Corner Orientation, but do permute Corners and orient Edges (20,28, and 57, and PLLs for EO skips), and came up with an average of 10.15 moves counting the skip case and 10.35 not counting it. So to redo my math from last night (accepting your move counts for blockbuilding for lack of a better option):
> 
> First Block+FD: 8
> 2x2x2 in BDR: 8
> ...



You're right, I forgot to factor pair building. EPLL is not 6.75 with the MU algs, its 7.7
OELLCP preserves CO and it's 9 moves average using the algs on Sarah's Cubing Site.

So average moves would actually be more like 43 for people with decent blockbuilding. Also, M-CELL is not the same as what I am suggesting. Although it is similar, my method is not a 1LLL and seems to require less algs. The steps and different in multiple ways, but class just started, so I can't keep writing.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 9, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> You're right, I forgot to factor pair building. EPLL is not 6.75 with the MU algs, its 7.7
> OELLCP preserves CO and it's 9 moves average using the algs on Sarah's Cubing Site.
> 
> So average moves would actually be more like 43 for people with decent blockbuilding. Also, M-CELL is not the same as what I am suggesting. Although it is similar, my method is not a 1LLL and seems to require less algs. The steps and different in multiple ways, but class just started, so I can't keep writing.



Well, if you can do FB+DBR (which incidentally I call SSF2L) in <16 moves in a speedsolve I would advise you to take up roux or FreeFOP or petrus. I would say it's more like 
FB+DF-10
2x2x2- 8
Pair-4
WV-8
OELLCP- 9
ELL: 8

I rounded but the average is still ~47.

All in all it has the potential to be a good method but I think you're being a bit too idealistic on the block building movecounts in a speedsolve.


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 9, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> You're right, I forgot to factor pair building. EPLL is not 6.75 with the MU algs, its 7.7
> OELLCP preserves CO and it's 9 moves average using the algs on Sarah's Cubing Site.
> 
> So average moves would actually be more like 43 for people with decent blockbuilding. Also, M-CELL is not the same as what I am suggesting. Although it is similar, my method is not a 1LLL and seems to require less algs. The steps and different in multiple ways, but class just started, so I can't keep writing.



M-CELL wasn't my suggestion, not sure who that was to.

Which EPLLs did you use when calculating that? In STM, if you account for the likelihood of various cases, it's 6.75 (7 for both U perms and H perm, 9 for Z perm). Accounting for probability, its (7*4+7*4+7*1+9*2)/12=6.75.

Also, with Sarah's Algs, if you account for probability (and the EO skip cases), you're still at 9.90 moves, so that saves you 0.25 moves.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 9, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> M-CELL wasn't my suggestion, not sure who that was to.
> 
> Which EPLLs did you use when calculating that? In STM, if you account for the likelihood of various cases, it's 6.75 (7 for both U perms and H perm, 9 for Z perm). Accounting for probability, its (7*4+7*4+7*1+9*2)/12=6.75.
> 
> Also, with Sarah's Algs, if you account for probability (and the EO skip cases), you're still at 9.90 moves, so that saves you 0.25 moves.



M-CELL was my suggestion.

The movecount is still decent to be honest at 10+8+4+8.7+9.9+7.5= 48.1 movesish

Also, I'm interested in how you managed to get a lower average movecount than the best case in your EPLL set...


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 10, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> M-CELL was my suggestion.
> 
> The movecount is still decent to be honest at 10+8+4+8.7+9.9+7.5= 48.1 movesish
> 
> Also, I'm interested in how you managed to get a lower average movecount than the best case in your EPLL set...



Skip case occurs 1/12. So I guess that should really read (7*4+7*4+7*1+9*2+0*1)/12=6.75. Also, you forgot to account for AUF in your move count total.

Also, WV is 8.07, not 8.7.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 10, 2015)

You are right, I forgot to account for skips. Still a skilled user could surely achieve 43ish moves somewhat consistently. I think some modifications to this could make it good!


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 10, 2015)

are there any possible expansions to CFOP or have there been any that have been thought of before? 4 slots, cross, not counting last layer and last slot, mainly just the first two steps


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 10, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> You are right, I forgot to account for skips. Still a skilled user could surely achieve 43ish moves somewhat consistently. I think some modifications to this could make it good!



Where are you cutting out 3.4 moves? That would leave you below your original (highly optimistic) numbers for block building, since average move counts have been established for everything else. 

He came up with 46.8 moves without accounting for AUF, meaning your average move count is going to be in the area of 48-49 moves, as many as Roux.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 10, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Where are you cutting out 3.4 moves? That would leave you below your original (highly optimistic) numbers for block building, since average move counts have been established for everything else.
> 
> He came up with 46.8 moves without accounting for AUF, meaning your average move count is going to be in the area of 48-49 moves, as many as Roux.



Quick thoughts:

My averages for moves weren't really that "optimistic".
Roux blocks are easily 8 moves, and incorporating that other edge could be done by modifying ones solution minimally. I've tried this out and am able to get 45-47 move solutions quite easily. I think if someone with great blockbuilding skills used this they could incorporate pieces of the second step into the first step solution, hence getting them a lower movecount. Its like saying: average moves for CFOP is 55, yet I consistently get 50-53 move solutions for my solves. Its all about the user's efficiency. anyway, this was just a quick idea I thought up a while back. I am in no way claiming it is some revolutionary method, even though I have managed to get sub-20 with it, even by using EO then CP for the OELLCP step.


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 11, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Quick thoughts:
> 
> My averages for moves weren't really that "optimistic".
> Roux blocks are easily 8 moves, and incorporating that other edge could be done by modifying ones solution minimally. I've tried this out and am able to get 45-47 move solutions quite easily. I think if someone with great blockbuilding skills used this they could incorporate pieces of the second step into the first step solution, hence getting them a lower movecount.



Based on the moves required for Roux blocks and the back 2x2x2 (ignoring the FD edge for a second), that indicates that you're either getting lucky cases (and you seem to know what you're doing enough to know when you get lucky solves), or you're already very efficient with First Block.

Either way, the original point stands. It's a cool idea, but in the end, it has move count very similar to Roux, but with worse lookahead.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 11, 2015)

Sq-1 Method. (I know. Not a lot of these out there.)

1. cubeshape (duh.)
2. Solve corners
3. FL (first layer)
4.EPLL

Number of Algs: EPLL:9
CPLL:8
Extra:~3±1-2


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 11, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Sq-1 Method. (I know. Not a lot of these out there.)
> 
> 1. cubeshape (duh.)
> 2. Solve corners
> ...



If you're willing to have an inefficient FL step, you can do it with 2 algs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 12, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Quick thoughts:
> 
> My averages for moves weren't really that "optimistic".
> Roux blocks are easily 8 moves, and incorporating that other edge could be done by modifying ones solution minimally. I've tried this out and am able to get 45-47 move solutions quite easily. I think if someone with great blockbuilding skills used this they could incorporate pieces of the second step into the first step solution, hence getting them a lower movecount. Its like saying: average moves for CFOP is 55, yet I consistently get 50-53 move solutions for my solves. Its all about the user's efficiency. anyway, this was just a quick idea I thought up a while back. I am in no way claiming it is some revolutionary method, even though I have managed to get sub-20 with it, even by using EO then CP for the OELLCP step.



Well, I have not doubt that you can sub-15 this method but to put your block movecounts into perspective, Alex Lau does a 9 move FB during speedsolves


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Nov 12, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Well, I have not doubt that you can sub-15 this method but to put your block movecounts into perspective, Alex Lau does a 9 move FB during speedsolves



9 moves isnt optimistic. Guroux and I can make 8-9 movers pretty much every solve and alex can probably find a 6-7 mover (although those arent very fingertricky). I doubt he ever does a block over 9 moves.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 12, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> 9 moves isnt optimistic. Guroux and I can make 8-9 movers pretty much every solve and alex can probably find a 6-7 mover (although those arent very fingertricky). I doubt he ever does a block over 9 moves.



yeah I know but talking to him he says he aims for a fingertrickable 8-9 mover when he does a speedsolve and he doesn't place BD either


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 14, 2015)

Hi all,
A while back I posted an idea that didn't really have a name, but it consisted of placing E-slice edges followed by D layer edge orientation and etc. I have made modifications to this method based on some critique by shadowslice.

Steps:
1) E-slice bars minus one of the edges + 3 corners oriented on D
Moves: 5-9, surely no more
Execution time: 1-2 seconds

2) Orient remaining corners through WV or SLS
Moves: 9-11
Execution time: 2-3 seconds

3) Permute all corners
Moves: 11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds

4) Place D-layer edges through slice moves + EO
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 3-4 seconds

5) EPLL
Moves: 6.75
Execution time: 1 second

Total moves:
~45 STM
Execution time:
Ideal solve: 8.5-9 seconds
Average solve: 10-12 seconds
Primitive solve: 16-19 seconds

Pros:
-Every step is fast and allows lookahead to the next step
-Ergonomic move groups
-Maximum of one rotation
-Low algorithm count
-No blockbuilding or abstract concepts such as EOLine
-Low movecount
-Lots of freedom with step order allows the user to choose to execute a particular step first to take advantage of a nice case
-Easy to learn and pick up
-Borrows concept from some popular methods allowing most to be familiar with the concepts of the method
-Theoretical potential to be quite fast

Cons:
Um...
Seriously guys I need help finding what's wrong with this.

Note:
This method is done in 6-7 looks. CFOP requires 7 looks. ZZ requires 6-7 looks. Roux requires 7 looks. This is on-par. Don't tell me this has too many substeps.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 14, 2015)

Update:
I just got a 15.91 ao12 using this method. I used WV for CO and Square-1 algs for CP.


----------



## qaz (Nov 14, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hi all,
> A while back I posted an idea that didn't really have a name, but it consisted of placing E-slice edges followed by D layer edge orientation and etc. I have made modifications to this method based on some critique by shadowslice.
> 
> Steps:
> ...



When is the last E-layer edge placed? step 2?


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 14, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hi all,
> A while back I posted an idea that didn't really have a name, but it consisted of placing E-slice edges followed by D layer edge orientation and etc. I have made modifications to this method based on some critique by shadowslice.
> 
> Steps:
> ...


This method id definately better than the previous iteration and all of it seems acturate to me except for step 3: permute all corners. This step would require at least 6! Algs (6x5x4x3x2x1) hence why it is not used much on square-1. I suppose it would be possibke to do it intuitively but it woukd still be a bit of a headache to recognise. The best solution would be to split it into 2: corners to layers, permute which woukd be about 18 moves so the movecount is higher. However, this definately could be fairly fast but the sqtm is nit great and is about the same as cfop and roux


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 14, 2015)

That's what I've been using for that step, I didn't exactly mean to solve the corners in one step. I already have a good idea for a variant that will allow the use of S1 algs.


----------



## SFCuber (Nov 21, 2015)

*PCCEL Efficiency Method (For FMC)*

*PCCEL Method step* For FMC
*P*airs *C*enters *C*orners *E*dges *L*ast-layer

Fewest possible turns (These numbers should me at maximum):
-Pairs = 30- turns
-Pair placement = 20- turns
-First pair: 2- turns
-Second pair: 3- turns
-Third pair: 10- turns
-Center orientation = 3- Turns
-Corner orientation (CMLL) [You can use 2x2 CLL/EG]= 10- turns
Can be solved with just _M M' M2 M2' U U' U2 U2'_
-Edge placing (With proper orienting) = 20- turns
-ELL/PLL (If both then 25- turns) = 15- turns

*EXAMPLE:*

Scramble:
R F2 B2 D' B2 L' D2 L2 F' R' F2 D U2 B U' F B' R2 L' F2 D B2 U R L2

Solve:
B2 D B' L //First 2 Pairs (with placement)
F M F' x R' D R //Third Pair (with placement)
D M2 L D' L' //Four pair (with placement)
M2 //Center placement
x2 r' F' r U r U' r' F U2 //Corner placement
U2 M U2 M' //First edge
U M' U' M //Second edge
y' M' U2 M U2 //Third pair
M U2 M' //Fourth edge
M' U' M U' M' U' M U' M' U' M //ELL

Solved!

*Note:*
After placing corners ONLY _M U x y z_ should be used to solve the rest of the cube.
All the X- numbers are maximum. They should not be exceeded.
This method can be used for speedsolving though it may take longer. I would stick to your current method,but I would use this for FMC.
If done properly you can get 40 or less moves.

This got me a 54 move FMC PB!

Let me know If a video is wanted or you get lost! Studying the solve help a lot.


----------



## DELToS (Nov 21, 2015)

SFCuber said:


> *PCCEL Method step* For FMC
> *P*airs *C*enters *C*orners *E*dges *L*ast-layer
> 
> ~snip~



There's only 1 problem I see, in FMC you're not allowed to do M turns.


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 21, 2015)

The problem with M moves is that in STM, which is used for FMC scoring, they count as two moves (turning two sides rather than one slice) so that really skyrockets your movecount.


----------



## SFCuber (Nov 21, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> The problem with M moves is that in STM, which is used for FMC scoring, they count as two moves (turning two sides rather than one slice) so that really skyrockets your movecount.



Seems a bit pointless (the scoring reg) but I guess I could could keep developing the method (or try).


----------



## Mollerz (Nov 21, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> The problem with M moves is that in STM, which is used for FMC scoring, they count as two moves (turning two sides rather than one slice) so that really skyrockets your movecount.



FMC scoring using OBTM. M, E and S moves do not exist in this metric. If you use an M move in a solution, it should be a DNF.
OBTM is similar to HTM, but HTM includes M, E and S, which all count as 2 moves each.
STM is the same as HTM, but M, E and S are all counted as 1 move.

This is not a good FMC method.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 21, 2015)

2180161 said:


> OKay I have revised a method, and have now used it, and had to look up the algs, and it does work.
> Anyway...
> Step 1-Solve a 2x2x3 block as in petrus
> Step 2-Fix bad edges
> ...



Sorry to bring up this old post of mine, but I feel like efficiency could be greatly improved.

What about:
EOline
L 1x2x3
1x2x2 in BDR
Place DFR corner in UFR so U R U' R' would solve it
WVCP
L5E
Pros:


Spoiler



Decent movecount
No extremely difficult concepts to master
L5E can be done 2-gen


Cons:


Spoiler



EOline can be tricky for beginners
WVCP doesn't have the best recognition
Quite a few algs- 282 total for full method. Reduced method has 149. Beginners variation has 15



Example Solve:


Spoiler



D U2 R2 B R2 F' R2 F L2 U2 B D2 R' D2 B2 U' B2 F L U2 F'

z2 D B2 R' D R' B'//EO
R' U R2 U R U L U' L2 U2 L' //1X2X3 LD
U2 R// RD 2X2X1
U R U2 R' U'// Setup for WVCP
U F R U' R' U R U R2 F' R2 U' R'//WVCP
R2 U R U R U' R' U' R' U' R' U'//L5E
49 STM, or 46 with cancellations


----------



## 00 (Nov 21, 2015)

This method is extremely inefficient...


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 21, 2015)

*cough cough* PCMS *cough cough*


----------



## TorbinRoux (Nov 22, 2015)

00 said:


> This method is extremely inefficient...



Not even inefficient imo... I think this is really cool. How many algs for L5E? Also WVCP?


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 22, 2015)

TorbinRoux said:


> Not even inefficient imo... I think this is really cool. How many algs for L5E? Also WVCP?



Ha, he was referring to the "method" posted before. In the cons is the alg count. 142 for WVCP(?) and 120 for EOL5E. A different thread was merged around my post. It was really weird. Also look at the example solve
EDIT: I actually just finished my 17.68 AO12 with this.


----------



## TorbinRoux (Nov 22, 2015)

Ah yes I see now. That is horribly inefficient


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 22, 2015)

TorbinRoux said:


> Ah yes I see now. That is horribly inefficient



haha. Yeah the method I posted I really like, but I don't really know about recognition. thinking about changing it to WV then CP, just so less algs.


----------



## TorbinRoux (Nov 22, 2015)

That's viable for recognition but I think that itd be faster with a lot of practice to use WVCP. Btw did you go to wiscube 2? I feel like I met you


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 22, 2015)

Yep I did. I don't know I don't even know how to recognize WVCP. I'm thinking about color recognition.


----------



## TorbinRoux (Nov 22, 2015)

Ah yes I remember solving with you during the lunch time haha


----------



## supercavitation (Nov 22, 2015)

2180161 said:


> 142 for WVCP(?) and 120 for EOL5E.



Shouldn't it be 162 for WVCP?


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 22, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Shouldn't it be 162 for WVCP?



Maybe. I took the 27 WV cases, and *6 for each possible CP for said case, 144 anyway. So I'm probably wrong, someone please check for sure though

EDIT: found out I did 24*6 (don't know why) so yes it should be 162. changed in original proposal.


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 22, 2015)

Mollerz said:


> FMC scoring using OBTM. M, E and S moves do not exist in this metric. If you use an M move in a solution, it should be a DNF.
> OBTM is similar to HTM, but HTM includes M, E and S, which all count as 2 moves each.
> STM is the same as HTM, but M, E and S are all counted as 1 move.
> 
> This is not a good FMC method.



Thanks for the clarification, I always get confused with all the different metrics.


----------



## SFCuber (Nov 24, 2015)

The first one I posted was mostly supposed to be intuitive so the solver can make it efficient...


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 24, 2015)

SFCuber said:


> The first one I posted was mostly supposed to be intuitive so the solver can make it efficient...



But in FMC, M-slices suck.
here is a very efficient roux solve, which has primarily slice moves.
F2 D B2 F2 L2 D' F2 D2 B2 U2 R' D F2 L2 D' U' B R' B2 U2
U2 D R L2 D' F//FB
R' U2 Rw U2 R U R Rw U Rw U' R//SB
Rw U' L' D L U L' D' x'//CMLL
Rw2 R2 U' R Rw' U R' Rw U' R' Rw U' R2 Rw2//LSE
40 HTM. While not awful, you can get much better solves even with pure petrus (No fancy LS, COLL, etc.)


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 24, 2015)

2180161 said:


> But in FMC, M-slices suck.
> here is a very efficient roux solve, which has primarily slice moves.
> F2 D B2 F2 L2 D' F2 D2 B2 U2 R' D F2 L2 D' U' B R' B2 U2
> U2 D R L2 D' F//FB
> ...



I see your point but you can get lower than that by not doing the LSE using Ms and doing L5E type stuff or edge cycle insertions.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 24, 2015)

*Roux-inspired Blockbuilding Method for 5x5*

Hi all, I just came up with a fun, maybe fast concept for 5x5.

Step 1: Base
Description: Solve a non-cross colour center + the corresponding cross edge

Step 2: First Block
Description: Solve a Roux-style FB by pairing up tredges with corners and inserting them by the craddle to form a solved block

Step 3: Second Block
Description: Solve a Roux-style SB by solving a center opposite to one of those we solved in the first step (I would solve red) followed by pairing up tredges and corners using slice moves and inserting them.

Step 4: Last 4 Centers
Description: Solve the remaining centers using slice moves and U moves.

Step 5: First 4 Layers
Description: Pair up the remaining cross tredges and insert them using slice and U moves.

Step 6: Reduction:
Description: Pair up the remaining tredges systematically. This is done using 2 easy algorithms. (one could learn 10-50? algorithms to be able to pair the tredges in one look)

Step 7: Last Layer
Description: Solve the last layer as a 3x3.

Pros:
- Direct solving is efficient
- Easy 3x3 stage
- Not too many substeps
- Good lookahead
- Ergonomic (mostly U and slice moves)

Cons:
- Direct solving restricts the user to particular pieces
- Last layer method is a bit slow unless you learn a lot of algs

There we go! Tell me what you think. I suck at 5x5 so I have nothing to lose by practising with this method. If I get decently fast, I'll update this post.


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 24, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hi all, I just came up with a fun, maybe fast concept for 5x5.
> 
> Step 1: Craddle
> Description: Solve two adjacent centers (I do white and orange)
> ...



there was a 4x4 method almost exactly like this..ross used it but I forgot what it was called


----------



## DELToS (Nov 24, 2015)

3x3 method: F3L
Step one - Solve the cube
Alg count - 43,252,003,274,489,856,000
Execution time - ~4-5 seconds, 3 if you drill algs in practice





my 100th post


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 24, 2015)

DELToS said:


> 3x3 method: F3L
> Step one - Solve the cube
> Alg count - 43,252,003,274,489,856,000
> Execution time - ~4-5 seconds, 3 if you drill algs in practice
> ...



still slower than cfop, solutions aren't fingertrick friendly, easy to mess up on, and recognition, lots of cases that are extremely similar to one another


----------



## Berd (Nov 24, 2015)

Praetorian said:


> there was a 4x4 method almost exactly like this..ross used it but I forgot what it was called


Stadler I think.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 24, 2015)

Berd said:


> Stadler I think.



It's stadler for the first bit then a K5ish (K4 on 5x5x5) LL although it does redux rather than direct solving (which is likely more efficient)


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 25, 2015)

*Weird (maybe useful) Sandwich Variant*

I just came up with this randomly. lol

Step 1: Cross
Desc: Same as the first step of CFOP
Moves: 6
Exec: 1-2 second

Step 2: Top layer + CO + EO
Desc: Place top colour pieces in their layer, then execute 2 algorithms (OLL followed by a special PLL that corrects parities if necessary) followed by another algorithm that solves bottom layer corner orientation and E-slice edge orientation. This is all in 2-looks as PLL won't affect the bottom layers, so a transition from PLL to CO + EO is instant
Moves: Maybe 40?
Exec: 7-9 seconds

Step 3: Permute corners + E-slice
Desc: Algorithmically permute the corners whilst placing the E-slice edges
Moves: 9-12
Exec: 2-4 seconds

Total moves: approx. 58 STM
Execution time: 10-17 seconds

Pros:

- Algorithmic approach to solving is faster than using intuition
- Algorithms for all steps are pretty great (I've checked)
- Decent movecout for an algorithm-heavy method
- Easy concepts like OLL, PLL or cross make this method easy to learn
- Execellent lookahead as one could learn how algs affect the cube

Cons:

- High-ish movecount compared to other method such as Roux or Petrus
- Intuition is occasionnaly beneficial

Okay, TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 25, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> I just came up with this randomly. lol
> 
> Step 1: Cross
> Desc: Same as the first step of CFOP
> ...



I don't understand. Is the cross on bottom?
EDIT: Never mind I understand. This is bad.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 25, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> I just came up with this randomly. lol
> 
> Step 1: Cross
> Desc: Same as the first step of CFOP
> ...



This is essentially the Zagorec method. A lesser known but pretty fun method. It's actually not very efficient at around 70 moves.

Still a pretty fun method overall tho.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 25, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> This is essentially the Zagorec method. A lesser known but pretty fun method. It's actually not very efficient at around 70 moves.
> 
> Still a pretty fun method overall tho.



Um... No, just no. This is barely close. Zagorec has like a billion steps. This is done in 4 looks, which is WAY better. Zagorec is more of an orient-first method. This isn't really similar at all. Also, while Zagorec is super inefficient, I got a 62 move solution a couple of hours ago with this.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 26, 2015)

2180161 said:


> I don't understand. Is the cross on bottom?
> EDIT: Never mind I understand. This is bad.



Why so? I don't feel like you understand.


----------



## penguinz7 (Dec 4, 2015)

This has probably been done before. 


1. EO (not eoline, just eo)
2. Columns
1. Move F2L edges off of bottom layer. If you start F2L with edges down there, you can end up with some terrible cases.. This should only take a few moves.
2. <RUL> F2L 
3. COLL
3. L8E 
There are several ways of doing this, inserting DL and DR and then doing L6E seems to me to be one of the better ways unless there's a really easy case.
You could also insert DL and DR right before columns, as doing them before L6E tends to be pretty awkward. That's probably better..
Pros: It's really fun!!
Cons: A lot.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 4, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> This has probably been done before.
> 
> 
> 1. EO (not eoline, just eo)
> ...



This is sort of like the ZZroux that often pops up in this thread combined with some aspects of SSC. I think perhaps maybe an FB then SB approach may be better but there are still a lot of issues with that that cause ZZ and Roux are good for different reasons (Free blockbuilding vs restricted moveset)


----------



## penguinz7 (Dec 4, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I think perhaps maybe an FB then SB approach may be better but there are still a lot of issues with that that cause ZZ and Roux are good for different reasons (Free blockbuilding vs restricted moveset)



I really don't care about how this could be better, it was purely for fun.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 8, 2015)

I talked with some people about this idea, and I've decided that I give up, but I'm posting it for posterity.

It's another silly *ZZ variant that forces an LL skip everytime*, but with *better recognition than ZBLL*, and has *a sufficiently low alg count* that makes it humanly possible.

You make an EOLine, then blocks, then with 3rd slot you make your edge/corner pair and then orient all the corners. (just 75 cases)
Now that EVERYTHING is oriented, this causes an absurdly massive reduction in cases. I estimate it to be around 500-800 as the raw number without any tricks.

Here's a crappy example solve with a crappy orientation alg because I don't feel like generating a better one:

*Scramble:* F R U2 L2 D' L U B2 R' L2 F U2 F' L2 B L2 U2 F L2 F'

*EOLine:* y x D2 L’ D R U R’ U F’ x’ y’

*First Block:* R’ U2 L2

*Second Block:* R2 U R’ U R’ U’ R2

*Left Pair + Corner Orientation:* _U2 L’ U L_ + F2 L’ F2 L F2 U’ L D’ L U2 L U’ L D
(SAME RECOG AS WINTER VARIATION, 26 OF THE CASES ARE ACTUALLY WINTER VARIATION CASES)

*EVERYTHING ELSE(LS + LL):* U2 y’ x R2 U’ L’ U R2 U’ L U
(LOOKS LIKE PLL)


EDIT: If I were 16 again, I would totally use this as my main method just to be unique.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 8, 2015)

4Chan said:


> I talked with some people about this idea, and I've decided that I give up, but I'm posting it for posterity.
> 
> It's another silly *ZZ variant that forces an LL skip everytime*, but with *better recognition than ZBLL*, and has *a sufficiently low alg count* that makes it humanly possible.
> 
> ...



Look promising. What are the algs like for the last bit? I'm guess a lot of them are pretty long...


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 8, 2015)

Last part's easy. Tons of conjugated PLLs. Anything with a block on the right side and a corner swap is just a conjugated ZBLL, so a sizable chunk are already known. Length isn't an issue really.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 8, 2015)

4Chan said:


> Last part's easy. Tons of conjugated PLLs. Anything with a block on the right side and a corner swap is just a conjugated ZBLL, so a sizable chunk are already known. Length isn't an issue really.



ok then, so what's the movecount like?

And you may have a bit of work convincing people to actually use the method. That is without doing it yourself. I've git two that I know of trying any of mine and those have low alg counts.

But I think thus definately has potential. I may try to refine it as some point any have a look at some of the algs.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 8, 2015)

I don't actually want to convince anyone to use it.

And the move count would be around 40.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 8, 2015)

4Chan said:


> I don't actually want to convince anyone to use it.
> 
> And the move count would be around 40.



More power to you then I guess. I think it may be worth learning this as a supplement to OLS perhaps just on the off chance it comes up (this can be cycled to fairly easily).


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 9, 2015)

This might work for something:

EDIT: I have modified the movecounts. I thought stuff was more efficient than it actually is.

EOLine - 7 moves
Left Block - 12 moves
Corner in DBR - 2 moves
WVCP: 12 moves
Modified L6E - 12 moves

Total: 45 moves

Still really good movecount


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 9, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> This might work for something:
> 
> EOLine - 7 moves
> Left Block - 7 moves
> ...



Left block will definately take more than 7 moves. It will be more like at least 10 if not more; roux FB is only ~8 fingertrickably and that's with completely free block building (X2 Y), unrestricted moves set and very good lookahead. Speedsolving it will be definitely be longer.

WVCP recog isn't very nice either tbh (I think you also forgot to factor in the pair) and I can't see L6E being very nice and I don't know where you got the movecount statistics for it either cause Roux is about 9 (discounting Eo) and that's with a nice postioning for the edges.


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 9, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> This might work for something:
> 
> EOLine - 7 moves
> Left Block - 7 moves
> ...



Where did you get your numbers for WVCP?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 9, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Where did you get your numbers for WVCP?



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?55916-Algorithms-for-WVCP&highlight=WVCP

I would guess from here but having had a quick glance it seems to be >10


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 9, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?55916-Algorithms-for-WVCP&highlight=WVCP
> 
> I would guess from here but having had a quick glance it seems to be >10



Definitely. I'll do the math at some point, but that's >10 even without the 4 moves for making the pair.


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 10, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> Definitely. I'll do the math at some point, but that's >10 even without the 4 moves for making the pair.



Even so, the movecount remains low.

EoLine: 7
Left Block: 10 at most
Corner: 3 at most
WVCP: 15
L6E: 12

Total: 47 moves. Still pretty low 

anyway, I said "This might work for something" as in for some cases.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 10, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Even so, the movecount remains low.
> 
> EoLine: 7
> Left Block: 10 at most
> ...



Well, it's probably more like 50 since you still haven't factored in the pair building. Still low but not worth it for the alg count and recognition.


----------



## penguinz7 (Dec 10, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Well, it's probably more like 50 since you still haven't factored in the pair building. Still low but not worth it for the alg count and recognition.


It's actually even more, left block is at least 12 moves max, and EOline is 9, not 7. So max movecount should be at least 54.(Assuming you're number for L6E is correct.) 


crafto22 said:


> This might work for something:
> 
> EOLine - 7 moves
> Left Block - 7 moves
> ...



I don't mean to come across as rude, but did you do any research before coming up with these numbers? You got almost all of them wrong, and ended up at least 16 moves off..


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 10, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Even so, the movecount remains low.
> 
> EoLine: 7
> Left Block: 10 at most
> ...



example solve if the move count is that low? the move count seems very off


----------



## theawesomecuber (Dec 11, 2015)

I thought up of a method a couple weeks ago, here it is.

Step 1: 2x2x3 on DL without the FD edge. This can be done in 2 ways: 2x2x2 in DBL then insert the FLD+FL pair, or FB plus DB edge.
Estimated time for pro/intermediate user: 1.5s/3s

Step 2: EO. Just like petrus, except you can also use the M layer. Insert the FD edge during this step.
Estimated time for pro/intermediate user: 2s/4s

Step 3: 2-Gen F2L
Estimated time for pro/intermediate user: 2s/4s

Step 4: LL. You can use OCLL/PLL, COLL/EPLL, ZBLL, or you can do something like WV while solving F2L.
Estimated time for pro/intermediate user: 1.5s/3.5s

The average time for a pro user is 7 seconds.
The average time for an intermediate user is 14.5 seconds.

Pros:
-Lowish alg count (unless you use ZBLL)
-VERY flexible (2 ways to do the first step, and many ways to do EO)
-Good use of inspection (6 pieces vs 4 pieces in CFOP)
-EO in last layer

Cons:
-High movecount? (Not sure)
-EO

After writing this down, I realize that this is basically Petrus, with (in my opinion) a better EO step and slightly less pieces to solve during the last step.

I also realize that this is pretty similar to something like Noah's CP Block Method 2.0 method, or Briggs. I haven't seen a method like this though. I apologize if this method has been brought up already.

inb4 "Or you could use Petrus."


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 11, 2015)

theawesomecuber said:


> I thought up of a method a couple weeks ago, here it is.
> 
> Step 1: 2x2x3 on DL without the FD edge. This can be done in 2 ways: 2x2x2 in DBL then insert the FLD+FL pair, or FB plus DB edge.
> Estimated time for pro/intermediate user: 1.5s/3s
> ...



This is a somewhat good idea, but I suggested something almost identical to this a while back. So yeah, it's a good method, low movecount, efficient, yada yada yada, but the lookahead isn't great and EO in the middle of a solve is slow.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Dec 11, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> This is a somewhat good idea, but I suggested something almost identical to this a while back. So yeah, it's a good method, low movecount, efficient, yada yada yada, but the lookahead isn't great and EO in the middle of a solve is slow.



Alright, I'm dropping credit for the method, sorry about that.

Look ahead could be decent, especially look ahead into F2L, since once you know where the flipped edges are, you can track the pieces you need. The only bad look ahead imo is for EO recognition, so I'll work on that.

The reason that EO in the middle of a solve is slow I think is because EO isn't directly solving pieces. In the method, I combine EO and inserting FD, however, I think that it's possible to solve way more than that during EO. I'll work on it.

This method has a lot of capability, and I will keep working on developing it. I will also try to speedsolve the method, and see how close I can get to my CFOP average time, 14-16 seconds.


----------



## Renox (Dec 13, 2015)

*Random method that is probably really inefficient*

Step 1. Cross
Step 2. F2L, but without corners 
Step 3. Oll on top and bottom sides
Step 4. Pll on top and bottom 
Step 5. Some algs
Step 6. Done, but inefficiently


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 13, 2015)

^^
But what if:
Step 1: E edges + orient bottom edges on bottom
Step 2: oll + bottom OLL (7*57)
Step 3: obl orient both layers X algs
Step 4: permute both layers. 21*21 algs
Lots of algs


----------



## Michael Womack (Dec 13, 2015)

Renox said:


> Step 1. Cross
> Step 2. F2L, but without corners
> Step 3. Oll on top and bottom sides
> Step 4. Pll on top and bottom
> ...



that's the Belt method but the steeps are in a different order.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 13, 2015)

Renox said:


> Step 1. Cross
> Step 2. F2L, but without corners
> Step 3. Oll on top and bottom sides
> Step 4. Pll on top and bottom
> ...


This one is like a belt/zagorec hybird neither of which is great in terms of alg count, recog or move count


Jaysammey777 said:


> ^^
> But what if:
> Step 1: E edges + orient bottom edges on bottom
> Step 2: oll + bottom OLL (7*57)
> ...



this is literally the belt method.


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 13, 2015)

theawesomecuber said:


> Alright, I'm dropping credit for the method, sorry about that.
> 
> Look ahead could be decent, especially look ahead into F2L, since once you know where the flipped edges are, you can track the pieces you need. The only bad look ahead imo is for EO recognition, so I'll work on that.
> 
> ...



Don't worry about it. I've also created methods identical to other people's methods before. I once literally recreated Briggs without knowing it, so yeah.


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 13, 2015)

So for 3x3, I've been thinking about methods that solve CP.

1. 1x2x3 in DL
2.CP
3.<R,U,u,E> 2x2x3
4. EO without disturbing CP
5.<R,U> F2L
6.2GLL
Example solve:
Scramble:U' B2 L2 D2 R F2 L B2 F2 L2 B2 F2 D' L B R D F' U' L F2
x' y
L2 D' R2 L' U2 L D' B2 D2//FB
U2 R U2 L' U R U' L//CP
U' u' R' u R u R2 u'//2x2x3
R U' R U' R' U2 y M' U M y'//EO
U' R U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R' U2 R//F2L
U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U R U//2GLL
You can see it on alg.cubing.net here.
I'm sure someone can do it more efficiently than I can, but that is all I have for now.


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 14, 2015)

2180161 said:


> So for 3x3, I've been thinking about methods that solve CP.
> 
> 1. 1x2x3 in DL
> 2.CP
> ...



This is Briggs but EO is worse.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 14, 2015)

2180161 said:


> So for 3x3, I've been thinking about methods that solve CP.
> 
> 1. 1x2x3 in DL
> 2.CP
> ...





crafto22 said:


> This is Briggs but EO is worse.



Actually it's more like NCPB2.0 cause you don't combine CP and FB


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 14, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Actually it's more like NCPB2.0 cause you don't combine CP and FB



Yeah. One way or another, everything is less efficient and has worse recognition.


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 14, 2015)

Hey guys. I was using PCMS the other day and came up with an idea to make it better:

Steps:

1. Build the pairs but without worrying about permutation of any pieces. Edge orientation may matter depending on how many algs you want to use.
Exec. time: 2-3 seconds
2. Orient U layer corners using one of 7 algs.
Exec. time: 1 second
3. Permute the columns.
Exec. time: 2-3 seconds
4. Solve the last 8 edges. My strategy for this is to solve 2 or 3 edges of the first layer with the centers followed by the last FL edge. At this point, you'll be left with ELL, which consists of 29 algs. You could also orient the LL edges while solving the last FL edge, which would leave EPLL.
Exec. time: 4-6 seconds

Total time: ~11 seconds, give or take

I'm guessing, if you're colour neutral, you could plan at least 3 pairs in inspection, and from what I've seen, the odds you already have 2 pairs solved are quite high, so one could plan the pairs step in inspection.

The disadvantage to this method is the mildly high-ish alg count. PBL has six cases, so combined with the edges, that's 6*(8 distinguished cases) = 48 algs, or 30 if you don't count mirrors. However, if you solve edge orientation of the pairs, that number drops to 12 algs. If you were willing to do a z2 or an x2 in the middle of the solve, the original number would drop to 40 algs, and without mirrors that's 25 algs and 10 algs if you orient the pair edges. I doubt 48 algs is unreasonable to most. Another disadvantage is the move set for the last 8 edges. <MSU> isn't that great, hence my time estimate for the last step. I'm guessing it would take a pro at least 4 seconds to solve the last step (PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG!).

So I think this *might* have some potential. I'll check it out, but I noticed that if I'm colour neutral, I usually get at least two pair solved. This means I can usually one-look the pairs. Recog wouldn't be that bad some the columns step because you basically recognise the PBL case then you recognize the edge case (diag swap, adj swap or solved + EO)

Tell me what you think. I'll post some example solves later to clear up any confusion.


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 16, 2015)

This is a sort of Roux variant that solves a lot of stuff using algs. Be warned, this is an alg heavy method.

1. Build a Roux block
Moves: 8
Execution time: 2-3 seconds


2. Place the RD edge
Moves: 3
Execution time: 0.5 seconds


3. Build pairs without minding their placement within the two remaining slots nor the permutation of the edge and corner (all that matters
is CO and EO)
Moves: 8 (~4 per "pair")
Execution time: 0.5-1 second per pair


4. Orient the top layer corners
Moves: 7
Execution time: 0.5-1 second


5. Permute the corners and edges of the "pairs" as well as the top layer corners and orient all edges

Cases:
Top layer corners have 3 cases (diag swap, adj swap, solved)
Bottom layer corners have two cases (swap or solved)
The edge orientation has 12 cases (I won't name them all)
The pair edge permutation has 2 cases (swap or solved)
Knowing this, here is the number of cases:
Corners: 3*2 = 6 - 1 (two cases are technically mirrors)
Edges: 2*12 = 24
Total: 5*24 = 120 - 1 (solved) = 119 cases

Moves: From what I've seen so far, ~11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds


6. L6E with pre-oriented edges
Moves: 9
Execution time: 1-3 seconds

Total moves: 46 STM
Execution time: 6-10 seconds

Pros:
- Great lookahead compared to normal Roux due to permutation not being an issue for the SB
- EO is solved when going into L6E
- Low movecount
- Low theoretical execution time
- Pretty easy recognition for the alg-heavy step
- Algs are faster than intuition

Cons:
- High alg count
- Moves used during pair-building get used during alg execution, so this isn't saving many moves
- Blockbuilding (if you're a CFOP user like me)

Thoughts please.


----------



## senpai (Dec 16, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Thoughts please.


It seems like you're making the method more complicated than it needs to be for no reason, you're going to great lengths to avoid doing second block and eo normally. Steps 4+5 are inferior to cmll, so the entire thing depends on your pseudo second block being better than a normal block, and I just don't think that's the case.



crafto22 said:


> Place the RD edge


I do not like this meme.


----------



## Renox (Dec 16, 2015)

*Roux variant*

1. Build a 1x2x3 block.
2. Build another block in the other side like in Roux.
3. Insert a white edge ( if you aren't colour neutral) between the blocks, if you haven't done it during blockbuilding
4.orient and permute corners
5. Algs to orient and permute last 2/4(plus oriented edge on last layer of it is not permitted) edges ( Not sure how many algs))
6.Solved
Thoughts?


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 16, 2015)

Renox said:


> 1. Build a 1x2x3 block.
> 2. Build another block in the other side like in Roux.
> 3. Insert a white edge ( if you aren't colour neutral) between the blocks, if you haven't done it during blockbuilding
> 4.orient and permits corners
> ...



Less efficient Roux, basically. Also, you're looking for L5E.


----------



## Renox (Dec 16, 2015)

*Random method*

Me again ;P 
anyway I have a new method:
1. EOline
2. Expand to a 2x2x3(essentially build a 1x2x3 next to the EOline)
3.Solve remaining f2l,but use MGLS on last slot
4. PLL
5. Solved
I just thought this was a similar way to Petrus instead of 2x2x2 -> 2x2x3 -> fix "bad edges" you oriented the edges and built the 2x2x3 block in two moves instead of three. Plus I like MGLS. Thoughts? I'm not familiar with Petrus and EOline so I might be wrong on some things.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 16, 2015)

Renox said:


> Me again ;P
> anyway I have a new method:
> 1. EOline
> 2. Expand to a 2x2x3(essentially build a 1x2x3 next to the EOline)
> ...



That is literally MGLS-Z but slightly more restricted with what blocks you build.


----------



## Renox (Dec 16, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> That is literally MGLS-Z but slightly more restricted with what blocks you build.


Oh.
Lol worth a try anyway


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 16, 2015)

senpai said:


> I do not like this meme.



That isn't a meme.


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 16, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys. I was using PCMS the other day and came up with an idea to make it better:
> 
> Steps:
> 
> ...



what do you mean place the pairs with out worrying about the permutation of the pieces? you mean like this:
Scramble:B2 D F2 D2 U' F2 D2 B2 L2 D' B2 F L R' B R B' D F2 D2 U'
z F U' F' U R' U R D M' D' U2 r' U' r


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 16, 2015)

2180161 said:


> what do you mean place the pairs with out worrying about the permutation of the pieces? you mean like this:
> Scramble:B2 D F2 D2 U' F2 D2 B2 L2 D' B2 F L R' B R B' D F2 D2 U'
> z F U' F' U R' U R D M' D' U2 r' U' r



Yes but not with all pieces, only the SB


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 17, 2015)

I mean for that PCMS variant.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Dec 17, 2015)

theawesomecuber said:


> Step 1: 2x2x3 on DL without the FD edge. This can be done in 2 ways: 2x2x2 in DBL then insert the FLD+FL pair, or FB plus DB edge.
> Estimated time for pro/intermediate user: 1.5s/3s
> 
> Step 2: EO. Just like petrus, except you can also use the M layer. Insert the FD edge during this step.
> ...



I thought of a variation for this.

Step 1 and 2 are the same.

Step 3 is incredibly similar, but you don't place the FD edge.

Step 4: COLL/CMLL to solve the corners.

Step 5: L5E with oriented edges. Is there an algset for this?

This method also has probably been created before, but I still think that this has tons of potential.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 17, 2015)

theawesomecuber said:


> I thought of a variation for this.
> 
> Step 1 and 2 are the same.
> 
> ...



Essentially M-CELL. There are no real algs for it because you can just do it intuitively with no real loss in movecount


----------



## Renox (Dec 20, 2015)

Since this is also a concept/idea as well as a method thread, I was wondering if partially orienting the edges while you solve the cross to reduce the amount of rotations in a cfop solve is viable/efficient?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 20, 2015)

Renox said:


> Since this is also a concept/idea as well as a method thread, I was wondering if partially orienting the edges while you solve the cross to reduce the amount of rotations in a cfop solve is viable/efficient?



I think some already do. But really, it's not worth it unless you do all F2L edges IMO. Cool idea tho. You should try it.


----------



## Renox (Dec 20, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I think some already do. But really, it's not worth it unless you do all F2L edges IMO. Cool idea tho. You should try it.



I actually might try to adopt this idea, but it's more of a thing that you do once every few solves since it might not be worth it unless you can do it quickly and/or with a few more moves than normal cross. And when I said partially orient the edges I meant the f2l edges, I should've clarified that. Plus are there any fast/notable cubers that actually do this?


----------



## Berd (Dec 20, 2015)

Renox said:


> I actually might try to adopt this idea, but it's more of a thing that you do once every few solves since it might not be worth it unless you can do it quickly and/or with a few more moves than normal cross. And when I said partially orient the edges I meant the f2l edges, I should've clarified that. Plus are there any fast/notable cubers that actually do this?


Eo cross is generally considered to be a terrible idea.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 20, 2015)

Berd said:


> Eo cross is generally considered to be a terrible idea.



He's not talking about EO cross. Just a partial orientation so he gets nicer F2L pairs.


----------



## Aiminer357 (Dec 20, 2015)

*CPELL: A 1LLL concept*

Edit: This has been thought of. But continue reading if you like 

This method is too obvious and I won't be surprised if somebody came up with it already. If somebody did, tell me. Thanks  If nobody has came up with it, I'll call it CPELL (Corner Permute Edges Last Layer). Pronounced "Spell".

This method is only used for CFOP users. People that are using methods that automatically orient the last layer edges will find this rather useless.

This method is used with the Winter Variation and the Summer variation. For those who don't know, Winter and Summer variation orients the corners of the last layer while inserting the final f2l pair. This leaves only four possible outcomes, one is all the edges are orientated and the others need an OLL alg.

We will use the four possible outcomes to our advantage. If all the edges are orientated, then we perform the 21 PLL algs. For the other three, we just have to perform a 1LLL. 

I have counted all the algs for the 1LLL. Excluding mirrors, it takes about 80 algorithms. That is if you are willing to do the mirrors on the fly. However, including mirrors, it takes 114 algorithms. It's quite a big number but it is possible to learn. This is way less than the 300 algorithms for ZBLL.

This comes with a major flaw. This method is used with the Winter and Summer variation. Each variation has 54 algorithms. In total, you will need to learn an astonishing 222 algorithms! 

But that is including mirrors. So this is a great alternative to ZBLL. It uses around the same amount of moves

There is bound to have a minor or major miscalculation. Tell me any mistakes I made. Tell me about any flaws. Tell me if this is reasonable or not. Tell me anything. I'm a good man.


----------



## molarmanful (Dec 20, 2015)

Has been done, I think. This would also be effective with WV/SV -> OLLCP-A -> EPLL which is what I use a lot. Oh yeah, alternative, shorter WV-like algs would be much better in my opinion.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 20, 2015)

COALL?


----------



## Aiminer357 (Dec 20, 2015)

Honestly, I have never heard of that method in my life. Thanks.


----------



## gyroninja (Dec 20, 2015)

How are you calculating case count?

I get 29 ell * 6 cp + 21 pll = 195


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 20, 2015)

gyroninja said:


> How are you calculating case count?
> 
> I get 29 ell * 6 cp + 21 pll = 195



I've generated algs for every case before, and I had 156 algs. Your math ignores symmetry.


----------



## gyroninja (Dec 20, 2015)

supercavitation said:


> I've generated algs for every case before, and I had 156 algs. Your math ignores symmetry.



I was counting on ell to handle the symmetry problems but I guess it wouldn't eliminate the symmetry on like dot cases.


----------



## Aiminer357 (Dec 21, 2015)

*OLL skip method*

Again, I don't know if anyone came up with this method yet. Tell me if somebody came up with this. Thanks 

This method is recomended for those who use the CFOP method. People who pre-orient the Last Layer edges are also welcome.

I have been doing some research on different ways to solve the cube. One of the method is the Petrus Method. It creates a 2x2x3 block, orients the edges, finishes the F2L and then the Last Layer.

For someone who has been using CFOP for a long time, block building is too hard for me. So I came up with a method that will orient last layer while inserting the Last F2L pair and you don't need to learn hundreds of algorithms. You only need to learn a minimum of 27 algorithms and a bit of intuitive moving. I say minimum because the 27 cases are the most likely to happen. You could learn more.

Step 1: Build your cross and your F2L minus one pair. Make sure the last slot is on your FR or FL, depending on your turning style

Step 2: Find all the misoriented edges. You can only have an even amount of "bad edges"

Step 3: Orient the bad edges. I orient the edges the same method as the Petrus Method. There will be a link. http://lar5.com/cube/fas3.html

Step 4: Use Summer variation to orient the corners and insert the last F2L. Don't learn the mirrors unless you want to go advance. You can also learn Winter variation.

Step 5: PLL.

Pros: OLL skip! Can't think of anything else
Cons: Extra look during edge orientation and Summer.

I don't know if this is an effective way to solve the cube. I'm still sub 40. But tell me if it is effective. Or it's just useless and we all wasted our time.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 21, 2015)

So basically you found this method on the internet and then said that you invented it?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 21, 2015)

Aiminer357 said:


> Again, I don't know if anyone came up with this method yet. Tell me if somebody came up with this. Thanks
> 
> This method is recomended for those who use the CFOP method. People who pre-orient the Last Layer edges are also welcome.
> 
> ...



Err... What's the difference between this and normal WV/SV?


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 21, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Err... What's the difference between this and normal WV/SV?



There isn't one.


----------



## Berd (Dec 21, 2015)

2180161 said:


> There isn't one.


I swear SV doesn't preserve EO?


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 22, 2015)

Berd said:


> I swear SV doesn't preserve EO?



SV is RUR' inserts, WV is RU'R' inserts.


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 23, 2015)

Hey guys, I thought of this a while back and realized it could work.

Steps:
1. Solve F2L-1 with any method.
Moves: 24
2. Solve CP with the last slot. I prefer solve the pair and then use one of only six algs to solve CP.
Moves: ~8
3. Solve OLL using a pseudo 2-gen alg which will preserve CP.
Moves: ~12?
4. Solve EPLL.
Moves: 6

Total moves: ~50
Still better than CFOP for moves.

So basically you just need to re-learn OLL with these pseudo 2-gen algs I will be generating.


----------



## Jbacboy (Dec 23, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, I thought of this a while back and realized it could work.



I am a nub, but I feel like this has been done before. (I just cant remember by who)


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 23, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, I thought of this a while back and realized it could work.
> 
> Steps:
> 1. Solve F2L-1 with any method.
> ...



Where are you getting 6 moves for EPLL? 10 for H, 9 for U, 12 for Z


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 24, 2015)

Get your math right:
7 for U and H, 8 for Z and 0 for solved averages out to 6.75


----------



## 2180161 (Dec 24, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Get your math right:
> 7 for U and H, 8 for Z and 0 for solved averages out to 6.75



My apologies. I forgot about 0


----------



## Torch (Dec 24, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Get your math right:
> 7 for U and H, 8 for Z and 0 for solved averages out to 6.75



Z is only 8 if you use the one with E moves, you have to take into account pre and post alg AUFs, and 6.75 moves simply cannot be rounded down to 6 moves no matter how much you try to convince yourself.

EPLL:
Pre alg AUF: 3/4 chance of AUF, 0.75 moves
Alg: 2/3 chance of U perm (7 moves), 1/6 chance of Z perm (9 moves), 1/12 chance of H perm (7 moves), 1/12 chance of solved (0 moves), total 6.75 moves
Post alg AUF: 3/4 chance of AUF, 0.75 moves

8.25 moves total
When EPLL skip, you can combine the AUFs into one move meaning you can lose 0.75 moves 1/12 of the time

8.25 moves-0.0625 moves=*8.1875 moves*

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 24, 2015)

Torch said:


> EPLL:
> Pre alg AUF: 3/4 chance of AUF, 0.75 moves
> Alg: 2/3 chance of U perm (7 moves), 1/6 chance of Z perm (9 moves), 1/12 chance of H perm (7 moves), 1/12 chance of solved (0 moves), total 6.75 moves
> Post alg AUF: 3/4 chance of AUF, 0.75 moves
> ...



H perm can also have AUFs combined, and Z perm can have AUFs combined half the time. Being able to execute an EPLL from multiple angles is probably common (e.g. M2 U M' U2 M U M2 and M2 U M U2 M' U M2), which would reduce the probability of having to do a pre-AUF, so the exact average move count for EPLL depends on the number of algs you use for the different AUF cases. This differs from person to person so you can't really make a blanket statement like "EPLL is 8.xxx moves on average for everyone".



crafto22 said:


> So basically you just need to re-learn OLL with these pseudo 2-gen algs I will be generating.



You can also use SuneOLL for this.


----------



## Torch (Dec 24, 2015)

xyzzy said:


> H perm can also have AUFs combined, and Z perm can have AUFs combined half the time. Being able to execute an EPLL from multiple angles is probably common (e.g. M2 U M' U2 M U M2 and M2 U M U2 M' U M2), which would reduce the probability of having to do a pre-AUF, so the exact average move count for EPLL depends on the number of algs you use for the different AUF cases. This differs from person to person so you can't really make a blanket statement like "EPLL is 8.xxx moves on average for everyone".
> 
> 
> 
> You can also use SuneOLL for this.



Yeah, I knew I was probably forgetting some things. Either way, we can agree that 6 moves is an incredibly ridiculous estimate, right?

For some data, I did 50 EPLLs (I used the ZBLL scrambler and then did COLL and counted the moves from then until solved) and got an average of 7.76 moves.


----------



## crafto22 (Dec 25, 2015)

Torch said:


> Yeah, I knew I was probably forgetting some things. Either way, we can agree that 6 moves is an incredibly ridiculous estimate, right?
> 
> For some data, I did 50 EPLLs (I used the ZBLL scrambler and then did COLL and counted the moves from then until solved) and got an average of 7.76 moves.



An experimental average doesn't really matter. Either way I'm basing this off of the quite extensive math done by someone else. I don't know where it is in this thread, but someone managed to prove that the average movecount for EPLL is in fact 6.75 moves. One way or another, the method I proposed would still have a movecount of 50 moves with this added move.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 25, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> An experimental average doesn't really matter. Either way I'm basing this off of the quite extensive math done by someone else. I don't know where it is in this thread, but someone managed to prove that the average movecount for EPLL is in fact 6.75 moves. One way or another, the method I proposed would still have a movecount of 50 moves with this added move.



No, because the movecount you included does not have AUFS so the movecount is more like 52-53. Still passable but definitely not 50.

The way they showed that it was a 6.75 (which does not round down to 6 in any case) is by only taking the length of the algs and averaging them with their chance of occuring and not the AUF.

In addition, I don't particularly like including skip cases because they happen so rarely but can move the average movecount down significantly for a small alg set (of which EPLL is one) to a number which will almost never happen in a comp but rather only when doing big averages at home.


----------



## supercavitation (Dec 25, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> An experimental average doesn't really matter. Either way I'm basing this off of the quite extensive math done by someone else. I don't know where it is in this thread, but someone managed to prove that the average movecount for EPLL is in fact 6.75 moves. One way or another, the method I proposed would still have a movecount of 50 moves with this added move.



That was me, and the 6.75 moves was without accounting for AUF. Those were accounted for elsewhere in the analysis of that method. His move count is correct if you're AUFing before and after performing the EPLL rather than rotating.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 25, 2015)

Aiminer357 said:


> Again, I don't know if anyone came up with this method yet. Tell me if somebody came up with this. Thanks
> 
> This method is recomended for those who use the CFOP method. People who pre-orient the Last Layer edges are also welcome.
> 
> ...



or you could just learn VLS


----------



## TorbinRoux (Dec 25, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> or you could just learn VLS



yeah this is basically two look vls


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 25, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> or you could just learn VLS



Acually they would be better off learning MGLS cause it seems like they want a lower alg count.


----------



## Calode (Dec 29, 2015)

Not my idea.

Friend of mine proposed an ell + cp substep. We're thinking cfop wv + ellcp would be an interesting cfop variation. We're trying to figure out how many algs there would be. We're supposing 6 (solved, opp, 4 adj swaps) * 29 (# of ells) but unsure. To solve ell + cp (co is solved), how many cases would that be?


----------



## Cale S (Dec 29, 2015)

Calode said:


> Not my idea.
> 
> Friend of mine proposed an ell + cp substep. We're thinking cfop wv + ellcp would be an interesting cfop variation. We're trying to figure out how many algs there would be. We're supposing 6 (solved, opp, 4 adj swaps) * 29 (# of ells) but unsure. To solve ell + cp (co is solved), how many cases would that be?



https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/COALL


----------



## Calode (Dec 29, 2015)

Cale S said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/COALL



All, cool. Thanks.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 30, 2015)

Last layer CO can always be done with two Sunes, which gave me this idea for a two-look ZBLL that also turned out to have a low alg count. For the first look one of the Sune COLLs is used to permute the corners and orient the corners into a Sune state, and for the second look one of the Sune 2GLLs is used to permute the edges and solve CO. It's probably not a novel idea, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere.

The total number of algs needed is just 17 (not counting mirrors), which is slightly lower than the 20 needed for OCLL/PLL, and most of these 17 algs can be done two-gen. It's not really a useful 2LLL method on its own since recognition and some of the algs aren't very nice, but it could be used as a stepping stone towards either full COLL or full 2GLL.

Scramble (random ZBLL): F2 U2 D' B2 D' R2 U R B2 D2 R' D2 R2 B2 R D2 R2 F2
CP: U' L' U R U' L U R'
EP: L' U' L U' L' U2 L


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 31, 2015)

xyzzy said:


> Last layer CO can always be done with two Sunes, which gave me this idea for a two-look ZBLL that also turned out to have a low alg count. For the first look one of the Sune COLLs is used to permute the corners and orient the corners into a Sune state, and for the second look one of the Sune 2GLLs is used to permute the edges and solve CO. It's probably not a novel idea, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere.
> 
> The total number of algs needed is just 17 (not counting mirrors), which is slightly lower than the 20 needed for OCLL/PLL, and most of these 17 algs can be done two-gen. It's not really a useful 2LLL method on its own since recognition and some of the algs aren't very nice, but it could be used as a stepping stone towards either full COLL or full 2GLL.
> 
> ...



Bro, that's pretty darn cool.


----------



## Sion (Jan 1, 2016)

*Working on a New Hybrid*

Hey. I finally decided on a particular hybrid as my main method of choice. It consists of:

-F2B 
-SMLE (Solving Middle Layer Edges; this is so the first two layers are solved)
-OLL
-PLL

I am a newbie and can only solve this method at a slow pace to get used to it. So I'm asking the more experienced cubers to try to test this method out and conclude if it is a method worthwhile learning, since I am working at it now. Thank you again for your support 

Please post your times and average along with a comment


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 1, 2016)

This method is known about but the general consensus is that it is not as good as either CFOP or Roux cause it is less efficient and has more steps.


----------



## Sion (Jan 1, 2016)

I don't mean to be objective, but how is that exactly?


----------



## GuRoux (Jan 1, 2016)

i think it is good, but i belive you should try this out too:

F2B
SMLE
CLL
ELL

while you solve SMLE, you can see what CLL case you have, therefore you skip a recognition pause.


----------



## Sion (Jan 1, 2016)

Thanks. By the way, you're outstandingly amazing at roux!


----------



## TDM (Jan 1, 2016)

This is probably one of the most proposed "new" methods.

It's definitely slower than Roux. It's far less efficient, harder to fingertrick and has more difficult lookahead.

Compared to CFOP, this method of solving F2L is, again, fairly slow. Although initially the F2B is faster than F2L, solving DF+DB can be very slow and does use a lot of moves. The lookahead and ability to influence LL is limited, though as Kavin suggested finishing with CLL/ELL does give good lookahead into a probably faster LL system.

But no, this is not worth using.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 2, 2016)

*Easy ZB*

Hey guys, I've been playing around with this for awhile. At first it was just an idea for 2GLL without learning all the algs but I realized this could easily become full ZB without that many algs.

I'll just start off with an example solve then explain what I'm doing if it isn't already obvious.

Scramble: U B2 L2 U' F2 L2 U F2 U' R2 U L D2 B L2 R2 D' R2 D2 B' F'

x2 y R2 U' L' F2 U' B2 // Cross
L U2 L' U L U' L' // First Pair
U R' U' R U' R' U R // Second Pair
L' U2 L U2 F R' F' R // Third Pair
d [F R' F' R] U [R U2 R' U' R U R'] // ZBLS
U' [R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'] U' [R U2 R' U2 L' U R U' R' L] // ZBLL

Yes that last part was one-look.

So basically you use sledgehammer or hedgeslammer to orient edges whilst tracking the pieces to build the last pair thus giving a less efficient ZBLS, then you use an edge permutation algorithm to give you the skip case for that specific COLL. You basically just have to memorize what each skip case is. In that case, I knew that I had to have a sort of two-piece bar in the back and the edges around the oriented corner along with the ladder had to look like a Z-perm.

So this is really just a 46 algorithm version of ZB. I hope no one came up with this already.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 2, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, I've been playing around with this for awhile. At first it was just an idea for 2GLL without learning all the algs but I realized this could easily become full ZB without that many algs.
> 
> I'll just start off with an example solve then explain what I'm doing if it isn't already obvious.
> 
> ...



So instead of COLL to EPLL you do EPLL to COLL but with harder recognition?


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 2, 2016)

Cale S said:


> So instead of COLL to EPLL you do EPLL to COLL but with harder recognition?



Exactly. But this is a 1LLL whereas COLL to EPLL is not. Also, I would argue that this has better recognition than regular ZBLL.


----------



## gyroninja (Jan 2, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Exactly. But this is a 1LLL whereas COLL to EPLL is not. Also, I would argue that this has better recognition than regular ZBLL.



You know you could learn what epll is going to come after the coll for a certain zbll and it would be the same but better recognition in case your prediction was wrong. If you did the wrong epll in your method you would have to do epll coll epll.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 2, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Exactly. But this is a 1LLL whereas COLL to EPLL is not. Also, I would argue that this has better recognition than regular ZBLL.



If you want to make your system 1LLL, you would need to know how all COLLs affect EPLL (not that difficult actually), but if you know that you could just do COLL and predict the EPLL, instead of changing the EPLL to what it would need to be to skip.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 3, 2016)

Cale S said:


> If you want to make your system 1LLL, you would need to know how all COLLs affect EPLL (not that difficult actually), but if you know that you could just do COLL and predict the EPLL, instead of changing the EPLL to what it would need to be to skip.



Wut? This is a 1LLL. Trust me, predicting EPLL after COLL sucks worst than my initial idea, I've tried to do that before. I have already created a pretty good recognition system for the H and Pi sets of COLL, and I'm guessing the others will be just as good.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 3, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> You know you could learn what epll is going to come after the coll for a certain zbll and it would be the same but better recognition in case your prediction was wrong. If you did the wrong epll in your method you would have to do epll coll epll.



No, recognition wouldn't be better. Think about it. You'd have to figure out where each piece is going in an instant. With my method, there are predetermined locations pieces need to be in, so recognition is basically instant. You just look, see where the pieces need to be, recognize your COLL at the same time and then execute your EPLL-COLL. This system is superior to COLL-EPLL by a long shot since COLL-EPLL can't be recognized fast enough.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 3, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> No, recognition wouldn't be better. Think about it. You'd have to figure out where each piece is going in an instant. With my method, there are predetermined locations pieces need to be in, so recognition is basically instant. You just look, see where the pieces need to be, recognize your COLL at the same time and then execute your EPLL-COLL. This system is superior to COLL-EPLL by a long shot since COLL-EPLL can't be recognized fast enough.



Why is recognition for your method faster?

Your method: 
1. Recognize COLL
2. Recall how edges are affected by that COLL and how they need to be permuted for the COLL alg to skip PLL
3. Permute edges with EPLL so they are in that position
4. Do COLL which will now skip PLL

Normal method:
1. Recognize COLL
2. Recall how edges are affected by that COLL so you will know the EPLL case after doing the alg
3. Do COLL alg
4. Do EPLL alg

In both cases you essentially recognize the same thing, and in both of them you do a COLL alg and an EPLL alg


----------



## asacuber (Jan 3, 2016)

New method for LSE(not really good,just posted for the sake of it)

1 EO (same)
2 Align the centers to their correct places( M' M M2 or solved) and fill the two empty edge slots(FD and BD) using only two algs,M' U2 M OR M U2 M'
3 Now you will be left with EPLL

Example:

Scramble: M' U2 M2 U M U' M2 U2 M' U' M U' M2
1 U' M' U' M' U2 M' U' M'
2 M2
M' U2 M U2 M U2 M'
3 M2 U M' U2 M U M2 U

Share your thoughts


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 3, 2016)

asacuber said:


> New method for LSE(not really good,just posted for the sake of it)
> 
> 1 EO (same)
> 2 Align the centers to their correct places( M' M M2 or solved) and fill the two empty edge slots(FD and BD) using only two algs,M' U2 M OR M U2 M'
> ...



EPLL is less efficient than L4E


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jan 3, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, I've been playing around with this for awhile. At first it was just an idea for 2GLL without learning all the algs but I realized this could easily become full ZB without that many algs.
> 
> I'll just start off with an example solve then explain what I'm doing if it isn't already obvious.
> 
> ...



What if you fail to recognise the correct EP case and found yourself doing the LL in 3-looks rather than the 2 with COLL/EPLL ?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 3, 2016)

asacuber said:


> New method for LSE(not really good,just posted for the sake of it)
> 
> 1 EO (same)
> 2 Align the centers to their correct places( M' M M2 or solved) and fill the two empty edge slots(FD and BD) using only two algs,M' U2 M OR M U2 M'
> ...



U2 M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U' M U' M2 U2 M' U2 M' is way more efficient. I think the only place to use EPLL in LSE is if u get F2L skip during EO.


----------



## asacuber (Jan 3, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> U2 M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U' M U' M2 U2 M' U2 M' is way more efficient. I think the only place to use EPLL in LSE is if u get F2L skip during EO.



That is why you need to insert fd and bd edges, to solve F2L


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 3, 2016)

asacuber said:


> That is why you need to insert fd and bd edges, to solve F2L



He's saying you don't intentionally solve F2L, only if you coincidentally have it solved after F2B.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 3, 2016)

asacuber said:


> That is why you need to insert fd and bd edges, to solve F2L



but that's very inefficient. if fd and bd solve by accident, then of course do EPLL. But solving fd bd on purpose instead of ul ur is bad.

edit: ninjad. @shadowslice: if they solve after F2B or EO then i will do EPLL.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 3, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> but that's very inefficient. if fd and bd solve by accident, then of course do EPLL. But solving fd bd on purpose instead of ul ur is bad.
> 
> edit: ninjad. @shadowslice: if they solve after F2B or EO then i will do EPLL.



Yeah i would too except that my EPLL is all MU so basically the same as ULUR L4E for U and Z


----------



## TDM (Jan 3, 2016)

asacuber said:


> New method for LSE



Not even close to being new. However you're right in saying it's not really good - it's less efficient (as discussed above) and has much more difficult lookahead.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 4, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Why is recognition for your method faster?
> 
> Your method:
> 1. Recognize COLL
> ...



Tell me, what's faster recogniton-wise, solving a U perm, or solving a U perm into a different U perm or a Z perm? Obviously it's easier to just solve a U perm. That's why recognition is faster for my method. It's easier to get pieces to predetermined positions where they line up with others than to see where they'll end up and what to do next.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 4, 2016)

Berkmann18 said:


> What if you fail to recognise the correct EP case and found yourself doing the LL in 3-looks rather than the 2 with COLL/EPLL ?



Did you even read? That would make it 2-looks. The regular system is 1-LOOK. I don't know why people don't understand that. That would make it two-looks if you mess up. It's like messing up PLL. Initially it's one-looking, but it becomes 2-looking if you mess up. And if you consider everything, regular LL is 2-look, 2-alg. My method is 1-look, 2-alg. Messing up on OLL or PLL results in 3-look, 3-alg. Messing up on my method results in 2-looks, 3 algs. Ultimately, it's always a lower "look" count.


----------



## Kudz (Jan 4, 2016)

*Kudz method*

Idea (ZZxRoux hybrid, simmular to Briggs, but I haven't seen that yet)
*1. EO+Roux FB *(I think that is doable in preinspection or at least 2x2x1)
*2. 2x1x1 block **on R face w/ D parts* (that might be extended to doing FD and BD edges too, since they are doable in max.5 moves and while doing it it can be done pretty frequently with U M2 or R U M2, which is not that much time consuming)
*3. Last pair+CP*
*4. 1look EP+CO, 2GLL* most time I think.

Pros:
"1LLL" possible
Movecount should be okey (sb?)
RUL M2 world
Big chance of micro skips
After FB it is almost 2gen
Maybe it is me or maybe it is great for lookahead
Easy to manipulate last etap

Cons:
CP on last pair (reco can suck)
Needs much inspection
FB could be a pain
If FD an BD are not in place cases might suck

I did example solve, but it wont be objective, cause I suck in blockbuilding, so without 1st etap


Spoiler: Solve without EOFB



Scramble: R U R U2 R U2 R U2 R U' R2 U R2 U2 R' U' R U' R U' R2 U R' U' R2 M2 U' M2 U M2 U Rw2 U R' ofc i added M2s, just for my need

Solution:
2. R' Rw2 U' R' U2 R' U2 Rw2 U' R U R'
3. U R U' R'
4. R U' R' L' U2 L U L' U L R U2 R'
AUF: U'
Okey solve I guess
alg.cubing.net =)



Could sb pls give me movecount. I am starting to like this method, I might switch XDD. Depends on FB tho..
I need your opinion, if it is usable I will make a thread about it.

e: actually w/ DB and FD done this method is great. It is worth forcing. Maybe:
2. DB+FD+2x2x1?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 4, 2016)

Kudz said:


> Idea (ZZxRoux hybrid, simmular to Briggs, but I haven't seen that yet)
> *1. EO+Roux FB *(I think that is doable in preinspection or at least 2x1x1)
> *2. 2x1x1 block **on R face w/ D parts* (that might be extended to doing FD and BD edges too, since they are doable in max.5 moves and while doing it it can be done pretty frequently with U M2 or R U M2, which is not that much time consuming)
> *3. Last pair+CP*
> ...



The DB+FB forcing makes the method essentially petrus .

That said it is a fun method and I think you would do pretty well to explore it some more.

The only 2 issues (1 with the method, one with the example solve) is that CPLS recog is not exactly the nicest thing in the world and that could be a hinderance with speedsolving (which is why Briggs and B2 have it in inspection). Also, you scrambled 2-gen so the CP is not affected (this is how i can do pseudo 2-gen in B2) so the LS will not be quite as nice as in that solve most of the time (I think 1/25 will be like that).

(also, do you mean a 2x2x1? Cause 2x1x1 is a pair.)

That said, if you develop a good recog for CPLS, then this would be a great method so i think you should definitely try it and develop it further


----------



## Kudz (Jan 5, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> The DB+FB forcing makes the method essentially petrus .
> 
> That said it is a fun method and I think you would do pretty well to explore it some more.
> 
> ...



I scarmbled 2gen to do not affect EP.

e: I might be wrong, but this CP method is ~5 moves on avg, so that's why I like it

I know that this is skip to Petrus, doing this gives you less alg to learn.

I got one idea for CP reco, but first I need to learn it myself to see, if it is usable..

I meant 2x2x1 block sorry

Well the idea behind that was to take potential from every method.
With petrus block:
Screw CP, do WV+PLL
CP+2gen OLL+L6E
CP+RUM2 'LL'

Subsets usable with it
2GLL with FD and BD perm(basically L6E reco)
WV
PLL
L6E
CMLL as a CP
ZBLL without CP
more I think
CP reco should be done (if working) in few days. Could you please do movecount. Well If I would got CO reco new thread should be done =)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 5, 2016)

Kudz said:


> I scarmbled 2gen to do not affect EP.
> 
> e: I might be wrong, but this CP method is ~5 moves on avg, so that's why I like it
> 
> ...



Umm.. The only way EP is not affected in a scramble is if you do 1-gen scrambles and 2 gen is preserve CP+EO. Pseudo 2-gen is just CP.

I think CPLS is around 5 moves on average. Maybe slightly more.

But yeah, I'm looking forward to the thread


----------



## Kudz (Jan 5, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Umm.. The only way EP is not affected in a scramble is if you do 1-gen scrambles and 2 gen is preserve CP+EO. Pseudo 2-gen is just CP.



I am new, okey? We can talk like this about CFOP XDDD.

Today I did few solves with that, method overall is okey and I think I got idea for CP,a bit combinatoric but...

e:
So I found it (I think) it will be really hard to write about it, but I can do that (I need to). I might do vid too. The only problem I got is that to reco CP is (if pair needs to be at DFR-FR spot) that to recognize it pair needs to be at UBL-UL spot, which probably will end with double AUF. Other thing is that corners can be oriented differently... For now I can say that reco is same (maybe better, cause no s/sa) as in COLLs, OLLCPs, CMLLs, etc

This method may do ZZ-Orbit better. We'll see. I am almost ready, writing it down will take at least one day.

e: well now I realized that I need I think 3 systems, cause CO agrrrr..


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jan 6, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Did you even read? That would make it 2-looks. The regular system is 1-LOOK. I don't know why people don't understand that. That would make it two-looks if you mess up. It's like messing up PLL. Initially it's one-looking, but it becomes 2-looking if you mess up. And if you consider everything, regular LL is 2-look, 2-alg. My method is 1-look, 2-alg. Messing up on OLL or PLL results in 3-look, 3-alg. Messing up on my method results in 2-looks, 3 algs. Ultimately, it's always a lower "look" count.



Okay.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## Sion (Jan 10, 2016)

This is what I mean, since I think there is some misconception here (The grey is what it solves for):

F2B:

SMLE:

OLL:

PLL:


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 10, 2016)

Sion said:


> This is what I mean, since I think there is some misconception here (The grey is what it solves for):
> 
> F2B:
> View attachment 5795
> ...



Yes this is exactly what I understood the method to be and it is exactly what almost everyone proposes and what everyone else explains is not as good as either CFOP or Roux.


----------



## Renox (Jan 11, 2016)

1) 2x2x3 block
2) Pair/2x1x1 block on D face
3) Solve the last 6 edges( no algerinos because I'm on my phone and not sure if you can solve intuitively like roux l6e
4)L5C
By the way, is there a more efficient way to solve the last five corners instead of the 8355 way?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 11, 2016)

Renox said:


> 1) 2x2x3 block
> 2) Pair/2x1x1 block on D face
> 3) Solve the last 6 edges( no algerinos because I'm on my phone and not sure if you can solve intuitively like roux l6e
> 4)L5C
> By the way, is there a more efficient way to solve the last five corners instead of the 8355 way?



L5C=comms or similar

Also, M-CELL (see sig)


----------



## Aiminer357 (Jan 13, 2016)

*Method Proposal: Aim Method*

Hello! This post is to explain a method I have came up with. For now I will call it the Aim Method.

I know there is bound to be a lot of flaws in this so tell me ASAP so I dont get carried away learning it. Also tell me if this has been thought off before

This method was originally based on the idea that I was too lazy too learn full OLL. Long story short, I combined the Petrus Method with CFOP. This is what I came up with.

1. Make a cross and insert three F2L pairs.
2. Orient all edges.
3. Insert last F2L pair.
4. Orient all corners.
5. Permute.

It was okay but not enough. I realised I could do better by doing Winter Variation for step 3. I was happy  until I realised I could go even more advance. More algorithms must be memorised but not that much. This is my final result.

1. Make a cross and insert *Two* F2L pairs.
2. Insert third pair using VHLS (or ZBLS if you're really ambitious!). Special recognition but not too complicated.
3. Insert last pair with Winter Variation (or Summer Variation if you memorised it). Last layer should be oriented.
4. Permute Last Layer.

You will learn 44 algs excluding mirrors. 16 for VHLS and 28 for Winter Variation. You could learn Summer variation(28 algs) or ZBLS(125 algs) but it would defeat the purpose of not learning full OLL. All the algs are easy to find on the internet

Pros:
Less algs than CFOP.
Easy for a CFOP user to learn
1 less look than CFOP (I think)

Cons:
To pair the last F2L pair can be frustrating
Small chance of not able to orient the edges

I have no way of calculating the average move count but it should be less than CFOP. If not, then tell me.

If this is truly as good as it sounds, it might go mainstream in a few years. If it is a total dud, than I have been wasting a whole bunch of time.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jan 13, 2016)

Aiminer357 said:


> Hello! This post is to explain a method I have came up with. For now I will call it the Aim Method.
> 
> I know there is bound to be a lot of flaws in this so tell me ASAP so I dont get carried away learning it. Also tell me if this has been thought off before
> 
> ...



Lol, I've been doing that for a while !! And it's really an awesome method especially when combined to CLS.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 13, 2016)

Aiminer357 said:


> Hello! This post is to explain a method I have came up with. For now I will call it the Aim Method.
> 
> I know there is bound to be a lot of flaws in this so tell me ASAP so I dont get carried away learning it. Also tell me if this has been thought off before
> 
> ...



Movecount:

CFOP:

Cross: 6
F2L: 6 per pair * 4 = 24
OLL: 9
PLL: 11
AUFs: ~4

Total: 54

Aim:

Cross: 6
F2L: 6 per pair * 2 pairs = 12
VHLS: 8 + ~1 (because the edge of the other pair must be neutral, forcing you to occasionally have to swap two edges) = 9
WV: 11
PLL: 11
AUFs: ~4

Total: 53

Your method saves about 1 move, but sacrifices the good recognition that comes with oriented the last layer with OLL. WV recogntion sucks, and ZBLS and VHLS recog great either. Your making a 7-look system (CFOP) into an 8-9 look system (cross, pair, pair, create pair, sometimes replace edge, VHLS, create pair, WV, PLL).

Yeah, not worth it.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 13, 2016)

Aiminer357 said:


> Hello! This post is to explain a method I have came up with. For now I will call it the Aim Method.
> 
> ...



This is very similar to MGLS which by itself is a passable method though is only really worth it when combined with ZZ as the EOLS isn't really worth it.

However, the recognition isn't very good and essentially adds another step which is less efficient than the 1 step OLL as well as being less efficient than the 2-step MGLS.


----------



## Sion (Jan 15, 2016)

I created a new method based on pure flexiblility and intuivity. I dub it the TAC method. It shares elements from CFOP and Roux, but very different from either of them. I'm not sure if such method exists yet, but I switched to this method as my main and find ways to make it faster. 

I will start gathering algorithms once I get the clear that the method is truly original.

it works like this:


*[COLOR="#FF000"] b4p: this matches an edge with it's corresponding corner. this is pretty much building four 1x1x2 blocks, and unlike CFOP, the fact that there is no cross makes the whole step more flexible, as you can use the S and M slices more frequently, making the step much easier to learn intuitively. Solving the corners can be used for beginners, but this habit should be dropped once you get familiar to the method. [/COLOR]*

*C&DLE: Centers and down layer edges are solved here. Wait- why solve the centers? using S and M slice moves puts the centers in place; using a similar pattern you can solve the down layer edges, which at first looks menacing, but it's really a quick and easy step to do since everything is set up from the start of the solve. This method is related to Roux in the fact that slice moves are frequent in PCE and C&DLE.
*

*OLL: orient last layer*
*
Pll: permute last layer.*


*solved cube*

Even if this method isn't as efficient as I hope, It should probably serve as a great transitional method for someone deciding to learn CFOP or Roux. But who knows?


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 15, 2016)

Sion said:


> I created a new method based on pure flexiblility and intuivity. I dub it the TAC method. It shares elements from CFOP and Roux, but very different from either of them. I'm not sure if such method exists yet, but I switched to this method as my main and find ways to make it faster.
> 
> I will start gathering algorithms once I get the clear that the method is truly original.
> 
> ...



This is just PCMS but instead of solving pairs you solve the corners then the edges.


----------



## Sion (Jan 15, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> This is just PCMS but instead of solving pairs you solve the corners then the edges.



Ah, I was expecting that. There are some differences.

PCMS solves last layer corners after pairs. TAC goes directly to solve the last layer; TAC can have the pairs solved many wayd, and glides with easier intuition than pcms, which is more of intuition from memorization. The relation between TAC and PCMS is similar to the relation between Pika********t and Petrus.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 15, 2016)

Sion said:


> Ah, I was expecting that. There are some differences.
> 
> PCMS solves last layer corners after pairs. TAC goes directly to solve the last layer; TAC can have the pairs solved many wayd, and glides with easier intuition than pcms, which is more of intuition from memorization. The relation between TAC and PCMS is similar to the relation between Pika********t and Petrus.



I think you fail to see how the fact that you've swapped steps around doesn't make the method different. Also, this "freedom" you speak of when building pairs is not greater with your method. If you build the corners first, you've know make edge placement very difficult compared to pair building. It's like saying beginner's F2L (corners then edges) is more efficient/has more freedom than CFOP F2L.

Here are two example solves using the same scramble. The first is with PCMS, and the second is with your method.

Scramble: D L2 D2 L2 F2 D' U2 R2 U' L' D' U' B L' U B2 R' F U2

PCMS:

z' R2 D2 // First Pair
U' M2 l U l' // Second Pair
U M U M' F // Third Pair
y' R U' R' M2 U2 r U r' // Fourth Pair
R U2 R' U2 R' F R2 U R' U' F' // CLL
U S' M S' U S' M U M' U2 M U' M' U2 y M' U2 M y' M2 U M U2 M' U M2 U2 // L8E

Total moves: 56

TAC:

x2 U' L U2 L' U' L R' U R // Bottom Layer corners
U2 R U' R' r U r' // First Pair
L U' L' l U l' // Second Pair
S2 U2 L' U L R' F' R // Third Pair
d' R U' R' r U r' // Fourth Pair
M' S M' S2 U' M2 S2 M U2 M' // Centers and D layer

At this point you could do CLL/ELL or OLL/PLL. I prefer the latter, but either is fine. So the last part doesn't have to be ELL/CLL. but since that's what you suggested (striking resemblance to PCMS where CLL is necessary) so that's how I'll finish.

U2 R U R' U R U' R D R' U' R D' R2 // CLL
U' M' U' M U2 M' U' M // ELL

Total moves: 69

So obviously your method is insanely inefficient. I got a lucky low-move ELL, so I'd estimate the average movecount would be around 75.

Your method is honestly just a weird inneficient F2L that is a mix of beginner's method and PCMS with a standard LL that you chose to use CLL/ELL for.


----------



## Sion (Jan 15, 2016)

Another thing about TAC is flow:it's not designed for lowest move count. You can use the u slice which makes it faster. 8f there are any ways I can make this method a little better without making it an existing method, let me know.

Edit: I removed the s1/2e and merged it with pce, to make b4p, build four pairs.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 16, 2016)

Sion said:


> Another thing about TAC is flow:it's not designed for lowest move count. You can use the u slice which makes it faster. 8f there are any ways I can make this method a little better without making it an existing method, let me know.
> 
> Edit: I removed the s1/2e and merged it with pce, to make b4p, build four pairs.



Flow? Do you mean ease to lookahead? Consider this. What has better lookahead? Beginner's method F2L, or CFOP F2L? Beginner's method obviously has better lookahead, but because the number of steps there are, there's no point in having good lookahead. Also, if you make the first step just pairs, that LITERALLY makes your method into PCMS but the L8E are done in two seperate steps with CLL in between making it less efficient. I'm sorry to say this method doesn't bring anything new to the table, it just simplifies an old concept and makes it worse.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 20, 2016)

I was thinking a lot about solving EO with pseudo pairs and came up with some random Roux/CFOP variant thing that solves EO with the F2B through pseudo pairs. Here are the steps:

1. 3x1x1 block on DL

2. Complete a Roux FB and SB and solve EO through pseudo pairs

At this point there are two options. You can either solve FD and BD, then solve COLL and EPLL, or you can solve COLL and solve a super easy L6E. I prefer the first option, but only because I am a CFOP solver. I know the whole “Solve EO through pseudo pairs” thing might sound confusing, so here is an example solve:

Scramble: R2 U2 F2 U2 F2 D L2 U B2 L2 U' B L F' L' D R U2 F2 U' B

Solution:
z2 U F2 L U' L' // 3x1x1
R' U' R u R' // DR + some EO
r2 R' U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R' // FR Pseudo-Pair
u2 U r2 U' R2 U R2 U' R' U R M2 U' y R U2 R' d' L' U L // FL Pseudo-Pair + lots of EO
U' M' U2 M' U2 // F2L
r U R' U' r' F R F' // COLL
U F2 U' M' U2 M U' F2 // EPLL

High movecount cuz I don't have a cube with me, I had to use alg.cubing.net, and it's hard to be efficient.


----------



## Renox (Jan 23, 2016)

New(I think) Roux variant:
1. FB
2.SB
3. Place the UL and UR edges on the U layer
4.CMLL
5.Permute and Orient the UL and UR edges
6. EOPMS(Edge Orientation and Permutation of Middle Slice)? Not sure how many algs

Pros:
No idea lol
Cons:
High Alg Count?
Isn't Roux


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 23, 2016)

Renox said:


> New(I think) Roux variant:
> 1. FB
> 2.SB
> 3. Place the UL and UR edges on the U layer
> ...



This is just sandwich and it sucks (both for alg count and movecount and recognition)

Also,


> *Isn't Roux*



How is this a pro?


----------



## sqAree (Jan 23, 2016)

Well, he told it is a con actually.


----------



## Renox (Jan 23, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> This is just sandwich and it sucks (both for alg count and movecount and recognition)
> 
> Also,
> 
> ...


Of course it sucks lol, I made it purely for fun and not for actual speedsolving(you could, but it would be really bad).
And "Isn't Roux" is in the cons?...


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 23, 2016)

Renox said:


> Of course it sucks lol, I made it purely for fun and not for actual speedsolving(you could, but it would be really bad).
> And "Isn't Roux" is in the cons?...



Oh yeah I didn't see the cons cause I thought you would have broken the pros and cons apart. My mistake.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 13, 2016)

*L10P - A new alternative to LS/LL*

So everyone knows that CFOP, Petrus and ZZ, among other popular methods use an F2L/LL system. Essentially, one solves the first two layers of the cube, and then solves the final layer most often using two algorithms. Here is what I propose:

1. F2L-1
2. L5E
This style of last five edges would use mainly F, R and U moves to quickly solve the last five edges. This would require quite a few algs, so the best method I could think of was to quickly orient then permute the edges using two short algs.
3. L5C
Last five corners is quite a few algs, and you can learn it entirely if you want, but I propose using an orient-permute method like the edges.

Why is this better than LS/OLL/PLL?

I don't know if it is, but it might be. This method is essentially a 4-look LS/LL, compared to CFOP's 3-look LS/LL, but if you were to learn many algs, you could have a 2-look LS/LL. Honestly I think it would be best to use only some very fast cases.

I'll update this after I've generated the algs. I'm generating these for fun, and because some cases might be useful.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 13, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> So everyone knows that CFOP, Petrus and ZZ, among other popular methods use an F2L/LL system. Essentially, one solves the first two layers of the cube, and then solves the final layer most often using two algorithms. Here is what I propose:
> 
> 1. F2L-1
> 2. L5E This style of last five edges would use mainly F, R and U moves to quickly solve the last five edges. This would require quite a few algs, so the best method I could think of was to quickly orient then permute the edges using two short algs.
> ...



How is this different from M-CELL?

Edit: oh I see you don't have the last edge in DF but it's still pretty much MGLS.

Also, it's better to do Corners->edges because you have more symmetries as he corners have worse algs and recognition.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 13, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> How is this different from M-CELL?
> 
> Edit: oh I see you don't have the last edge in DF but it's still pretty much MGLS.
> 
> Also, it's better to do Corners->edges because you have more symmetries as he corners have worse algs and recognition.



Yep, I just realized it's basically MGLS.


----------



## Renox (Feb 15, 2016)

ABM( A Bad Method):
1. Make an x-cross but with only a corner piece, not a pair.
2.Solve the other three pairs
3.Orient and permute the remaining corners
4.L5E


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 16, 2016)

Renox said:


> ABM( A Bad Method):
> 1. Make an x-cross but with only a corner piece, not a pair.
> 2.Solve the other three pairs
> 3.Orient and permute the remaining corners
> 4.L5E



R U serious bro?


----------



## Renox (Feb 17, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> R U serious bro?


Oh,my bad, I just realised how similar it was to your previous idea. Sorry, didn't even see yours lol.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 17, 2016)

Renox said:


> Oh,my bad, I just realised how similar it was to your previous idea. Sorry, didn't even see yours lol.



No, that isnt the problem, its just that its a really bad method lol


----------



## Renox (Feb 17, 2016)

Renox said:


> ABM( A Bad Method)


lolz.


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 17, 2016)

How many algs would this 2x2 method need?
1) orient corners (U and D faces should only have opposite colored stickers)
2) solve everything with an alg


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 17, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> How many algs would this 2x2 method need?
> 1) orient corners (U and D faces should only have opposite colored stickers)
> 2) solve everything with an alg



That's just Guimond. 23 algs.


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 17, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> That's just Guimond. 23 algs.


According to this, actual Guimond has more steps than what I proposed


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 17, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> According to this, actual Guimond has more steps than what I proposed



Oh I see. So for your method would you use ss algs to orient, but then a huge number of algs to permute.


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 18, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Oh I see. So for your method would you use ss algs to orient, but then a huge number of algs to permute.



Why SS? There doesn't need to be 3/4 layer oriented.


----------



## 2180161 (Feb 18, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Why SS? There doesn't need to be 3/4 layer oriented.



3^7 for orientation. sooo way too many.
also, 8! for the final step. It could be reduced by using Guimond algs (orient faces, and then PBL)


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 18, 2016)

2180161 said:


> 3^7 for orientation. sooo way too many.
> also, 8! for the final step. It could be reduced by using Guimond algs (orient faces, and then PBL)



Divided by 4 for each alg because AUF. 
EDIT how much can we reduce orientation alg count if we allowed for rotations to minimise case count? Seems like a scramble could be many cases at once.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 18, 2016)

A mix of Roux and ECE/SSC:

1. Solve 2 adjacent E-slice edges and orient two corners and one yellow/white edge (in between the corners) and place these oriented pieces under the E-slice edges
Moves: ~5
Exec. time: 1 second
2. Place an oriented white/yellow edge in DL
Moves: ~2
Exec. time: 0.5 seconds
3. Solve the remaining E-slice edges by pairing them up with oriented corners and inserting them
Moves: ~10
Exec. time: 2 seconds
4. Recognize OCLL, then solve EO and OCLL in one look
Moves: ~15
Exec. time: 3 seconds
5. Solve the F2B along with CMLL (during the last corner insertion you permute all corners)
Moves: ~18
Exec. time: 4 seconds
6. Permute the last six edges
Moves: ~7
Exec. time: 2 seconds

Total moves: ~57 (not that great lol)
Exec. time: 12.5 seconds

Wow this is actually really bad XD


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 18, 2016)

turtwig said:


> Would it actually be that huge? There are 6 cases for solving corners into the right layer and 9 PBL cases, so there wouldn't be too many cases if you "combined" them.



I think you would have something like 8!/4/4/2/2/2=315 though I'm sure you can find more ways to reduce alg count than the ones I thought of (mirrors/aufs/inverses).


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 18, 2016)

Lately I've been looking at a sort of Roux-CFOP hybrid. I've been trying to learn Roux lately, and realized that, though there is a lot of freedom in blockbuilding, you almost always end SB by inserting an F2L style pair; this method tries to make use of that. Here are the substeps in outline:

1) FB
2) SB (up to last pair)
3) Place last slot while permuting corners
4a) Use <M,U> to orient D edges
4b) Use a modified OLL alg set (doesn't affect corner permutation) to orient LL
5) LSE, with edges oriented from step 4

The idea here is that, since making the last pair involves mostly M slice moves, which doesn't disturb corner permutation, I could potentially identify the CP case ahead of time while placing the last slot, and then the OLL would allow me to skip the EO recognition/halfstep. Further, OLL has easier recognition than CMLL imo, so the transition into step 4 would be smoother (though the CP recognition for step 3 could be a bit of a pain, so it's hard to say how this would pan out in practice).
Step 4a (orienting D edges) on average takes only 2-3 moves, and can be affected during the placement of the last pair, so I don't think it'd take much time, and about half of the standard OLL algs don't affect corner permutation anyway (i.e. variants on sune/asune & doublesexy), so step 4b should not be too bad.

I also learned yesterday that CP isn't affected by <R,U>, so I'm wondering if it'd be possible to identify the corner case while building the SB, eliminating some of the delay in recognizing the proper CP case when placing last slot.

I've made a webpage that explains the method in detail with algs that I've generated and diagrams explaining them.
What do you guys think?


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 18, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Lately I've been looking at a sort of Roux-CFOP hybrid. I've been trying to learn Roux lately, and realized that, though there is a lot of freedom in blockbuilding, you almost always end SB by inserting an F2L style pair; this method tries to make use of that. Here are the substeps in outline:
> 
> 1) FB
> 2) SB (up to last pair)
> ...



This is like Briggs and B2 but the CP step is in a different place so makes the recognition slower and much more difficult. I think it's also better to do the EO with LSE because you can cancel moves and combine certian steps so is better for that.

TL;DR, have a look at my sig and don't split up EO.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 19, 2016)

What makes the recognition more difficult than the CP in Briggs/B2? I was thinking that you could recognize it while forming SB.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 19, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> What makes the recognition more difficult than the CP in Briggs/B2? I was thinking that you could recognize it while forming SB.



The recognition itself is not more difficult though in Briggs/B2, you can do it in inspection so removing the recognition time as the recognition for CP can be difficult. Especially while doing SB. You could try doing it like NCPB 2.0 though that method does have the same weakness. In other words, the recognition is not necessarily harder or more difficult, but you can do it in inspection for Briggs/B2 so eliminating the downsides


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 20, 2016)

Hey guys, would this work?

So I don't know much about magnets and how they work, but I know magnets with opposite polarities attract, and magnets with the same polarity push each other away. So what if someone made a cube with pieces coated with a metal that had some polarity? This would mean the pieces wouldn't touch, so turning would be effortless, would make no sound and corner cutting would be very easy. Also, if the magnets were strong enough, lockups would be impossible since the pieces couldn't catch on each other.

Sorry if this is stupid and wouldn't work, I don't know the first thing about magnet physics or whatever. Just an idea.


----------



## Renox (Feb 20, 2016)

So uh, what if you used a last slot method which permutes the edges with petrus, so that it would result in L4C.The recog for the LS method wouldn't be very good, but it's a 1LLL 
Also, quite a few algs


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 20, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, would this work?
> 
> So I don't know much about magnets and how they work, but I know magnets with opposite polarities attract, and magnets with the same polarity push each other away. So what if someone made a cube with pieces coated with a metal that had some polarity? This would mean the pieces wouldn't touch, so turning would be effortless, would make no sound and corner cutting would be very easy. Also, if the magnets were strong enough, lockups would be impossible since the pieces couldn't catch on each other.
> 
> Sorry if this is stupid and wouldn't work, I don't know the first thing about magnet physics or whatever. Just an idea.



I'm pretty sure this already exists. It wouldn't turn very well because you would need magnets on every cubie to keep the cube together. The centres would have strong magnets so you can rotate the layers, while the edges and corners would have weaker magnets. This would be quite bumpy because you would have to break apart each magnet bond to rotate. I guess a better way to do it would be to keep the same cube design we have on current cubes and replace screws with magnets. Popping would be an issue unless the magnet was really strong but then turning would be harder. Also cubes would be quite a bit more expensive. 



Renox said:


> So uh, what if you used a last slot method which permutes the edges with petrus, so that it would result in L4C.The recog for the LS method wouldn't be very good, but it's a 1LLL
> Also, quite a few algs



L4C is pretty bad in general.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 20, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I'm pretty sure this already exists. It wouldn't turn very well because you would need magnets on every cubie to keep the cube together. The centres would have strong magnets so you can rotate the layers, while the edges and corners would have weaker magnets. This would be quite bumpy because you would have to break apart each magnet bond to rotate. I guess a better way to do it would be to keep the same cube design we have on current cubes and replace screws with magnets. Popping would be an issue unless the magnet was really strong but then turning would be harder. Also cubes would be quite a bit more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> L4C is pretty bad in general.



You didn't understand. My idea was to have a regular core, but the pieces push AWAY from each other. This means there is no contact between pieces.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 20, 2016)

One potential worry though I think is that with magnets that thin, what'll end up happening is they'll repel when directly across from each other, but then in the middle of a turn once they're lying basically adjacent to each other they'd attract, since the front side of the edge of each magnet would be attracted to the backside of the edge of the opposing magnet.

Then again, I don't know too much about magnets either. It'd be pretty awesome though if you could get a "hover-cube" of sorts like that.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 20, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> You didn't understand. My idea was to have a regular core, but the pieces push AWAY from each other. This means there is no contact between pieces.





Teoidus said:


> One potential worry though I think is that with magnets that thin, what'll end up happening is they'll repel when directly across from each other, but then in the middle of a turn once they're lying basically adjacent to each other they'd attract, since the front side of the edge of each magnet would be attracted to the backside of the edge of the opposing magnet.
> 
> Then again, I don't know too much about magnets either. It'd be pretty awesome though if you could get a "hover-cube" of sorts like that.



If the magnets repel then how would it stay together? I'm pretty sure the pieces wouldn't float, they would just fall off.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 20, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> If the magnets repel then how would it stay together? I'm pretty sure the pieces wouldn't float, they would just fall off.



I think he means take a core and put magnets in the pieces.

Bad idea anyway imo unless you can completely magnetise the whole siflde ot wouldn't sit in the normal position very well.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 21, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I think he means take a core and put magnets in the pieces.
> 
> Bad idea anyway imo unless you can completely magnetise the whole siflde ot wouldn't sit in the normal position very well.



Well if all pieces are being pushed away with the same force they will sit squarely with no instability. Yeah, my idea was for a cube to have a normal core, with the pieces hooking onto the core, then all pieces are being pushed away from each other so that they cannot touch. With this, lockups would be impossible since pieces couldn't catch, at least externally. Internal lockups would be possible, but I don't think that really happens on 3x3s.


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 21, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Well if all pieces are being pushed away with the same force they will sit squarely with no instability. Yeah, my idea was for a cube to have a normal core, with the pieces hooking onto the core, then all pieces are being pushed away from each other so that they cannot touch. With this, lockups would be impossible since pieces couldn't catch, at least externally. Internal lockups would be possible, but I don't think that really happens on 3x3s.



Except that if you misalign a layer (for example, when executing a turn), all of a sudden, your perfect repulsion is gone, and the pieces can touch quite easily. As Teoidus said, when the magnets don't align perfectly, not only can they touch, there are certain alignments for which they will attract each other rather than repelling (magnetic fields are weird).


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 21, 2016)

supercavitation said:


> Except that if you misalign a layer (for example, when executing a turn), all of a sudden, your perfect repulsion is gone, and the pieces can touch quite easily. As Teoidus said, when the magnets don't align perfectly, not only can they touch, there are certain alignments for which they will attract each other rather than repelling (magnetic fields are weird).



Oh okay. Oh well. I wasn't really sure how it would work, and apparently it wouldn't.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 21, 2016)

Also it may be pretty weird to have a frictionless cube, now that I come to think of it--theoretically, if you flicked any face it would never stop turning...


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 22, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Also it may be pretty weird to have a frictionless cube, now that I come to think of it--theoretically, if you flicked any face it would never stop turning...



Lol air causes resistance...


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 22, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Lol air causes resistance...



Still not that much. It could keep spinning for quite a while.

Have a look at the mini maglev tracks


----------



## unsolved (Feb 22, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Also it may be pretty weird to have a frictionless cube, now that I come to think of it--theoretically, if you flicked any face it would never stop turning...



Yeah, with a perfectly frictionless cube, you could solve the energy crisis


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 22, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Still not that much. It could keep spinning for quite a while.
> 
> Have a look at the mini maglev tracks



Yeah, it would spin for a while, maybe up to 5 seconds, but not forever.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 23, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Yeah, it would spin for a while, maybe up to 5 seconds, but not forever.


I actually think more than that because the drag really wouldn't be very much.

The maglev tracks can go for absolutely ages and carts made with ball bearings (even those that have a tiny it of friction) can go for a long time.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Feb 27, 2016)

I'm trying to come up with and efficient method fof solving the 3x3...wish me luck


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 27, 2016)

Look at all the methods which have been created or proposed.

I should have done more intially but I think I did a fairly good job considering.

Also, if you really want to create a new method, make sure it has some new(ish)/ variant on standard methods before proposing

Things to avoid:
Belt
Freefop
Most LS/LL methods though there may be some potential

Things to look up:
CFOP
Roux
Heise
Tripod
Petrus
The stuff in my sig
ZZ
ZB
Human thistletwaite/ vanilla thistletwaite
NCPB 2.0
Kociemba
FMC techniques

Hope this helps! 

Sent from my M1005D using Tapatalk


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 28, 2016)

So, I'm sure this has been looked into before, but I can't seem to find evidence of it anywhere: what prevents one from inventing a 2step method for 2x2x2 where you orient everything, then permute everything?


----------



## Kudz (Feb 28, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> So, I'm sure this has been looked into before, but I can't seem to find evidence of it anywhere: what prevents one from inventing a 2step method for 2x2x2 where you orient everything, then permute everything?



This is extension of Guimond I think. I don't remember name
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I WROTE MY THREAD I NEEDED ONLY 2 MONTHS XDDDD


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 28, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> So, I'm sure this has been looked into before, but I can't seem to find evidence of it anywhere: what prevents one from inventing a 2step method for 2x2x2 where you orient everything, then permute everything?


Because the alg set for permutation is monstrous and recog isn't great.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Feb 28, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> So, I'm sure this has been looked into before, but I can't seem to find evidence of it anywhere: what prevents one from inventing a 2step method for 2x2x2 where you orient everything, then permute everything?



Because it's a massive amount of algs to generate and no one really use Guimond enough to get that far into it.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 29, 2016)

How massive are we talking, like ZBLL massive or like, actually thousands and thousands of algs? Could it be doable?


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 29, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> How massive are we talking, like ZBLL massive or like, actually thousands and thousands of algs? Could it be doable?



About 8!/16/2=1260 algs
or 630 if you include inverses.


----------



## Attila (Feb 29, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> How massive are we talking, like ZBLL massive or like, actually thousands and thousands of algs? Could it be doable?




In my opinion, enough to know the usual Guimond orientation algs,
and 2x14 algs for permutation.
Just to do "V pattern" on both opposite faces during orientation,
which will reduce the permutation cases.
A few useful algs here: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/VOP_Method


----------



## DELToS (Feb 29, 2016)

*Tree(3) 3x3 method*

Okay so I made a 3x3 method a long time ago (actually it was in November 2015) and just finished it now. First of all the name, I named it Tree3 but remembered that Tree(3) was a number so I renamed it to that for fun.
So, the steps.

1) Solve F2L minus the cross

2) CELL (Corners of the Last Layer without regards to edges on the top and bottom layers)

3) Bottom layer edges

4) ELL

So now an example solve:

R2 F2 D B2 U' R2 F2 D R B' F U L' F' D2 L2 B2 U' L2 B'

Inspection: z2

1 - D2 U R' D F2 U Rw2 D2 R'

2 - Rw U R' U' Rw' F R F'

3 - M' U' M y' M' U2 M y' M' U M

4 - M2 U' M U M' U M' U' M' U' M' U M

Pros - 
low move count (if you pretend M is 1 move)
fairly intuitive (for the first half)
1st step can be done very quickly and efficiently if you practice it a lot
very few rotations

Cons - 
59 total algs, although you may already know some of them
it takes a lot of practice to get the 1st step really fast


----------



## sqAree (Feb 29, 2016)

I think you don't necessarily have to do steps 3 and 4 as bottom layer edges, then ELL.
Just solve LEE Roux style similar to SSC but with EO first?


----------



## supercavitation (Feb 29, 2016)

DELToS said:


> Okay so I made a 3x3 method a long time ago (actually it was in November 2015) and just finished it now. First of all the name, I named it Tree3 but remembered that Tree(3) was a number so I renamed it to that for fun.
> So, the steps.
> 
> 1) Solve F2L minus the cross
> ...



This is a slightly less efficient PCMS.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 18, 2016)

*new method brainstorm*

Speaking of alternative methods... anyone do petrus 2x2x2 the the cross to make Xcross really easy?
Anyone have a Hybrid method they use or think would be usable to make a method really streamlined? just shout it out here, Im all ears(or eyes, or... computer screens? Idk anymore)


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 19, 2016)

Pika****** is a sort of Roux/Petrus hybrid, if that's the kind of thing you're looking for.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 19, 2016)

*hybrid method idea--Prius Method*

Okay, so after learning Fridrich and Roux, I think I have come up with an interesting hybrid method. one that may even use fewer moves than Either one, and be faster. It is a combo of a roux-style LSE(cause Fridrich LL isn't too move-efficient) and a Fridrich F2L. If you have a Name for it(for now its called the Prius Method-- cause its a Hybrid)
steps:
*Step 1:SemiCross* during inspection, visualize how to solve a cross on the bottom layer(or left or top, etc.). Well, not exactly. First get two white solved pieces opposite each other(really easy to visualize during inspection). and then instead of solving the other two cross pieces, orient and place any yellow or white edge(the easiest one is usually best). This is nice because it often requires less time and less moves than a normal cross

*Step 2:Intuitive Fridrich F2L* Solve the F2L any way you want(or can)

*Step 3: Orient last layer and permute corners* Remember your 2-look OLL's and your Corner-switching PLLs(2, maybe 3 cases--easy to remember)

*Step 4: Roux-style LSE* Hold your cube as if you had just done Roux.Since you have oriented all the edges on the cube(That's why we did that 2-look OLL earlier, and that SemiCross-- so we skip the most annoying ministep of LSE) If you need help with this, go look at Gilles Roux's website Replacing LL with LSE does away with the fincky fridrich method last layer and also shortens the beginning steps, because two of the edge's position doesn't matter, just their orientation.

*Variation*: If you aren't bothered by the top corners not being permuted during LSE, you can to that corner permutation after you have done LSE. It might be faster, who knows?


----------



## Aiminer357 (Mar 20, 2016)

*12POw! Method - Dumbest idea I thought of*

Hello! I came up with another method to solve the cube and it is quite ridiculous.

Ask any non-cuber how do they think the cube is solved. They will most likely answer side by side, not layer by layer. I thought of this and I want to put it to the test. I tried solving the cube face by face and came up with this ridiculous method. It is called 12PO. 12POw! just makes it sound cooler.

12PO stands for:

1st face: Solve one face like solving First layer on LBL.
2nd face: Solve second face. Slightly harder but possible with a few basic algs.
Permutation: Permute the remaining five edges and two corners.
Orientation : Orient the remaining edges and corners.

The first and second step can be combined. You could do F2L but only insert two F2L pairs and insert the other corners faster. OR you could make 2x2x3 block and then build the two faces at the same time.

Permutation and Orientation can be swapped to make it easier (or not). I did permutation first because orienting pieces on different faces is hard(for ZZ users is a lot easier).

And finally the parity. To solve it you need to stand on a chair and punch the air while saying 1! 2! POW!

So my method works but not amazingly. Unless somebody wants to try it out? Maybe generate the algs for it? Improve on it?

I may work on it a bit more and do some practice runs. Who knows? It might be great.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Okay, so after learning Fridrich and Roux, I think I have come up with an interesting hybrid method. one that may even use fewer moves than Either one, and be faster. It is a combo of a roux-style LSE(cause Fridrich LL isn't too move-efficient) and a Fridrich F2L. If you have a Name for it(for now its called the Prius Method-- cause its a Hybrid)
> steps:
> *Step 1:SemiCross* during inspection, visualize how to solve a cross on the bottom layer(or left or top, etc.). Well, not exactly. First get two white solved pieces opposite each other(really easy to visualize during inspection). and then instead of solving the other two cross pieces, orient and place any yellow or white edge(the easiest one is usually best). This is nice because it often requires less time and less moves than a normal cross
> 
> ...



This is a method which is proposed by virtually every single new cuber at some point. Its less efficient than roux (due to lack of blockbuilding) with less fingertrickability and the OLL in the middle means more pauses for recognition than either roux or CFOP meaning you would need even higher tps as well as learning more algs than either. Also, the EO step in LSE is actually quite nice as it means you can do a lot of UL/UR shortening in it with far less moves than a standard OLL (and it's 2-gen. And lookahead is much nicer.)

Lastly, if you want efficiency, just build the Roux block. The "semi-cross" you descibe is what is done for second block anyway because it make lookahead slightly easier but it ideas efficient. In addition, non permuted corners would make it far less efficient than the method already is as that mean you would need to finish on a PLL so you would still have all the pauses of a 3-LLL CFOP solve as well as the algs. The only way you could really rectify that is if you used OLLCP and that is also a lot of algs (300+ IIRC).




> Hello! I came up with another method to solve the cube and it is quite ridiculous.
> 
> Ask any non-cuber how do they think the cube is solved. They will most likely answer side by side, not layer by layer. I thought of this and I want to put it to the test. I tried solving the cube face by face and came up with this ridiculous method. It is called 12PO. 12POw! just makes it sound cooler.
> 
> ...



I experimented with something similar a while ago and, while being a fun method with a potentially low movecount, the algs needed foe the last two steps are unfortunately pretty terrible and solving the the last 1x1x3 can be pretty hard to do intuitively. But cool idea nonetheless.


----------



## Berd (Mar 20, 2016)

Square one method: 

Cubeshape
Bottom layer 
Cp Parity or PLL
Epll (1/2 the time)


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 20, 2016)

Berd said:


> Square one method:
> 
> Cubeshape
> Bottom layer
> ...


Isn't this basically Roux 'n' screw?

Also, if you do PLL why would you do EPLL? Do you mean CPLL+parity?


----------



## Berd (Mar 20, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Isn't this basically Roux 'n' screw?
> 
> Also, if you do PLL why would you do EPLL? Do you mean CPLL+parity?



I'll look into detail on Roux n' Screw, This was the intermediate version proposed, with full LL at around 44 LL algs with the beginner being around 8.


----------



## Aiminer357 (Mar 20, 2016)

Here is a link for a detailed explanation on this method. I will continue to update it when I have the time

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1buKjGjfWu4KF65IQJCwwsZn5Q6Nm2w231sryMMIBVd0/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## willtri4 (Mar 21, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Isn't this basically Roux 'n' screw?
> 
> Also, if you do PLL why would you do EPLL? Do you mean CPLL+parity?



This is more like an intermediate Baum-Harris LBL than Roux n Screw. And EPLL is for if you don't have parity so you don't have to learn all the parity plls

Also:


----------



## Mohammadahmadi (Mar 23, 2016)

hi. imagine we can always predict a 14 move solution (made of two steps first step is 5move and second is 9move) for 2x2 cube.
what will be our average in this way?


----------



## PurpleBanana (Mar 23, 2016)

Mohammadahmadi said:


> hi. imagine we can always predict a 14 move solution (made of two steps first step is 5move and second is 9move) for 2x2 cube.
> what will be our average in this way?



It depends how fast you turn.


----------



## IQubic (Mar 23, 2016)

Mohammadahmadi said:


> hi. imagine we can always predict a 14 move solution (made of two steps first step is 5move and second is 9move) for 2x2 cube.
> what will be our average in this way?



This is called one-looking. Many advanced 2x2 solves already do this. Chris Olsen has a tutorial on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfPqeBWqQT8


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 25, 2016)

I have a few new ideas for methods. PM me if your interested, Cube Explorer sucks for generating Algs.
1. My original method that doesn't have a name. Here are the steps:
Spoiler: Make 2 2x2x2 blocks on completely opposite sides of the cube, while orienting edges. The best way to do this is make the first one in FUL, do a x2, solve a 1x2x2 part of the next block, line it up with the other block and orient edges like Petrus, then finish the block and do and x2 again. Next, per mute the corners using and algorithm, maybe 1-3 if there are too many. Then orient them using an alg. Lastly, per mute the edges. Done.

2. Something I call Reverse Keyhole, or MK (Mossey Keyhole). Steps are:
Spoiler: Solve EO and E-slice -1 edge. Next, solve the rest of the D layer -1 corner. Finally, use the new ZZ LL method posted by 4Chan to finish it off (I think it's called ZZ-HW). The Algs haven't been generated for it, though. You can also use WV then PLL, just pairing the last corner if the last E slice edge, even if they don't match.

Never used spoilers before, so if they don't work, whatever.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I have a few new ideas for methods. PM me if your interested, Cube Explorer sucks for generating Algs.
> 1. My original method that doesn't have a name. Here are the steps:
> 
> 
> ...


For this method, cube explorer doesn't suck for the algs, the algs themselves suck. The pieces are all in the wrong places for the algs to be nice. Also, the alg count is pretty high considering you essentially have a 3LLL with no real lookahead for this part of the solve especially considering the recognition for some of these algs will be horrible as the pieces are not in nice places either. This will really not be nice for the edges especially.

Also, permutation first is almost never a good idea as it can be difficult to identify cases. I am also not a fan of introducing rotation as a necessary part of the solve (at least knowing you have to do a rotation- especially double rotations and half turns.)



> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the belt method essentially but no double OLL/PLL. It is a slight improvement and could be ok in the same way triangular fransico is but really, it's never nice to solve pieces directly when you have other pieces in the way.

I will say it does have some spots where it has promise though i think it does need some work first. Perhaps you could develop a nice way to solve the first layer then it could be a viable method.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 25, 2016)

> For this method, cube explorer doesn't suck for the algs, the algs themselves suck. The pieces are all in the wrong places for the algs to be nice. Also, the alg count is pretty high considering you essentially have a 3LLL with no real lookahead for this part of the solve especially considering the recognition for some of these algs will be horrible as the pieces are not in nice places either. This will really not be nice for the edges especially.
> 
> Also, permutation first is almost never a good idea as it can be difficult to identify cases. I am also not a fan of introducing rotation as a necessary part of the solve (at least knowing you have to do a rotation- especially double rotations and half turns.)



I 100% agree with you on everything, was more of an experimental method for fun. Just wanted to see how a different approach on block building would turn out. As for the cube rotation, I am not a fan of them and never will be, it was just the easiest way I found.



> This is the belt method essentially but no double OLL/PLL. It is a slight improvement and could be ok in the same way triangular fransico is but really, it's never nice to solve pieces directly when you have other pieces in the way.
> 
> I will say it does have some spots where it has promise though i think it does need some work first. Perhaps you could develop a nice way to solve the first layer then it could be a viable method.



Again, I also agree, but I literally just read the new ZZ variant by 4Chan and decided to make a quick method utilizing it in about 5 minutes. Also just an experimental idea, though I might try and work on this a little more. Seems it could be decent with a little work (and probably help).


----------



## 4Chan (Mar 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> the new ZZ LL method posted by 4Chan to finish it off (I think it's called ZZ-HW). The Algs haven't been generated for it, though.



ehehe, shucks, I got a mention wowow

Yeah, I stopped generating because of a few bad cases. 

But like, 15% are just conjugated PLL algs.
Greater than 50%ishh are just conjugated ZBLL, so I didn't generate cases because there was no need most of the time LOL


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 25, 2016)

So, adding on to my MK method, I have found a slightly better way to the first layer.
After finishing the first step (EO+E slice -1 edge), place in 2 opposite edges in the first layer. Next, create a 3x1x1 block to add on to it. Insert with an F2 (another F2 in the next step will fix this). Your keyhole has now changed, so keep that in mind. Lastly, create a CE pair like in ZZ and insert this with F2. Now on to ZZ-HW.

Still working on a better way.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 26, 2016)

> But like, 15% are just conjugated PLL algs.
> Greater than 50%ishh are just conjugated ZBLL, so I didn't generate cases because there was no need most of the time LOL


Sucks I never learned full PLL.
Good thing I'm learning ZBLL.
Now everyone is gonna tell me how stupid I am. Lol


----------



## sqAree (Mar 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Sucks I never learned full PLL.
> Good thing I'm learning ZBLL.
> Now everyone is gonna tell me how stupid I am. Lol



And what are you going to do in case of an OLL skip?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 26, 2016)

sqAree said:


> And what are you going to do in case of an OLL skip?



PLL is part of ZBLL...


----------



## sqAree (Mar 26, 2016)

So why is it stupid then?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 26, 2016)

I'm learning full ZBLL before full PLL...
PLL isn't included in the ZBLL Algs in the database, but it's technically part of it. 
I'm learning probably the most complicated last layer solution instead of just a simple 21 alg solution (28 with OLL).
I know 2L PLL though, but it's not that efficient.
Back to new ideas and methods! I feel bad for taking this thread off topic.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 26, 2016)

Here's my idea for a 4x4 method, which basically is just sort of a blown up version of Roux. I'm not sure if it's fast or not, but I've been using it recently and it's a lot of fun to solve with.

1) 2 centers
2) Blockbuild two opposing 1x3x4s to make a 4x4 equivalent of F2B. Doesn't have to be FB->SB, though you can definitely do that if you want.
3) CMLL
4a) Orient edges, ignoring centers. The idea here is to reduce EO to a 4flip, analogous to the arrow case in LSE, like this I've actually stopped doing this step, as I realized it was unnecessary.
4a) Pair up edges using <l, r, U> (there's one extra alg I use for special cases, but otherwise this is easy, since you don't worry about restoring centers)
4b) Solve centers. Currently I'm just using Niklas and it's mirrors/inverses to solve centers 1-2 pieces at a time. I'm sure more efficient algs could be found for this step, including Rachmaninovian's R4 algs for L4C.
4c) LSE (with potential PLL parity).


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 26, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Here's my idea for a 4x4 method, which basically is just sort of a blown up version of Roux. I'm not sure if it's fast or not, but I've been using it recently and it's a lot of fun to solve with.
> 
> 1) 2 centers
> 2) Blockbuild two opposing 1x3x4s to make a 4x4 equivalent of F2B. Doesn't have to be FB->SB, though you can definitely do that if you want.
> ...



This is like stadler and it can be passably fast if you get good at blockbuilding and learn the algs. It's fun so good luck if you decide to continue to use it


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 26, 2016)

I have a cool idea for an algorithm set. Instead of ZBLL, with 493 algorithms, we can use COALL, with 111 Algs. This can be viewed on the wiki. The difference between the two is efficiency. Many methods like FreeFOP, ZZ, and Petrus setup for ZBLL with no Algs, making ZBLL a good choice (for 1LLL). COALL, however, takes advantage of oriented corners, which then results in less Algs. The thing is, the only way to setup for this is to use CFOP and use WV. I feel like COALL could replace ZBLL altogether. So we need something besides WV. 
My idea for the algorithm set I mentioned earlier is to use FreeFOP up to the point where you insert the last edge piece and orient the edges. Instead of orienting edges, we can use an alg set of 28 to orient the corners while inserting the edge.
This isn't the best solution, but it's an idea. There may be a way to set up for this intuitively, like orienting the edges.
I'm not sure how this would work out and even if it is a good idea. But I think it's worth experimenting with.
Let me know what you think.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 26, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> This is like stadler and it can be passably fast if you get good at blockbuilding and learn the algs. It's fun so good luck if you decide to continue to use it



Any good resources available for stadler? Sounds promising.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> I have a cool idea for an algorithm set. Instead of ZBLL, with 493 algorithms, we can use COALL, with 111 Algs. This can be viewed on the wiki. The difference between the two is efficiency. Many methods like FreeFOP, ZZ, and Petrus setup for ZBLL with no Algs, making ZBLL a good choice (for 1LLL). COALL, however, takes advantage of oriented corners, which then results in less Algs. The thing is, the only way to setup for this is to use CFOP and use WV. I feel like COALL could replace ZBLL altogether. So we need something besides WV.
> My idea for the algorithm set I mentioned earlier is to use FreeFOP up to the point where you insert the last edge piece and orient the edges. Instead of orienting edges, we can use an alg set of 28 to orient the corners while inserting the edge.
> This isn't the best solution, but it's an idea. There may be a way to set up for this intuitively, like orienting the edges.
> I'm not sure how this would work out and even if it is a good idea. But I think it's worth experimenting with.
> Let me know what you think.



Maybe instead of orienting corners, you could permute them? Then you would end up with an OLLCP subset.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 27, 2016)

> Maybe instead of orienting corners, you could permute them? Then you would end up with an OLLCP subset.


COALL has less than a third of Algs than OLLCP, and recgonition for permuting first isn't good.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 27, 2016)

You wouldn't use all of OLLCP, just the ones with CP already solved (i'm not sure how many that is, but it's definitely not 3 times more than COALL). The recognition isn't great, true, but it's worth looking at.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 27, 2016)

> You wouldn't use all of OLLCP, just the ones with CP already solved (i'm not sure how many that is, but it's definitely not 3 times more than COALL). The recognition isn't great, true, but it's worth looking at.



So basically OLL that doesn't affect CP. 57 algs or something like that wouldn't be bad, then force an EPLL? Not a bad idea, actually. I can try to generate them, or see if they already exist. As to permute them in the first place, this will add another look... 3LLL is not a good idea. Again, still with COALL.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 27, 2016)

Well, you'll either have 1 look WV + 1 look COALL, or 1 look CPLS + 1 look OLLCP subset. 
Another idea is to solve EP...? You'd probably have to generate an entirely new algset for that, but it coudl be something worth trying.

Edit: I was mistaken actually, you wouldn't have an OLLCP subset, since you'd have to handle EP as well. I don't know how many cases that'd be, but COALL is probably the way to go then.


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 27, 2016)

I know this has been posted before, but I am curious. Is this method feasible? 
EOline (DL and DR)
FB
SB
COLL
EOLSE


Example: 
Scramble: L' F2 U' B2 F2 U B2 U' F2 R2 D U2 F R' B' F' D R2 D R2 B2
y2 M2 F B' R' B D r' M D2// EOline (I'm not efficient)

R U2 B2 R2 U R U R' U2 R U' R U' R2 L' U L U' R U R U2 R' U' R U' L U' R' U L'// F2B (again, I'm not efficient)

F R U R' U' R U' R' U' R U R' F'//COLL

U M U2 M U2 M2//EOLSE
59 STM

Someone more efficient could probably do much better.
alg.cubing.net here


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 27, 2016)

2180161 said:


> I know this has been posted before, but I am curious. Is this method feasible?
> EOline (DL and DR)
> FB
> SB
> ...



This method is actually fairly often suggested, just behind roux/CFOP hybrids and belts.

It's a fun method, I'll concede that. However, it is less efficient that either ZZ or Roux and is because those two methods work for different reasons: Roux works because of free blockbuilding, ZZ works because of easir blockbuilding due to a restricted moveset. Also, COLL is less efficient than CMLL which means the higher movecount F2B is added to a higher movecount COLL to a very slightly more efficient LSE (though I'm still not sure it is worth it.)


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 28, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I have a cool idea for an algorithm set. Instead of ZBLL, with 493 algorithms, we can use COALL, with 111 Algs. This can be viewed on the wiki. The difference between the two is efficiency. Many methods like FreeFOP, ZZ, and Petrus setup for ZBLL with no Algs, making ZBLL a good choice (for 1LLL). COALL, however, takes advantage of oriented corners, which then results in less Algs. The thing is, the only way to setup for this is to use CFOP and use WV. I feel like COALL could replace ZBLL altogether. So we need something besides WV.
> My idea for the algorithm set I mentioned earlier is to use FreeFOP up to the point where you insert the last edge piece and orient the edges. Instead of orienting edges, we can use an alg set of 28 to orient the corners while inserting the edge.
> This isn't the best solution, but it's an idea. There may be a way to set up for this intuitively, like orienting the edges.
> I'm not sure how this would work out and even if it is a good idea. But I think it's worth experimenting with.
> Let me know what you think.



This has been brought up at least a half dozen times in this thread (including by me a while ago). There are some alg lists, but too many of the cases are really bad.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 28, 2016)

Would a method converting F2B to F2L and then doing LL be any good?
also, ZZ seems like it would be the god of one-handed cubing competitions


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 28, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Would a method converting F2B to F2L and then doing LL be any good?
> also, ZZ seems like it would be the god of one-handed cubing competitions



Yeah, apparently literally everyone thinks of the Roux-CFOP hybrid at some point. I tried making it work a bit and ended up writing up some stuff here, but after learning more about Roux I think you're better off not mixing the two.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 28, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Would a method converting F2B to F2L and then doing LL be any good?



Yeah this is always brought up and isn't any better than the vanilla versions of either.



> also, ZZ seems like it would be the god of one-handed cubing competitions



ZZ is OP for one handed but I wouldn't discount Roux as the CMLL and SB are great and the LSE is very good once you get used to the LSE. Pertrus is also good after FB as well. I would probably put the methods as

1) ZZ
2) Roux
3) Petrus
4) CFOP (though if you do eo during F2L it can still be pretty fast although I think FreeFOP may still be better).


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 28, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> ZZ is OP for one handed but I wouldn't discount Roux as the CMLL and SB are great and the LSE is very good once you get used to the LSE. Pertrus is also good after FB as well. I would probably put the methods as
> 
> 1) ZZ
> 2) Roux
> ...



I would argue that it depends heavily on what you do for 2H. I used to use ZZ for OH, but eventually switched to CFOP after Pavan told me to a few dozen times. I dropped 3.5 seconds in a month and a half. I'm more used to CFOP lookahead than I am to ZZ lookahead, and it was slowing me down.

EDIT: tl;dr CFOP can still be great for OH.


----------



## TDM (Mar 28, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Yeah this is always brought up and isn't any better than the vanilla versions of either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know, Petrus' blocks are pretty bad. I'd put them as
1) Roux
2) ZZ
3) CFOP
4) Petrus


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 29, 2016)

TDM said:


> I don't know, Petrus' blocks are pretty bad. I'd put them as
> 1) Roux
> 2) ZZ
> 3) CFOP
> 4) Petrus



Yeah I guess though once you get the blocks and Eo good it could be pretty fast for the last bit. Though if you do Eo during F2L I would completely agree that CFOP is better. I just really don't like doing rotations, especially during OH.

Also, you would put roux before ZZ? I've not seen anyone else do that (for OH)


----------



## 10 Second Cube (Mar 29, 2016)

10 Second Cube. 

That was what we were working on in 1984 - just when the cube tournaments died off. 

About myself. I was a cube pioneer. In 1982 I saw the TV show That's Incredible. This was the first cube contest on TV. It was sponsored by Ideal Toy company. They had the rights to the cube (in the USA or worldwide - not sure) at the time. After seeing the show, I went out and bought a cube the next day. I bought a small keychain cube. It took a week to almost solve it and by week two I figured it out. My genius was actually writing things down in a note book. I quickly figured out some basic algorithms. 

As time went on I was getting faster. Soon I was under two minutes. Heck, some contestants on the TV didn't finish in one minute. I went out and bought a real Rubik's Cube. Soon I broke one minute. I was excited. I wrote a letter to Ideal Toy company asking about the contest. They sent me a newsletter. In the newsletter was a schedule of tournaments. One was scheduled for Burnsville Mall in Minnesota. I was only 14 so I asked my mom to drive me to it. She hadn't a clue what it was. I competed and hit 30.68 seconds. As it was the last tournament in the region and my time the best, I was instantly named champion and would be going to the finals in Hollywood. My life had just changed dramatically. 

Keep in mind in 1982 there was no internet - no collaboration. Until I competed in the contest, I had never met anyone who could solve the cube - much less break one minute. I had my own method - top first, bottom 4 corners, fill in, solve middle and flip last 2 or 4 if necessary. I didn't have all of the algorithms - only the ones I had discovered. I busted my ass trying to get fast for the contest. Just before the contest I had come up with a new method - but it wasn't complete and I wasn't so competent at it (looking at matching and opposing colors). 

I went to the contest as the youngest and least experienced (I only had had a cube for 10 months). And this was my first time to collaborate with anyone. All the guys were great. Very intelligent. Most were self taught. David Maze was overall incredibly smart and focused. David Allen had come up with the using his fingers to spin - single and doubles. We were all in awe when he worked the cube. David was obviously the fastest of us. He won the first contest but lost to last year's champion, Min Thai. From Min Thai we learned how to shorted the middle fill in (hard to explain). Min Thai had won the previous year and had a coach. Min was a college student. David was 19 also. The oldest were the best. 

This was only the second time I had competed. I was totally unprepared. I had a new method but it took an incredible amount of concentration and I couldn't rise to that level in a contest setting. I couldn't break 30 seconds when competing. Off camera I hit 16 seconds. Oh, we couldn't use our own cubes. Ideal Toy had a bunch of slightly loosened cubes. We got to choose a few from the bunch to use in the Tournament. Of course our times suffered a lot. I was at 16 to 28 seconds with my cube - but above 30 with the stock cubes. They were stiff and we just weren't used to them. David, with his big burly fingers, was able to adapt more quickly. 

Anyway, I had a LOT of fun and it was vey inspiring. All of us were invited to attend MIT by one of the professors (Min Thai's coach if I remember correctly). Many of us went to MIT. I just couldn't afford it. 

Oh, about half used the CFOP method and half used the corners first method. The top times were all corners first. 

Anyway, back to the 10 second cube. 

We all collaborated at the contest. We spent a few days together having fun at Disneyland, etc. I spent the next six months in deep research on what would be the fastest method. I broke up each stage and tried to estimate how long it would take for each stage if optimized. No matter how I looked at corners first, I couldn't imagine breaking 15 seconds. I had heard about Jeff Varasano's method from other competitors. It was a revelation as we just hadn't thought of just getting the white and blues in flipped (cubes were white opposite blue then). But Jeff's method was only good for low 20 second times. 

Anyhow, the short story is that we came up with the only way to a true 10 second cube (consistently). Sure, I had 8 second times - when the stars, moon and earth happened to align. But consistent 10 second times were just a dream. 

What we came up with was:

Flip top and bottom colors (as per the Fridrich method for the bottom). Didn't matter if opposing colors were mixed. We figured why bother with finishing the top as we could do it when doing the bottom. 
We assumed we would also figure out a way to flip the center pieces when doing the top and bottom. Once all are aligned it is incredibly fast to finish. Sorry, I am not up on the modern cube lingo to give a good description. 

We started developing the algorithms - and our times for the new method were breaking 20 seconds. I thought I would be a professional cubist. Then Ideal Toy company was bought and the show contest cancelled. Then we all went to college and stopped out cubing careers. It was a long while before cube contests started again. 

For us it was different. We had to figure this stuff out on our own - it wasn't about memorizing a bunch of algos - it was about finding them. 

I still think this is the fastest consistent method. 

Also, I highly doubt the 5 or 6 second times. Sure, they are possible in a fluke - or when a buddy 'mixes' the cube for you. If you cut up each section - it just doesn't add up. There are three stages minimum - The 4 edges (and some corners). The other 4 edges. The bottom. Sure, the bottom can be done in one algo - but it still takes 2 - 3 seconds for that algo leaving 3 or 4 for the rest? Hmmmm....


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 29, 2016)

Hello! It's nice to meet a cubing pioneer as always! 

Regarding your method, do you mean something like this:
1) orient U and D pieces (only yellow and white facing up and down) and solve the e-slice (the middle of the cube)
2) separate the U and D pieces (yellow facing down, white facing up)
3) solve the U and D face
?

This method sounds like an early version of the Thistlethwaite Algorithm (and was developed into the human thistlethwaite algorithm by Ryan Heise and I would say that one of my methids (SSC) is probably the spiritual succesor/ improvement to those methods).

With regards to your scepticism of the times in the 4-6 second range, they are not the norm no, however, they were set at official competitions where all the scrambles are completely randomised and computer generated. The fastest average anyone has been able to achieve is just below 7 seconds as the average of 100 solves. This is the main reason why the Wca ( the current governing body) registers average of 5 for 3x3 solves to declare winners. The current record for the average of 5 is 6.54 by feliks zemdegs and is a fair bit ahead of any other person ( though less than he used to be- thr time is also the oldest standing record in a tie with MultiBind) and feliks himself is widely regarded as the most successful cuber in history as he also dominated many other events such as all the big cubes and one handed.

Speaking of methods, have you had a look at the modern methods? The most commonly used ones are CFOP, Roux and ZZ in that order.

Sent from my M1005D using Tapatalk


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 29, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I just really don't like doing rotations, especially during OH.



As much as I feel like I'm selling what little bit of soul I've managed to retain when I say this, the rotations aren't bad at all when you get used to them.

If you don't use CFOP for 2H, definitely don't use CFOP for OH, though. Even as someone who uses CFOP for OH, I would argue that it's only better for OH when it means your lookahead and tricks from 2H translate.


----------



## TDM (Mar 29, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Yeah I guess though once you get the blocks and Eo good it could be pretty fast for the last bit. Though if you do Eo during F2L I would completely agree that CFOP is better. I just really don't like doing rotations, especially during OH.


Yep, the last steps of Petrus are fast; it's similar to ZZ, but with guaranteed 2-gen for the last two blocks, whereas with ZZ you sometimes won't get that (although I think most ZZers do solve one block at a time). I think CFOP has the advantage in the earlier stages of the solve though, which is why it could maybe go either way.



> Also, you would put roux before ZZ? I've not seen anyone else do that (for OH)


There are three key things about a good method:
- Efficiency
- Ease of fingertricks (TPS)
- Lookahead

Roux beats ZZ on efficiency easily. I find the fingertricks a lot easier too; not having to do rotations or L moves is really useful. Although FB is horrible OH, EOLine isn't much better. SB>EOF2L for fingertricks, and CMLLs are better than COLLs (on average). LSE and EPLL both have good fingertricks, though I think EPLL is marginally better.

Lookahead is the tricky one to look at. Both methods are rotationless(ish - ZZ can have z rotations), which has its advantages and disadvantages. Although you don't need to keep track of where your next pair/block is while rotating, which can be difficult in CFOP (especially keeping track of orientation of pieces), you do need to know what's in the back. ZZ had BL and BR, and Roux has BL/BR and *BD*. BD is the hardest case since you can't see _either_ sticker, whereas with the other pieces you at least have some information. So rotationlessness is a bit of a disadvantage to both methods, but more Roux than ZZ.

Then there's the question of where the pieces themselves are moving. With CFOP, this is easy: either they're trapped in slots and completely stationary (thus easy to track), or in the U layer and visible. In ZZ, they can switch between the L and R layers. There also are a greater number of places both edges and corners can go in comparison to Roux, and to CFOP (for edges). Furthermore, there's also the fact that this is OH: with Roux your hand only covers solved pieces. With ZZ it can hide some things you need.

With Roux, on the other hand, everything is almost completely limited to being in one of two layers (except for the bit above FB). This does make looking for pieces easier. However the difficulty is greatly increased by edge orientation; with ZZ you don't need to care. You just need to know where the pieces are and you can solve the case. With Roux the edges can be easily flipped with just an Rw move - useful for solving cases, but bad for looking ahead, especially with one edge in the D layer. However with far fewer pieces to be looking for you can concentrate on EO relatively easily, meaning this isn't actually such a bad thing after all. I actually think that only solving five pieces makes lookahead _very_ easy with Roux, especially since it's only really two after you've started solving one block. This is probably the most important point but I can't think of a way of making it more than two sentences. :/

So I think the two methods are about the same with lookahead during F2L/B (Roux maybe having a slight edge), but then that's only half the solve. Looking ahead in ZZ LL is _much_ easier than CFOP LL. However, Roux has CMLL -> LSE, and LSE itself. I'd say this is even easier to look ahead with: I think Kirjava said LSE was "0-look" because so little is being solved at each stage you can see what's coming next easily. One last comment that's almost entirely personal preference: I find it easier learning what effect CxLL has on EO (for CMLL lookahead) than EP (COLL lookahead). You just need to know which edges are effected; with EP, you also need to know _how_ they are effected.

So yeah, you probably didn't want all that, but I didn't want to miss much out.


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 29, 2016)

10 Second Cube said:


> 10 Second Cube.
> 
> That was what we were working on in 1984 - just when the cube tournaments died off.
> 
> ...



Regarding your doubt in the 5 and 6 second times, they are certainly possible, I know from experience. You can't possibly think that the computer generated scrambles are fake. 5, 6 or even 4 second times are definetely possible, if you looked at the time it takes for each phase of the solution, it adds up. I myself have gotten a couple of 6 second times, a result of lucky scrambles of course, but I know consistent 6 second times are possible, and Feliks Zemdegs is already almost there.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 30, 2016)

supercavitation said:


> As much as I feel like I'm selling what little bit of soul I've managed to retain when I say this, the rotations aren't bad at all when you get used to them.
> 
> If you don't use CFOP for 2H, definitely don't use CFOP for OH, though. Even as someone who uses CFOP for OH, I would argue that it's only better for OH when it means your lookahead and tricks from 2H translate.



Yeah but that doesn't mean the method is actually good. It may be better for a specific person but that doesn't mean the method us objectively better. For example, just because rotations "aren't that bad" doesn't mean it wouldn't be better without them.



TDM said:


> So yeah, you probably didn't want all that, but I didn't want to miss much out.



No actually, it was quite nice to read a post where someone actually bothered to completely justify their thought processes.

A little bit shorter would've been nice though (not that I can really talk )


----------



## TDM (Mar 30, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> No actually, it was quite nice to read a post where someone actually bothered to completely justify their thought processes.
> 
> A little bit shorter would've been nice though (not that I can really talk )


Haha, I'll try for next time!

though i've done worse before...
E: some of my opinions on that link have probably changed since then, so I wouldn't bother reading it. I'll edit it if I ever want to use it again at some point.


----------



## supercavitation (Mar 30, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Yeah but that doesn't mean the method is actually good. It may be better for a specific person but that doesn't mean the method us objectively better. For example, just because rotations "aren't that bad" doesn't mean it wouldn't be better without them.



It's certainly good, though I won't argue that it's better than ZZ by any means (I would agree that it's worse in many cases). That second sentence was basically my point. CFOP is certainly better for many people, for the same reasons I got faster when I switched (lookahead and tricks being similar to 2H). I agree that rotationless is better for OH, though I will note that I said they "aren't bad," not that that "'aren't that bad'." I would argue that they don't necessarily hurt the method significantly, as, with practice, they both get significantly faster, and tend to decrease.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

I have an idea that definitely needs work but has potential.
Everybody focuses on making LL variants for ZZ, but what about F2L variants?
So I hate LL because I suck at it, pretty much. Solving it during f2l would be awesome. If you do OLL and PLL for ZZ, there are a total of 29 LL cases because edges are oriented. 7 are OLL. 21 are PLL. Pretty light on the algorithms.
I am not really used to ZZF2L either. I can do one block pretty decently, but I struggle with the other for some reason. 
With all this in mind, I came up with the idea of the DLS technique (Double Last Slot), or L2S (last 2 slots).
This probably has been thought of before, but I thought I would post it anyway because I have several more ideas involving it.
So to set up a DLS, solve the cube with ZZ up to the point where you have I 1x2x3 block and LL left to solve. Solve the last D edge, and pair the last 2 corners and edges. Place the last 2 pairs in the top layer, and they should be adjacent to each other because edges are already oriented. AUF until they are both on the left. Insert the first pair while orienting corners using 1 of 7 algorithms. Insert the second using 1 of 21 algorithms. Cube solved.
Sounds great, right? LL while inserting the last F2L pairs? Probably not because you have probably figured out by now that the recognition sucks. 
I'll work on recognition and post solutions here, otherwise this seems like an okay idea.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Solve the last D edge, and pair the last 2 corners and edges. Place the last 2 pairs in the top layer, and they should be adjacent to each other because edges are already oriented.



This sounds like the hard part. The first pair is easy enough to make, but making the second pair while keeping the first pair in the U layer is nontrivial, especially if the edge is stuck in an inconvenient location. There're also four possible positions (pairs are parallel, pairs are perpendicular, one of the pairs already solved, or F2L skip), not just one.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Insert the first pair while orienting corners using 1 of 7 algorithms. Insert the second using 1 of 21 algorithms.



The first part sounds like WV, except much more constrained and thus less efficient. You actually have more than just eight cases here because the pair forces a particular AUF, and you also have to deal with the orientation of the corner in the second slot.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

> This sounds like the hard part. The first pair is easy enough to make, but making the second pair while keeping the first pair in the U layer is nontrivial, especially if the edge is stuck in an inconvenient location. There're also four possible positions (pairs are parallel, pairs are perpendicular, one of the pairs already solved, or F2L skip), not just one.


It's actually pretty easy, I'll do a video after enough improvement (if any). And there is only one position after both pairs are in the U layer. Bad wording on my part. Sorry.


> The first part sounds like WV, except much more constrained and thus less efficient. You actually have more than just eight cases here because the pair forces a particular AUF, and you also have to deal with the orientation of the corner in the second slot.


It's actually the same constrainment, just seems like more because of recog. And yes, if my math doesn't fail again, there are actually 28 cases, which still isn't absolutely awful. Bad math on my part. And you don't actually have to keep track of the corner in the second slot (if I am correct, I seem to be very wrong lately) because of corner orientation patterns, like you don't have to keep track of the corner in the slot in WV.
Hope I've justified this all.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> And there is only one position after both pairs are in the U layer. Bad wording on my part. Sorry.



R U2 R2 U' R and R U R' U' R' U' R have the pairs in different positions. (Or am I misunderstanding your posts?)



wir3sandfir3s said:


> like you don't have to keep track of the corner in the slot in WV.



Right; I forgot about that. My bad.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

> R U2 R2 U' R and R U R' U' R' U' R have the pairs in different positions. (Or am I misunderstanding your posts?)


Solve with either Petrus or ZZ up to this point, then try making the pairs with the last D edge in place. In the U layer, they should be adjacent to each other and there should be a "T" of unsolved pieces (if that makes any sense). I can upload a picture if you are still confused.


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Solve with either Petrus or ZZ up to this point, then try making the pairs with the last D edge in place. In the U layer, they should be adjacent to each other and there should be a "T" of unsolved pieces (if that makes any sense). I can upload a picture if you are still confused.



So if I understand correctly, you want something like this:
Scramble: L' R F' B' R L' F2 B' L D2 L F R2 L B' D2 U2 R B2 L' U' B' D2 F L

EOline: U R' F' L2 U' B D
First block: R2 U2 R U L U' L U R' U L2
Pairs: R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R
Solve block+orient LL: U2 R U2 R' U2 R' U2 R
PLL: L U L' y R2 u' R U R' U R' u R2 U2
50 HTM (I think, might have mis-counted)


----------



## jjone fiffier (Mar 31, 2016)

Roux/screw variation:

Cubeshape
Left block
Right block
CP+ setting up the last two bottom edges opposite of each other
M2
EPLL

Sometimes you might want to insert the last two edges before CP if they are already opposite.

I have used this as my main method pretty much from the beginning and I average sub-20 with it. It may not be as fast as vandenbergh, but with only 15 algs (may vary depending on how you count) it is a pretty good alternative. I also think I can get down to about 15 with this.

Gesendet von meinem LG-D331 mit Tapatalk


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 31, 2016)

jjone fiffier said:


> Roux/screw variation:
> 
> Cubeshape
> Left block
> ...


Looks cool, how many cases would it be if you did CP+ bottom 2 edges in one go instead of doing CP+M2 setup?


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I have an idea that definitely needs work but has potential...



I think you may like M-CELL or MGLS if you want to influence LL with F2L. CTLS may also be worth looking at.


----------



## jjone fiffier (Mar 31, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Looks cool, how many cases would it be if you did CP+ bottom 2 edges in one go instead of doing CP+M2 setup?


18 algs if I'm correct, but I have no idea how to generate sq1 algs.
But only 18 if you do a 0,6 before some algs, otherwise almost twice as much.

I can do M2 in .3 anyway, so I don't really bother.

Gesendet von meinem LG-D331 mit Tapatalk


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

> I think you may like M-CELL or MGLS if you want to influence LL with F2L. CTLS may also be worth looking at.


Yes I have heard of these, but I am talking about SOLVING LL during F2L.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

2180161 said:


> So if I understand correctly, you want something like this:
> Scramble: L' R F' B' R L' F2 B' L D2 L F R2 L B' D2 U2 R B2 L' U' B' D2 F L
> 
> EOline: U R' F' L2 U' B D
> ...



No, but this isn't a bad idea either.
After the pairs are made, put them both on the left instead of the front like you have it in this solve.
First we insert the back one wile orienting the corners (this will help recog I think) then insert the front one while doing PLL.
28 Corner Orintation cases, haven't done the math for PLL yet.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Yes I have heard of these, but I am talking about SOLVING LL during F2L.



M-CELL solves LL during F2L.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> M-CELL solves LL during F2L.



This solves a larger part of F2L, making it more efficient, if all goes as planned.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> This solves a larger part of F2L, making it more efficient, if all goes as planned.



Not necessarily; the L5E is probably nicer and more ergonomic and you could also just use WVCP instead of COPLS.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Not necessarily; the L5E is probably nicer and more ergonomic and you could also just use WVCP instead of COPLS.



This would not give a total LL skip, if I understand correctly.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> This would not give a total LL skip, if I understand correctly.



It depends on your point of view. After solving M-CELL, you will be able to 1-Look LL/LS.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 31, 2016)

So this isn't really a method, just an idea for CFOP users--couldn't it potentially be good to do a sort of "half EO cross," where you only orient the edges needed to build the F2L while doing your cross? Not sure if this idea's been explored or not, but maybe it could be helpful in particular scrambles where partial EO is really easy to incorporate into the cross solve?


----------



## TDM (Mar 31, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> So this isn't really a method, just an idea for CFOP users--couldn't it potentially be good to do a sort of "half EO cross," where you only orient the edges needed to build the F2L while doing your cross? Not sure if this idea's been explored or not, but maybe it could be helpful in particular scrambles where partial EO is really easy to incorporate into the cross solve?



ZZ-TOP is very similar (only difference is line instead of cross) and probably a bit faster.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 31, 2016)

Well, certainly not something to be consistently used as a method, but maybe just another way to take advantage of lucky scrambles? Like, if you see you can really easily orient all your F2L edges while solving cross, you could do it and potentially remove rotations while still keeping other benefits of CFOP (structured, relatively easy lookahead, mostly 2gen burst tps). Kind of like how with good scrambles you can try and go for x crosses.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 31, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Well, certainly not something to be consistently used as a method, but maybe just another way to take advantage of lucky scrambles? Like, if you see you can really easily orient all your F2L edges while solving cross, you could do it and potentially remove rotations while still keeping other benefits of CFOP (structured, relatively easy lookahead, mostly 2gen burst tps). Kind of like how with good scrambles you can try and go for x crosses.



Sounds like you may want to check out edge control during the whole F2L. Feliks has a video on his channel.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 31, 2016)

Ah, so it's been thought of before. Figures that Feliks would know about it


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 31, 2016)

> just an idea for CFOP users


Alternative F2L technique that skips LL for Petrus, ZZ, and any other method that orient edges before finishing last 2 F2L pairs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 31, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Alternative F2L technique that skips LL for Petrus, ZZ, and any other method that orient edges before finishing last 2 F2L pairs.



If you really want a pure LL skip everytime when doing LS, look up CTLS or ask 4chan about it


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 1, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> If you really want a pure LL skip everytime when doing LS, look up CTLS or ask 4chan about it



Or use this, which has less Algs and solves more of F2L... Lol
Also, for better recog, you only have to keep track of R U F faces. I think this could seriously work


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 1, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> If you really want a pure LL skip everytime when doing LS, look up CTLS or ask 4chan about it



If people are curious about CTLS you can also ask me. I spent a few weeks a while back researching the technique and creative a recognition system.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 1, 2016)

I looked up CTLS on youtube, and it's like, all videos about planes. 

The videos aren't tagged, it's as if the uploader is embarrassed of them or something.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 1, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Or use this, which has less Algs and solves more of F2L... Lol
> Also, for better recog, you only have to keep track of R U F faces. I think this could seriously work



Yeah, this could actually be a really cool method. Too bad I don't use ZZ, this sounds really good... Maybe I can adapt this to CFOP by using algs that solve EO while creating the pairs?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 1, 2016)

we all have these substeps and everything for fridrich and ZZ and such, but does anyone have any substep Ideas for Roux, for example maybe permuting the last 4 corners and orienting the last 6 edges for example, or orienting the lse and solving the L&R sides in one alg?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 1, 2016)

> Yeah, this could actually be a really cool method. Too bad I don't use ZZ, this sounds really good... Maybe I can adapt this to CFOP by using algs that solve EO while creating the pairs?


I don't use ZZ often either, so this is definitely worth finding. Orienting during second pair would be too many Algs. I'll find a way to do it, or maybe we can find it together.



> we all have these substeps and everything for fridrich and ZZ and such, but does anyone have any substep Ideas for Roux, for example maybe permuting the last 4 corners and orienting the last 6 edges for example, or orienting the lse and solving the L&R sides in one alg?


This is really hard to do with Roux, as it is pretty restricted. Shadowslice has made this work very well, however, with his B2 method. An idea that might be cool is to do CP blocks like in B2, then orienting corners so they are solved completely and solve L and R sides to be left with an easy L4E case.


----------



## efattah (Apr 2, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> we all have these substeps and everything for fridrich and ZZ and such, but does anyone have any substep Ideas for Roux, for example maybe permuting the last 4 corners and orienting the last 6 edges for example, or orienting the lse and solving the L&R sides in one alg?



Yes, check out my Roux L6E in 1-Look thread:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?60468-Roux-L6E-in-1-look

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2016)

efattah said:


> Yes, check out my Roux L6E in 1-Look thread:
> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?60468-Roux-L6E-in-1-look
> 
> Eric Fattah
> Vancouver, BC



Cool a fellow vancouverite


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

So I have 2 ideas: an idea for a 2LLL with 11 Algs, which doesn't have an extra look like ZZ-R, and an idea for a really fast F2L and LL (both with decent to amazing recognition). So for the 2LLL, it is basically CP blocks meets FreeFOP. I already have ideas for SEVERAL variations for this, as I think it really can work out. So, let's get into it:
1. Solve the 2 DR and DL edge pieces.
2. Solve either the BR or BL pair.
3. Disorient either the FR or FL edge (FR if your did BL, vice versa) using the M slice (it's most efficient), then create the pair.
4. Place in the DF edge on the F face, ready to be inserted with and F move. 
5. Align the pair with the edge to create a 1x2x2 square and insert with an F move.
Now solve the rest of F2L -1 using R and U moves, and M to orient edges (it doesn't effect corners). This will leave you with 7 corner OLL cases after you insert the last F2L edge, and 1/4 EPLLs. For the OLL, be sure to only use 2-gen.
You can also orient all the edges when inserting the pair to solve CP, similar to the CP+EO variant in my Hawaiian Kociemba tutorial.
My fast LL and F2L method uses my L2S technique I recently posted here. Basically, do the above method and stop after step 5. You should have 2 slots to complete. Insert the last D edge while orient the rest of the edges. You should basically be in a Petrus state with CP. Now do L2S. You should only have to do a 2-gen corner OLL case then a 2-gen EPLL.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 3, 2016)

Can anyone think of a good way to solve the {R2, L2, F2, B2, U, D} group other than orient corners, permute corners, Last Eight Edges?

I can't find a system which seems nicer.


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 3, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Can anyone think of a good way to solve the {R2, L2, F2, B2, U, D} group other than orient corners, permute corners, Last Eight Edges?
> 
> I can't find a system which seems nicer.



Do we need to stick with those restricted moves or is it just a starting position?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 3, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Do we need to stick with those restricted moves or is it just a starting position?



You don't have to but if you can that would be great.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Apr 4, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Can anyone think of a good way to solve the {R2, L2, F2, B2, U, D} group other than orient corners, permute corners, Last Eight Edges?
> 
> I can't find a system which seems nicer.



Here's my attempt:

Step 1: Roux blocks
Step 2: CP
Step 3: LSE with EO

Example Solve:

Scramble: U2 L2 U2 L2 D B2 U' L2 U' F2 U'

FB: x2 L2 U2 F2 D2
SB: R2 U R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 R2
CP: U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'
LSE: M' U2 M U2 M2 U M2 U'


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 4, 2016)

theawesomecuber said:


> Here's my attempt:
> 
> Step 1: Roux blocks
> Step 2: CP
> ...


What if we just ended with PLL? I know you don't want to do this in normal roux but since we already have co and eo we could do.

Scramble: U2 L2 U2 L2 D B2 U' L2 U' F2 U'

FB: x2 L2 U2 F2 D2
SB: R2 U R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 R2
F2L: M' U2 M U M U2 M'
PLL: U' l' U R' D2 R U' R' D R2 B'


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So I have 2 ideas: an idea for a 2LLL with 11 Algs, which doesn't have an extra look like ZZ-R, and an idea for a really fast F2L and LL (both with decent to amazing recognition). So for the 2LLL, it is basically CP blocks meets FreeFOP. I already have ideas for SEVERAL variations for this, as I think it really can work out. So, let's get into it:
> 1. Solve the 2 DR and DL edge pieces.
> 2. Solve either the BR or BL pair.
> 3. Disorient either the FR or FL edge (FR if your did BL, vice versa) using the M slice (it's most efficient), then create the pair.
> ...



Wait, what? So you solve the DR and DL edges, then solve either the BR or the BL pair, then misorient the FL or FR edge and then you build a pair... What pair? The FR/FL pair? And when do you solve CP?


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 4, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> for example maybe permuting the last 4 corners and orienting the last 6 edges



You mean like this?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Wait, what? So you solve the DR and DL edges, then solve either the BR or the BL pair, then misorient the FL or FR edge and then you build a pair... What pair? The FR/FL pair? And when do you solve CP?



Sorry, I screwed up in the first idea, I'll fix that later. Just focus on the second for now, it might be good.
EDIT: Screwed up on both, actually.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 5, 2016)

Alright so I am going to try to fix my recently posted ideas and present a new one, as well as trying to be more organized. They all involve CP so I recommend reading Noah's CP Blocks 2.0 (at least the CP part) before reading this.
*FreeFOP Meets CP Blocks*
This method has a 2LLL with a grand total of 11 algorithms, as well as a fast 2-gen (mostly) F2L.
1. Solve 2 adjacent D edge pieces. I find it easiest to do the front and left ones.
2. Solve the 2 (left) pairs. Since I solved the front and left D edges, I would do the left pairs.
3. CP. Basically the same as you would do it in Noah's CP Blocks 2.0.
4. Finish F2L-1 edge using only 2-gen and M slice for EO.
5. Orient edges as you would normally do for FreeFOP while inserting the last D edge.
6. Finish LL with either a 2-gen corner OLL or a corner OLL that doesn't affect corner permutation. Then do an EPLL and your done.

*Fast and Easy F2L and LL*
1. Solve a 2x2x3 block and leave exactly 2 edges disoriented.
2. Solve CP like Noah's CP Blocks 2.0, and while doing the F' U F algorithm, orient the disoriented edges. I can explain into further detail if needed.
3. Solve the last D edge and use my L2S technique to finish F2L and LL. The PLL pair insertion will have reduced Algs thanks to CP.

*Easy Everything*
This is my favorite because it has a 77 alg 1LLL, which is 1 less alg than OLL and PLL (lol). It also is (hypothetically) pretty move efficient.
1. Solve the left Roux block. EZ
2. Solve CP as you would in Noah's CP Blocks 2.0.
3. Solve right Roux Block.
4. Solve EO and the rest of F2L. You can do this as you normally do in Roux, but my favorite way to do this is to solve FD, then orient the remaining edges and insert the last F2L edge as you would in FreeFOP.
5. 1LLL.
I tried genning the Algs, and I genned about 250k to be reduced so I for sure get 77, but I got 35 because Cube Explorer decided to think that a solved cube is unsolved and genned Algs for that... (Which made up 70-90% of the Algs)
So if someone else can gen these Algs, that would be awesome . Edges are oriented and corners are permuted, 11 EPLLs (1 H perm, 2 Z perm, 8 U perm) multiplied by 7 corner orientations = 77.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 5, 2016)

For "Easy Everything" Algorithms, is it possible that you want https://sites.google.com/site/antoineccantin/2gll?
The Sunes and Anti-Sunes aren't all up though.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 5, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> For "Easy Everything" Algorithms, is it possible that you want https://sites.google.com/site/antoineccantin/2gll?
> The Sunes and Anti-Sunes aren't all up though.


Yeah, is there another place with all Algs?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 5, 2016)

There is also http://lar5.com/cube/xMain.html, but I don't think they are good algorithms.

Also http://docslide.us/documents/2gll-speedcubing-algorithms.html


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 5, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> There is also http://lar5.com/cube/xMain.html, but I don't think they are good algorithms.
> 
> Also http://docslide.us/documents/2gll-speedcubing-algorithms.html


Thanks


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Wait guys, let's not discount this completely. I think it may have some OH potential.
> 
> I would still alter this slightly though.
> 
> ...


 What faces would you do EO for, R&F or R&U, what?
Im a OH petrus solver, but i dabble in ZZ. heck, 2H I dabble in all methods.
but this may be the big break for petrus as a OH method


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 5, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Alright so I am going to try to fix my recently posted ideas and present a new one, as well as trying to be more organized. They all involve CP so I recommend reading Noah's CP Blocks 2.0 (at least the CP part) before reading this.
> *FreeFOP Meets CP Blocks*
> This method has a 2LLL with a grand total of 11 algorithms, as well as a fast 2-gen (mostly) F2L.
> 1. Solve 2 adjacent D edge pieces. I find it easiest to do the front and left ones.
> ...



Are you taking about 2gll for the 1lll?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 5, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Are you taking about 2gll for the 1lll?



I believe so.
Also, for the second one where your orient the edges while doing CP, you can finish F2L completely 2-gen and for the last slot you can phase, so you get either a z or h perm for 2gll, which only requires 21 Algs for 1LLL (2 Z perms + 1 H perm = 3 multiples by 7 corner orientations = 21). This is the same amount of Algs as PLL.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2016)

efattah said:


> Yes, check out my Roux L6E in 1-Look thread:
> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?60468-Roux-L6E-in-1-look
> 
> Eric Fattah
> Vancouver, BC



the problem is the high alg count. for example, I just want an alg set that permutes the corners(2nd look of 2-look corners) and orients the edges


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 5, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I believe so.
> Also, for the second one where your orient the edges while doing CP, you can finish F2L completely 2-gen and for the last slot you can phase, so you get either a z or h perm for 2gll, which only requires 21 Algs for 1LLL (2 Z perms + 1 H perm = 3 multiples by 7 corner orientations = 21). This is the same amount of Algs as PLL.



Actually I believe it's 30 algs. Your method is also really close to zz-f. Although you have a different approach at cp.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 5, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Actually I believe it's 30 algs. Your method is also really close to zz-f. Although you have a different approach at cp.



Still less than the other. I'll check out ZZ-f


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 6, 2016)

I briefly experimented with ZZ-f a while ago (before I learnt that someone else already came up with it and called it ZZ-f!) and I don't think it's really worth it unless you absolutely want to keep the number of algs to learn low. By phasing, you triple the probability of getting a pure corner twist case and you eliminate most of the super-fast 2GLL cases (Sune, double Sune, Bruno, U perm).


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 6, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> I briefly experimented with ZZ-f a while ago (before I learnt that someone else already came up with it and called it ZZ-f!) and I don't think it's really worth it unless you absolutely want to keep the number of algs to learn low. By phasing, you triple the probability of getting a pure corner twist case and you eliminate most of the super-fast 2GLL cases (Sune, double Sune, Bruno, U perm).


Well, it's good to get used to some 2GLL cases while your learning the rest.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 6, 2016)

What about:
EOFB
Separate U/D edges
Orient corners
Finish F2L
PLL

No idea on move-count, but I think it would be fairly efficient. Don't know how many algs either. U/D edges is intuitive, so 21 PLL+x Corner orientation algs.

Thoughts? 

EDIT: 21 PLL + 27 WV for alg count. Create pseudo pairs for separate U/D, and use a WV alg.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 6, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> I briefly experimented with ZZ-f a while ago (before I learnt that someone else already came up with it and called it ZZ-f!) and I don't think it's really worth it unless you absolutely want to keep the number of algs to learn low. By phasing, you triple the probability of getting a pure corner twist case and you eliminate most of the super-fast 2GLL cases (Sune, double Sune, Bruno, U perm).



Perhaps then it'd be better to do a sort of "anti-phasing" where you instead ensure that opposite color edges are never opposite each other?



2180161 said:


> What about:
> EOFB
> Separate U/D edges
> Orient corners
> ...



I actually generated algs for something like this a while back. Dunno how it is, but I'm thinking after learning more of Roux that it might not be worth the trouble to get F2L solved.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Perhaps then it'd be better to do a sort of "anti-phasing" where you instead ensure that opposite color edges are never opposite each other?
> 
> 
> 
> I actually generated algs for something like this a while back. Dunno how it is, but I'm thinking after learning more of Roux that it might not be worth the trouble to get F2L solved.



You could solve your SB using [R2,U,M2], then solve the M-slice portion of the F2L, allowing for look-ahead into PLL, because you can see the permutation of the corners. i.e: Opp swap means you will have one of the following PLLs-Na,Nb,V, or Y.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 6, 2016)

But <R2,U,M2> imo is more awkward than <R,U,M>. The M slice can already very easily change the orientation of edges, so I don't see the need for doing EO that early. FB is tougher to plan, you have an extra step of solving the rest of F2L, and PLL isn't amazingly fast (I think just CMLL + LSE, or OLLCP+LSE if you can would be fine if not better).

I think Roux and CFOP are just two methods that can't really be hybridized in a way that produces something that somehow captures the strengths of both

Edit: Actually, if you're doing EO, it wouldn't be <R2,U,M2> unless the E slice edges have been placed. <R,U,M2> is okay, but I still feel that the method is a bit inconsistent--one of the strengths of Roux is the ability to quickly orient edges with M since you keep it open, but now you are orienting everything first.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> But <R2,U,M2> imo is more awkward than <R,U,M>. The M slice can already very easily change the orientation of edges, so I don't see the need for doing EO that early. FB is tougher to plan, you have an extra step of solving the rest of F2L, and PLL isn't amazingly fast (I think just CMLL + LSE, or OLLCP+LSE if you can would be fine if not better).
> 
> I think Roux and CFOP are just two methods that can't really be hybridized in a way that produces something that somehow captures the strengths of both
> 
> Edit: Actually, if you're doing EO, it wouldn't be <R2,U,M2> unless the E slice edges have been placed. <R,U,M2> is okay, but I still feel that the method is a bit inconsistent--one of the strengths of Roux is the ability to quickly orient edges with M since you keep it open, but now you are orienting everything first.



In what way was this a hybrid of Roux and CFOP? If anything, its a combination of Roux and HTA. My apologies it is <R,U,M2> until the E-slice edges are placed. I can do an example if you like.

EDIT: Here is an example:



Spoiler



Scramble:U2 R2 D2 B2 R2 U2 F2 R F2 L B' L B F U' R2 D R B


D' F R' B' U' R U' R2 L' U L U2 M' r L U' L'// EOFB (I'm not efficient at all, but someone else could definitely do better)

M2 U R' U R' U' R L' U' L U' L' U2 L//Separate U/D and orient corners

R2 U M2 U R2 U2 R2// SB

U M2 U M' U2 M// Finish F2L

R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R2 y' R' U R//PLL

56 STM. I think that the EOFB movecount could be reduced significantly if done properly, as well as the separate U/D +WV when done with actual WV. Still was the same move-count as an average CFOP solve, and this could easily be reduced.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 6, 2016)

I think I see what you mean with Roux + HTA, but I don't think it's comparble. You finish by essentially solving the F2L and performing a PLL alg--that's why it's a CFOP hybrid. You're taking ~8-10 moves to solve F2L and orient corners, but that could just as well have been used to solve CP with CMLL, or even orient edges as well with OLLCP--you don't save moves by reducing to F2L + PLL.

56STM is average for CFOP, but not good for a Roux movecount. In CFOP, you might not be as efficient, but ergonomics are great (2gen pairs), which allow you to get high tps; here, you're sacrificing visibility (M slice not solved), ergonomics (<R,U,M2> is not going to be as fast as <R,U> or <L,U>), and not getting much in exchange.

EO could also be troublesome for color neutrality, as you'd inherit problems from ZZ with edge detection being complex and hard to do on multiple fronts; without that neutrality, you'll be restricted in terms of FB choice and becuase you're trying to orient edges at the same time, can't really blockbuild as effectively. imo the tradeoff just isn't worth it; maybe better would be solving CP, kind of like Noah's CP blocks.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 6, 2016)

2180161 said:


> What about:
> EOFB
> Separate U/D edges
> Orient corners
> ...



Why not go with a variant of SSC where you do the edges like in ECE-EZD? I'm pretty sure that would be more efficient.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 6, 2016)

*3x3 Solving Method: JAM*

The JAM method. It stands for Just Another Method. Original, right?*

Anyway, the steps of the method are as follows-

EOFB- Exactly as it sounds. Orient all edges, and then solve your first block as in the Roux method. Projected Average moves- 15

E-slice+Orient Corners- Again, same as it sounds. Place the E-slice edges and orient corners. I like to do this by creating pseudo pairs with the E-slice edges and inserting the last pair with WV. Projected Average Moves- 14, Number of Algorithms-27

SB- The same as the second step of Roux, however, your moveset is now restricted to <R2,U,M2> Projected average moves-7


Finish F2L- Using <M,U>, solve your F2L, while keeping EO solved. Projected average moves-5

PLL- Final step in CFOP,ZZ,and this method. Average moves-12


Total projected move-count:53**


Pros:


Spoiler



Fairly Efficient
Low Alg count
No extremely difficult concepts to master
<R2,U,M2> is a wonderful subset


Cons:


Spoiler



Not the most efficient
EO can take some getting used to
psuedo-pairs can be a pain to make a habit of.


Example solve: 
Scramble:U2 R2 D2 B2 R2 U2 F2 R F2 L B' L B F U' R2 D R B


D' F R' B' U' R U' R2 L' U L U2 M' r L U' L'// EOFB
M2 U R' U R' U' R L' U' L U' L' U2 L//E-slice+Orient Corners
R2 U M2 U R2 U2 R2// SB
U M2 U M' U2 M// Finish F2L
R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R2 y' R' U R//PLL

I did not use WV in this solve, as I did not know the algorithm, and it ended up being anti-sune anyway. That solve was 54 moves, and things could have been more efficient. Someone else want to give it a try?

*sarcasm 
**Not a certainty


----------



## TDM (Apr 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Perhaps then it'd be better to do a sort of "anti-phasing" where you instead ensure that opposite color edges are never opposite each other?


Yeah, since posting the method ages ago I changed my mind and decided this would be better. Although there are no skips (though you could probably see those anyway,, so you could get them if you wanted) the LL would be much nicer. Yes it's almost double the algs, so actually you might as well be doing full ZZ-d, but it's faster than what I originally suggested.


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I think I see what you mean with Roux + HTA, but I don't think it's comparble. You finish by essentially solving the F2L and performing a PLL alg--that's why it's a CFOP hybrid. You're taking ~8-10 moves to solve F2L and orient corners, but that could just as well have been used to solve CP with CMLL, or even orient edges as well with OLLCP--you don't save moves by reducing to F2L + PLL.
> 
> 56STM is average for CFOP, but not good for a Roux movecount. In CFOP, you might not be as efficient, but ergonomics are great (2gen pairs), which allow you to get high tps; here, you're sacrificing visibility (M slice not solved), ergonomics (<R,U,M2> is not going to be as fast as <R,U> or <L,U>), and not getting much in exchange.
> 
> EO could also be troublesome for color neutrality, as you'd inherit problems from ZZ with edge detection being complex and hard to do on multiple fronts; without that neutrality, you'll be restricted in terms of FB choice and becuase you're trying to orient edges at the same time, can't really blockbuild as effectively. imo the tradeoff just isn't worth it; maybe better would be solving CP, kind of like Noah's CP blocks.



I think most CN roux solvers are x2 y. I'm x2 y with ZZ and have no trouble with the eo detection during inspection.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 6, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> I think most CN roux solvers are x2 y. I'm x2 y with ZZ and have no trouble with the eo detection during inspection.



But can you see a FB at the same time? It seems like quite a lot to manage in one step, and EO doesn't seem worth it--changing where the centers are on the cube is pretty common during FB, since you're using wide turns and slice turns to pair things up, and it just seems like you'd want that freedom, which is a lot harder to manage if you're also trying to orient edges at the same time. If you're really that good with making use of inspection time and planning out 6 FB pieces + all of your bad edges, you'd probably just be better off seeing even more of your F2B.


----------



## TDM (Apr 6, 2016)

Here's a 2x2 method I've thought of a while ago but never posted because I didn't think it was going to be fast enough. But I might as well post it anyway even though I know it's not worth switching to, because it's quite fun.

*ROP* (reduce, orient, permute).

1- Reduce to 2-gen. Setup to a porky v2 case seems to be at most three moves, usually fewer. Add in finishing the block and it's usually <6 moves.
2- Orient
3- Permute (intuitive, just pair up the two D layer pieces)

Here are five example solves with the first five scrambles I got from qqTimer:


Spoiler



F2 R' U' R' U' F2 U' R' U
y' R U R' F R F' // R
R U' R' U2 R U2 R // O
U' R2 U // P (16)


F R U' R U' F' U2 F U'
y' U' R2 U' R F' // R
U R U2 R2 U R' // O
U2 R2 U' R2 U' // P (16)


U R2 U R' U' F U R' F
z R U2 R' F // R
U2 R' U2 R U' R U2 R // O
U R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 // P (20)


R' U' F2 U2 R' F' U2 F' U2
x' z2 U2 R' F // R
U R' U R' U R' U' R // O
U' R2 U R2 U' R2 // P (17)


U F2 U F' U2 F R' F' R' U'
y' F R U2 R' F // R
U' R2 U R' // O
U' R2 U' R2 U' // P (14)


*Pros:*
Reasonably efficient
Easy to fingertrick because mostly <R, U>

*Cons:*
Nobody cares about RU 2x2 solving since RUF is often better anyway
Inspection is hell. Trying to find a 1-2 move setup is usually quite tricky and takes me more than 15 seconds before I even start identifying CP.
72 algs for second step (though that's better than other 2x2 methods and can be reduced to 48 by mirroring. And that can be reduced further to ~30 by doing one move to orient a D layer corner, except the few cases for which you can't do that)


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 6, 2016)

Hawaiian Kociemba/L2S Combination:

1. Orient F2L edges and solve cross - RD edge
2. Solve a 2x2x3 using RUL
3. Solve CP and a pair (I have a good way to go about this, I'll explain later)
4. Solve LL EO with the last pair (modified VHLS that doesn't affect CP)
5. Solve the corners along with the two LL edges then insert the RD edge all in one look (same number of algs as for 2GLL)

Pros:
- Efficient
- 1LLL (in fact, 1 look last layer and RD)
- Algs already exist for VHLS and CPLS, they must simply be lightly modified
- Ignoring RD is efficient
- All 1LLL algs are already generated

Cons:
- I find it difficult to orient the F2L edges AND the semi-cross in one look, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it
- Lots of new algs most people don't know
What else?


----------



## TDM (Apr 6, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Hawaiian Kociemba/L2S Combination:



Looks like you've rearranged the steps of Petrus and added CP.  The first two steps do definitely look less efficient than regular Petrus. Petrus+CP would probably be a bit better I think.

Though I don't see what you're doing at the end there. What do you mean, "the two LL edges"? Setting up to S' U2 S? That can't be fast...


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 6, 2016)

TDM said:


> Looks like you've rearranged the steps of Petrus and added CP.  The first two steps do definitely look less efficient than regular Petrus. Petrus+CP would probably be a bit better I think.
> 
> Though I don't see what you're doing at the end there. What do you mean, "the two LL edges"? Setting up to S' U2 S? That can't be fast...



No, I'll explain later. Also, it isn't always about efficiency, the goal with this method is good lookahead and rotationless F2L.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 6, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Hawaiian Kociemba/L2S Combination:
> 
> 1. Orient F2L edges and solve cross - RD edge
> 2. Solve a 2x2x3 using RUL
> ...


Looks to me like the CP+EO variation, but an extra alg to orient the LL edges and a 1LLL... This can be achieved with normal CP+EO, I just thought people might like the low alg count.
Still a cool idea 
Also, you may have gotten confused on my L2S idea, like many other people.
-Solve 2x2x3 block while orienting all edges.
-Solve RD edge
-Create both remaining pairs and put them in the U layer. The will either look like a Y or T perm (I can explain in more detail if you want). Make it so it looks like a T perm and put them both on the right.
-Solve the back one (for better recog) first in a single alg while orienting the corners (1/28), then solve the front one in a single alg to permute everything and solve the cube (1/around 80, probably less).

You can do CP as well to limit the PLLLS Algs to 1/44.
Should I make a thread on this?
Also HK is now on the wiki


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 7, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Looks to me like the CP+EO variation, but an extra alg to orient the LL edges and a 1LLL... This can be achieved with normal CP+EO, I just thought people might like the low alg count.
> Still a cool idea
> Also, you may have gotten confused on my L2S idea, like many other people.
> -Solve 2x2x3 block while orienting all edges.
> ...



No no I understand your L2S idea very well, I simply meant it as the last layer is being almost entirely solved with the last two slots. anyway I'm working on improving this, hopefully I can find something that would work very well.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

Hey Guys, there's a new method gaining momentum very slowly but surely in the forum: ECE!
its very move-efficient(more so than roux) and also requires less algorithms than CFOP. 
I am posting this because it seems like it will be very popular and so I want to get it some attention.
You can find the method proposal here


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey Guys, there's a new method gaining momentum very slowly but surely in the forum: ECE!
> its very move-efficient(more so than roux) and also requires less algorithms than CFOP.
> I am posting this because it seems like it will be very popular and so I want to get it some attention.
> You can find the method proposal here


L2S + ECE + HK?
Lol
Just throw in all the efficient methods


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> L2S + ECE + HK?
> Lol
> Just throw in all the efficient methods


bbbut ECE's alg count is almost half that of CFOP and 5000 times less algs then hawaiian kociemba


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> bbbut ECE's alg count is almost half that of CFOP and 5000 times less algs then hawaiian kociemba


Yes, pure HK, take a more efficient variation, there are different alg counts for each variation.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 14, 2016)

Random idea I had for Roux: what if we left L and R centers unsolved as well? That is, you could potentially solve FB and SB around other centers, allowing you to take advantage of more free pairs and the like, and then solve the centers while doing EO with <M,U,u>. Would something like this be possible?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 14, 2016)

Yes, it is possible, but it would be harder, and it is hard to transition from u and U.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 14, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Random idea I had for Roux: what if we left L and R centers unsolved as well? That is, you could potentially solve FB and SB around other centers, allowing you to take advantage of more free pairs and the like, and then solve the centers while doing EO with <M,U,u>. Would something like this be possible?





JTWong71 said:


> Yes, it is possible, but it would be harder, and it is hard to transition from u and U.



Many people already do this, myself included. It does work for easy cases (like a skip but around the wrong center), but in most solves it ends up being a nuisance to have to go back and fix centers.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 14, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> L2S + ECE + HK?
> Lol
> Just throw in all the efficient methods



I had a thought like your L2S idea using CFOP using all 4 Slots to help influence and skip the last layer. I have a solve I did a while ago on it.

z2 //Inspection
F2 D B' U R2 L D2 F L' //XXCross
B' R' U' R2 F R F' R' U' B //F2L-3 + EO + OLL
U F2 L' D2 F' R B2 R' F D2 L F2 U' //L5C
32 STM

Trying to put three methods together, each method will likely have to have a tiny portion of the solve. I am trying to combine HK and ECE(BA), although it is hard to equally combine them because I can build blocks to reduce the amount of possible cases to solve Permutation at the end (In BA). Or, I can build blocks, then orient like in BA, then solve the rest like HK. I see that L2S can work with the other two methods. Each method has something that is unique to itself. L2S is Highly Influencing the last step. HK is leaving one piece of F2L unsolved. BA is Orientating early to leave Permutation left to solve.

So, combining the three together, you can:
I. 2x2x2
II. 2x2x3 + EO
III. Solve DR Edge and Setup CE Pair
IV. Insert pair and Orient the Corners
V. Permute the rest of the pieces

I think that combining 3 methods comes out a little less efficient than combining 2 methods, as it is hard to include 3 different ways to solve a cube into 1.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 14, 2016)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Many people already do this, myself included. It does work for easy cases (like a skip but around the wrong center), but in most solves it ends up being a nuisance to have to go back and fix centers.



Interesting. Do you think, if EO algorithms were generated/an organized approach to resolving centers + EO at the same time came about, it could potentially be useful more often than it is awkward? Or is it just not worth the extra cost (awkward U/u, harder to force ULUR skips)?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Apr 14, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Interesting. Do you think, if EO algorithms were generated/an organized approach to resolving centers + EO at the same time came about, it could potentially be useful more often than it is awkward? Or is it just not worth the extra cost (awkward U/u, harder to force ULUR skips)?


Rosstheboss will swear on his life that mismatched centres are worthwhile, but I don't think so (that is, until someone proves me wrong). If you think it has potential, go for it. Start experimenting or genning algs and let us know if you find something! Good luck!


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 14, 2016)

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=B2_F2...d_here)
M2_U_M-_U2_M_U_M2_U2_S-_U2_S_//_L5EP



JTWong71 said:


> I had a thought like your L2S idea using CFOP using all 4 Slots to help influence and skip the last layer. I have a solve I did a while ago on it.
> 
> z2 //Inspection
> F2 D B' U R2 L D2 F L' //XXCross
> ...


That's an interesting idea, but what if we did this:

1. 2x2x2 in DBL + orient some edges if possible
2. 2x2x2 + EO
3. Place the E-slice edges in the E-slice + orient a D-layer corner
4. Use EJLS to orient the remaining corners (16 algs)
5. Permute the corners
6. L5EP

Example: 
z2 // inspection
L2 U' L U' L2 B L' U2 L' // a very inefficient 2x2x2
R' U F2 U F' // EO
R' U R U R' U' R' F2 // 2x2x3
U2 R U R' U' R U R' U R // lucky cancel into an H OCLL
D' R2 U R2 U D R2 U2 D' R2 U' D // CP (algs would be used here)
M2 U M' U2 M U M2 U2 S' U2 S // L5EP


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 14, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I had a thought like your L2S idea using CFOP using all 4 Slots to help influence and skip the last layer. I have a solve I did a while ago on it.
> 
> z2 //Inspection
> F2 D B' U R2 L D2 F L' //XXCross
> ...


for now, were calling it Briggs-Adam(easier to say I think)


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 14, 2016)

First of all, I think Adam-Briggs rolls of the tongue easier,
And I think we are veering away from the ECE method by trying to optimize different parts of the solve. Here's the method I currently use/made

1. Roux First block(on left)
2. Connect block to bottom center piece, and add 2x2x1 on the back
That connects to the first block and center, while simultaneously adding last f2l pair
Right now, the cube should look like f2l without two cross pieces
3. CMLL
4. Orient all remaining edges using U, M,D (similar to roux)
5. Place the two edges to finish f2l, then EPLL

A variant that I might use

1 and 2 are the same
3. Perform 1 of 7 algs that orient top corners, not permute(similar to 2 look cmll, but not permuting)
4. Orient all remaining edges using U,M,D same as above
5. Place two edges to finish f2l, then PLL

I am planning to post a new thread on the forum proposing this method, but just saying when I would orient the edges


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 14, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> That's an interesting idea, but what if we did this:
> 
> 1. 2x2x2 in DBL + orient some edges if possible
> 2. 2x2x2 + EO
> ...



I like that idea, and I think we can add something to help influence more so EJLS won't be all that is influencing the Orientation.

So what if we changed it to:

I. 2x2x2 in DBL + Slight Influence on EO (For 6+ Bad edges)
II. 2x2x3 + EO + Set up easy Pseudo CE Pair
III. Insert the Pseudo CE Pair into an F2L-Slot while Orienting all of the Corners + Placing E-Slice Edges (One will already be in place from the CE Pair)
IV. CP+EP

This would have more algorithms, but I think it would be more efficient, influencing throughout most of the solve.

Example Solve:
x' z //Inspection
D2 l U2 u' L //2x2x2 + Orientation Influence
R2 U l' D R' D x' //2x2x3 + EO + E-Slice + Some Oriented Corners (Lucky)
R' U2 R U2 R2 U' R' U' R U R2 //CO + 1x1x2 (Cancelled 'R' Move)
D R' U' R D' R U R D' R U' R' D R //CP+EP
36 STM

Used the same scramble as Crafto.
I did something slightly different because of the D-Layer Orientation Skip.
I think it can have decent fingertricks, after 2x2x3 at least, 2G+3G Steps.


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 14, 2016)

Ok cool! so something like WV would help, right?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

theradhaxor said:


> Ok cool! so something like WV would help, right?


yes, and also VHLS for the other slot.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 15, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I like that idea, and I think we can add something to help influence more so EJLS won't be all that is influencing the Orientation.
> 
> So what if we changed it to:
> 
> ...


Cp in the beginning and force a 2gll? 
Here's a basic skeleton I came up with a while ago, seems pretty efficient.
1. FB (Roux block on left)
2. CP
3. SB
4. Roux style EO, I like to place FD and do EO like in FreeFOP
5. Place BD
6. 2GLL


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 15, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Cp in the beginning and force a 2gll?
> Here's a basic skeleton I came up with a while ago, seems pretty efficient.
> 1. FB (Roux block on left)
> 2. CP
> ...



That could work, but I think overall, Roux (Or Briggs2) would probably be more efficient.
Corner Permutation is a hard step to recognize during a Speedsolve with more than 4 pieces.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 15, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> That could work, but I think overall, Roux (Or Briggs2) would probably be more efficient.
> Corner Permutation is a hard step to recognize during a Speedsolve with more than 4 pieces.


It's not when they are already oriented.
I think it's a good time now to explain a cool idea I've had recently. I have no idea how good it would be, but it could work.
1. Solve a 2x2x3 block of all pieces oriented, the only ones that have to be permuted are the corners (so solving 2 corners and orienting a 2x2x3 block)
2. Orient then permute the corners, while influencing EO a little bit.
3. Solve the rest of EO.
4. Use RUM or LUM moves to solve the rest of F2L 
5. PLL
So 21 alg 1LLL.
Or
1-3 the same
4. Solve Roux blocks instead of F2L
5. L6E.
Again, no idea how it would work, but everything new is worth experimenting is worth experimenting with.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

hey for a blindsolving idea guys we have our Old pochmann and 3OP for corners, but what about 2OP(at least for corners, could use OP or M2 for edges)
I like the 3OP for corners because the orientation is super easy, but the permutation is difficult. I like the permutation for Old Pochmann because you just memorize a sequence, but the threefold style of orientation is difficult. What if we oriented corners as per 3OP, and then did old pochmann for corners? would it be useful or just hard? I mean cmon, for the orientation I need to memorize almost nothing, and the letters for the corners are confusing(the edges only have 2 orientations so they are fairly easy)


----------



## TDM (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hey for a blindsolving idea guys we have our Old pochmann and 3OP for corners, but what about 2OP(at least for corners, could use OP or M2 for edges)
> I like the 3OP for corners because the orientation is super easy, but the permutation is difficult. I like the permutation for Old Pochmann because you just memorize a sequence, but the threefold style of orientation is difficult. What if we oriented corners as per 3OP, and then did old pochmann for corners? would it be useful or just hard? I mean cmon, for the orientation I need to memorize almost nothing, and the letters for the corners are confusing(the edges only have 2 orientations so they are fairly easy)


I used to use boomerang for corners; that's a fast orient-permute method which solves one corner at a time. But it's slower than just solving them with OP. (E: with oriented corners, the OP algs are very bad, so if you want to do this use boomerang)

However... there's very little use in 3OP/2OP. It's not _fast_, at least, not compared to solving the pieces without fixing their orientations first. The only reason why you'd want to learn it is to reduce the number of algorithms to learn: there's only one for OP!


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> It's not when they are already oriented.
> I think it's a good time now to explain a cool idea I've had recently. I have no idea how good it would be, but it could work.
> 1. Solve a 2x2x3 block of all pieces oriented, the only ones that have to be permuted are the corners (so solving 2 corners and orienting a 2x2x3 block)
> 2. Orient then permute the corners, while influencing EO a little bit.
> ...


That seems like a great idea, but not too efficient. What about this:

1. FB with the E-slice edges not necessarily permuted, just oriented and in the E-slice
Movecount: ~6
2. Create the second FB with nothing but oriented pieces and the E-slice edges in the E-slice (you can leave one corner misoriented if that is the best option
Moveset: <RrUu>
Movecount: ~6-7
3. Orient the remaining corners with EJLS
Moveset: <RU>
Movecount: ~7-8?
4. Seperate and permute the corners while intuitively permuting the E-slice and solving the SB
Moveset: <RrUuD>
Movecount: 14
5. L6E
Moveset: <MU>
Movecount: 12

Moveset: Mostly pseudo 2-gen with some D moves for the 4th step
Movecount: ~47 STM

Or to make this even more efficient you can do this:

1. FB with Only oriented pieces but E-slice edges in the E-slice
Movecount: Perhaps as low as 4-5
2. Same as above
3. Same as above
4. Seperate and permute the corners while intuitively permute the FB and SB (much harder than above but still just about as efficient)
Moveset: Still <RrUuD>
Movecount: Still about 14, maybe even 13 since we aren't restricted by the FB in the beginning
5. Same as above

Moveset: Still mostly pseudo 2-gen with some D moves for the 4th step
Movecount: The movecount drops to 42 STM

The second variant is undoubtedly more efficient but the 4th step is way more complex since you have to figure out a way to seperate the corners while fixing the E-slice then simultaneously permute the corners and line them up the 2 different edges, whereas in the first variant we just seperate and fix the E-slice then permute the corners while lining them up with one edge. The first variant is probably faster because lookahead is easier. The question is does that lookahead make up for the extra 5 moves? I don't know, but I think the first variant is faster, and both variants only require 16 algs for a very efficient solve.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

TDM said:


> I used to use boomerang for corners; that's a fast orient-permute method which solves one corner at a time. But it's slower than just solving them with OP. (E: with oriented corners, the OP algs are very bad, so if you want to do this use boomerang)
> 
> However... there's very little use in 3OP/2OP. It's not _fast_, at least, not compared to solving the pieces without fixing their orientations first. The only reason why you'd want to learn it is to reduce the number of algorithms to learn: there's only one for OP!


what is boomerang and how can I find a tutorial for it.
also, the 3-cycle thing is hard to comprehend and do blindfolded.
and if I do orienting first, i dont need to worrk about which algorithm to use for that orientation. theres a few things i like and hate about 3OP.


----------



## TDM (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> what is boomerang and how can I find a tutorial for it.


If you google it it's literally the first, second _and_ third result. Searching isn't that hard.



> also, the 3-cycle thing is hard to comprehend and do blindfolded.


Not really, I've heard it's very similar to learning F2L, and that's also what I found when I tried to learn it twice (though I stopped after a short time because I lost interest in BLD).



> and if I do orienting first, i dont need to worrk about which algorithm to use for that orientation. theres a few things i like and hate about 3OP.


Well with 3-style I don't think most people think about which pieces you're cycling and then what orientation those are in. I just look at which stickers I'm cycling.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

Hey guys, elaborating on the L2S Idea, here's mine(~10 new algs if you know OCLL and PLL)
-petrus block
-2x2x3
-solve the last D-face edge and solve one of the last 2 e-slice edges
-solve the last CE pair with VHLS(like 5 algs)
-MGLS -I algorithms(7 algs)
-solve the last corner by placing it above where t goes and executing a triple sledgehammer
-PLL


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 15, 2016)

I was hanging out with a Clarkeeyyy recently, reminded me about the fact that I wasn't entirely happy with my own weird 5x5 method (has some similarity to Yau5). Mostly that I can only start on W/Y centers (for white cross), for the same reason I have that problem on 4x4 with Yau. This time, I actually figured out something that I like. This is mostly for fun, but should also be decently fast in theory. May also be 4x4 viable.

1) Opposite centers (not cross colour)
2) Two cross edges, place at DL/BL (see video for details, or try it out and see how this has to work to make sense)
3) D/B centers with cross colour on D
4) Place the two cross edges with D'L' (optional: ensure BL has no cross pieces)
5) Finish L2C and cross somehow, can take tips from Hoya
6) Rest of solve


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey guys, elaborating on the L2S Idea, here's mine(~10 new algs if you know OCLL and PLL)
> -petrus block
> -2x2x3
> -solve the last D-face edge and solve one of the last 2 e-slice edges
> ...



It looks like spending the moves using VHLS, MGLS, and Triple-Sledge, will probably take more moves then just solving the 2 slots normally, OLL, then PLL.

Most thoughts on L2S is orienting the U-Layer from one slot, and then solve the rest of the cube with the other. I don't think that some of the algorithms would be very efficient, but recognition and lookahead isn't very hard to have in this L2S way.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> It looks like spending the moves using VHLS, MGLS, and Triple-Sledge, will probably take more moves then just solving the 2 slots normally, OLL, then PLL.
> 
> Most thoughts on L2S is orienting the U-Layer from one slot, and then solve the rest of the cube with the other. I don't think that some of the algorithms would be very efficient, but recognition and lookahead isn't very hard to have in this L2S way.


algorithm efficiency, and I can execute the L2S in less time than the actual Petrus EO and then F2L and then OCLL


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> algorithm efficiency, and I can execute the L2S in less time than the actual Petrus EO and then F2L and then OCLL



I don't really try to think about how many algorithms there would be to solve using a specific method/subset (Unless it is seriously high, such as 1LLL). It is pretty much true that the L2S you proposed is faster than Standard-Petrus.

I have no idea if I am going to make a complete change of my main method, CFOP. I am thinking of ways I can use the 4 CE Pair Inserts to influence the last layer to the point that you can skip it entirely (Sounds like a little too much influencing).

I have looked into other methods to see what I can influence to try to get a last layer skip. I have tried out Petrus, by Permuting the Corners and Orienting the Edges. I got a 33 STM Solve by doing so. It was still not a last layer skip but I skipped OCLL + CP.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 15, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> That seems like a great idea, but not too efficient. What about this:
> 
> 1. FB with the E-slice edges not necessarily permuted, just oriented and in the E-slice
> Movecount: ~6
> ...


Cool idea, but I suck at L6E.
I think we may be on to something with "orientation block building" (that's what I'm gonna call it).
The next idea I have sound pretty crazy, and it is, but I like the fact that if is original.
1. Solve a roux block on the left, while orienting and placing E slice edges in the E layer, not nessecarily permuting them (though it probably is just better to solve them).
2. Solve the top 2 M slice edges and the corners to the right of them, almost building a sideways roux block on the top right while orienting the other corners.
3. Solve the 1x1x3 block in the top left with an algorithm.
4. Finish the cube with an algorithm (a sideways roux block in the bottom left and the last LL edge).
An odd method and mostly a start to something else, but it could be the Mossey method after some serious refining.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 15, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Cool idea, but I suck at L6E.
> I think we may be on to something with "orientation block building" (that's what I'm gonna call it).
> The next idea I have sound pretty crazy, and it is, but I like the fact that if is original.
> 1. Solve a roux block on the left, while orienting and placing E slice edges in the E layer, not nessecarily permuting them (though it probably is just better to solve them).
> ...



That is a pretty strange idea.
It almost seems like this method creates an "Anti-2x2x3" by solving everything except for a 2x2x3 space, and an edge.
I am not sure how efficient the algorithms would be, along with recognition, due to pieces being on opposite sides for step 3.
I will try making an example solve on it, and see how efficient the method is.

y //Inspection
F2 D2 L' R u //First Block
U M U R2 U' R //Place E-Slice Edges
U B2 L F R' U' R F' R' F U' M //Partial UR Block + CO
x F' L F' M D' M' F2 D F L' F' //1x1x3
R' D R D' R D S' R S D' R' F' R F R' //L6P
49 STM

Yeah...
The first block was too easy to try and place the E-Slice along with.
The Last step seems to have the longest algorithms, along with the 2 previous steps.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 16, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> That is a pretty strange idea.
> It almost seems like this method creates an "Anti-2x2x3" by solving everything except for a 2x2x3 space, and an edge.
> I am not sure how efficient the algorithms would be, along with recognition, due to pieces being on opposite sides for step 3.
> I will try making an example solve on it, and see how efficient the method is.
> ...


It could maybe work with some refining. The last step definitely needs to be fixed, and I think the first and second steps can maybe less influence the next step but maybe the last ones? 
I am out of ideas atm and am pretty tired, but I'll post anything I think of here.
This could also just be a cool block building experiment.
Also, what's the scramble on this?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 16, 2016)

Scramble: B2 U2 B' R2 U2 R2 B L2 D2 B' R' U2 L' D2 U' B' F' L' U' L2


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 16, 2016)

So it seems to me that if we want to get a method to be more efficient and as a possible Speedsolving method, we can either:

I. Make an efficient method that isn't really a Speedsolving method, and then try to turn it into a Speedsolving method by getting better fingertricks and other things to assist speed.
II. Take an already fast method, and make it more efficient by making changes to the method.
III. Try and make an almost completely new method that has new concepts that can be fast and efficient at the same time.


----------



## efattah (Apr 18, 2016)

A few people asked me to post example solves and reconstructions with my new LMCF method, so I did that, this video has two example solves with reconstructions (a 10.60 second 38 move solve and a 14.96 second 48 move solve):





I'm not that experienced and turn very slowly (3 to 3.7 tps), but since this method often results in sub-40 move solutions, that's the only way I can even approach 10 seconds at the moment. My PB is 9.90 (not on video) and I have had several solves of 32-34 moves, though the average is 45.

The general procedure of the method is:
- 1 look the corners using full EG (126 algorithms)
- Solve 3 E2L pairs (edges of opposite sides) (60 algorithms)
- Solve 1 edge (if necessary; at least one edge is solved in 1/3rd of cases already)
- Orient last 5 edges (40 algorithms if you avoid rotations)
- Permute last 5 edges (3 algorithms)

The reconstructions are:
10.60 solve:
WCA scramble generated by Cube Explorer
R2 U' L2 F2 L2 U2 F2 D' L2 B' U2 L U L D B2 R' D

z x' R U' R' M2 // Build blue face, solve blue center 
y // rotate 
U' B U' r2 F2 U' F //EG1 Anti-Sune, diagonal antimatch case 
z // rotate 
B U M' U' B' // solve 1st E2L pair (one blue edge, one green edge) 
R2 x L' // set up second E2L pair 
U' M U // solve 2nd E2L pair (one blue edge, one green edge) 
x2 // rotate 
M U M' U' // solve final E2L edge piece 
M2 // move M-slice to check midge orientations 
M' U M' U M' U M' U // orient last 5 edges 
U2 M2 U2 M' // permute last 4 edges
38 moves STM, 6 rotations

Second solve (14.96):
WCA scramble:
F D2 F2 U2 L' B D R' D F' R B2 U B' F' R' B' U'
x2
R' u U R U' z' U2 // Build blue face & center
F R U' R' F R U2 R' U F' // EG1 Pi (left diag case)
z' x
M U M' U' // 1st E2L pair
x
M2 y U M U M' U2 // 2nd E2L pair
x z
M R // Set up 3rd E2L pair
y
M' U2 M d M' U // 3rd E2L pair
y2
M' R' // Set up L5E
U' M U' M' U M' U // Orient last 5 edges
U2 M2 U2 M2 // Permute last 5 edges
48 moves STM

The second solve has way too many rotations, it isn't a very good example, but anyway this will do for now.


Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## TDM (Apr 18, 2016)

efattah said:


> A few people asked me to post example solves and reconstructions with my new LMCF method, so I did that, this video has two example solves with reconstructions (a 10.60 second 38 move solve and a 14.96 second 48 move solve):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is CF except you're solving edges in pairs, which is a nice idea but I can see recognition being difficult even if the solve is more efficient.
Why do you set up to L5E instead of LSE? LSE would be faster since it needs less setup, has better recognition and better lookahead.


----------



## efattah (Apr 18, 2016)

TDM said:


> This is CF except you're solving edges in pairs, which is a nice idea but I can see recognition being difficult even if the solve is more efficient.
> Why do you set up to L5E instead of LSE? LSE would be faster since it needs less setup, has better recognition and better lookahead.



E2L pair recognition (at least as I have designed it) is slightly easier than F2L pair recognition-- whereas E2L triplet recognition is harder, except in three cases, which are the only cases where I will solve triplets in speed solves. However, E2L lookahead is just as challenging as F2L lookahead; once you ID the pair your muscles execute the 5-7 move algorithm while your eyes look for the next pair. However you have a major statistical advantage, in that once you solve the corners there is a 52% chance an edge piece is solved and about 35% chance that it is in the 8 that you are trying to solve. And in around 10% of solves you have 2 edge pieces pre-solved, and in about 10% of solves you get a triplet that solves itself while you are solving a pair. Overall I'd say recognition and lookahead are not significantly different than F2L/CFOP, except you solve the cube in 10 fewer moves on average.

Regarding L6E, you can only use Roux L6E 50% of the time because it requires the final UL and UR keyholes to be sitting on bars of equal or opposite colors, otherwise the edge orientation recognition step doesn't work. I have tried forcing this case but it breaks the flow of the solve. Either way, I find L5E faster than Roux L6E anyway (by about 15%).

I doubt anyone will be interested in using this method (especially due to the large algorithm sets and high learning curve), but I still plan on developing it and eventually competing with it.

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## Attila (Apr 18, 2016)

efattah said:


> A few people asked me to post example solves and reconstructions with my new LMCF method, so I did that, this video has two example solves with reconstructions (a 10.60 second 38 move solve and a 14.96 second 48 move solve):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how long you practice it?
this is your main method?


----------



## efattah (Apr 18, 2016)

Attila said:


> how long you practice it?
> this is your main method?



I have been working on the LMCF method since I first got back into cubing in early January (so it's been about 3.5 months).
Prior to that I was cubing in the 80's. In the 80's my best ever average was 45 seconds with a method similar to Minh Thai. When I picked up a cube in January it took me 80 seconds to solve it...
Now LMCF is my main method, doing CFOP or Roux takes me about 80 seconds each (4LLL and 2 look CMLL).

The problem is I am not a top 2x2 solver (I don't do 2x2) so it takes me longer than 15 seconds to 1-look the corners, and I still don't know EG2 yet, so I can only get good times on scrambles when I can 1-look the corners. I need to be able to 1-look the corners in 15 seconds every time, to be able to compete.

The most interesting development in this method was some of the 60 E2L algorithms. Normally once the corners are solved the cube is solved with M/U moves (in classic CF solving, I mean). However as I used cube explorer to generate the E2L algorithms, a subset of the E2L cases ended up so weird (and fast) that I call them the 'black magic' set, and they defy any classic CF style moves.

One example in the black magic set is this:
U' r U' M U R' U
(puts DF edge into UL, while solving the displaced keyhole edge UR into FR; and if you happen to have the correct edge in UL, you can also get a triplet solve sometimes)
Use your right index for the second U' and watch the black magic happen!

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 19, 2016)

I think that a petrus block and then insert edge and do a psuedo-L2S would actually be pretty fast. I can get sub-30 with the method i proposed earlier(to put in in perspective im sub-40 with my main) here's the method right now:
1.Create Petrus 2x2x3(during inspection)
2.insert last d-layer edge and one remaining e-slice edge, ignoring the corner under it.(you could do cross + 2 f2l2 pairs if you wanted to)
3.create the final corner-edge pair and then orient the edges with Vandenbergh-Harris last slot(~5 algs), and then without caring for the final d-layer corner, use one of the 7 MGLS CLS -I algs(7 and mirrors, there is a 2-gen alg for every single case) to orient all the final corners.
4.insert the final d-layer corner using 1 algorithm: (R' F R F')*3
5.1-Look last layer(21 cases, if you already know full PLL than you don't need to learn any new algs)

Also, if anyone has a method that starts with a 2x2x3 petrus block please tell me as that's the fastest first two steps I can do even though I know all the 4 main methods.

for this method I'm trying to come up with a way of inserting the final corner and permuting all the other corners relative to each other so the last layer is a 1-look, 4-alg last layer.


----------



## SpeedCuber71 (Apr 19, 2016)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...uare-1-roux-vandenberghs-hybrid-method.60704/


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 19, 2016)

thats for square-1, and transferring it to 3x3 makes any square-1 algorithms hopelessly inefficient.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I think that a petrus block and then insert edge and do a psuedo-L2S would actually be pretty fast. I can get sub-30 with the method i proposed earlier(to put in in perspective im sub-40 with my main) here's the method right now:
> 1.Create Petrus 2x2x3(during inspection)
> 2.insert last d-layer edge and one remaining e-slice edge, ignoring the corner under it.(you could do cross + 2 f2l2 pairs if you wanted to)
> 3.create the final corner-edge pair and then orient the edges with Vandenbergh-Harris last slot(~5 algs), and then without caring for the final d-layer corner, use one of the 7 MGLS CLS -I algs(7 and mirrors, there is a 2-gen alg for every single case) to orient all the final corners.
> ...


Cool idea, but how efficient would it be? Let's compare this to normal L2S.
Steps 1 and 2 are the same.
For L2S, both pairs are created and put in the U layer. 1 alg is then used to orient corners, then another to permute everything. So essentially 2LLL with an XXcross 95% of the time, other 5% is better.
For your idea, EO is not needed possibly making it slightly more efficient, though I am not too sure. So, insert 1 edge, essentially doing 3 pairs just without one corner. Then 2 Algs to finish F2L and do OLL, and 1 to do PLL. Essentially a Xcross with a 3LLL 90% of the time, other 10% is better.
Obviously normal L2S is better here, but I think they can be crossed further to be made possibly better.
So, steps 1 and 2 are the same. Make sure all edges are oriented (just do EO at some point). Place the back E slice edge then do CLS, fully orienting the LL. Then, insert the last pair with the normal L2S PLL Algs. This should require more Algs than normal L2S, but you don't have to create the pairs and place them in the U layer as you normally would in L2S, finishing the pairs is made very easy here.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> thats for square-1, and transferring it to 3x3 makes any square-1 algorithms hopelessly inefficient.


This thread isn't just for 3x3...


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 20, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> This thread isn't just for 3x3...


I think he is talking about some recent methods which suggest you use sq1 algs to permute corners while preserving co. The algs for sq1 when used on 3x3 have really high qtm.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 20, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Cool idea, but how efficient would it be? Let's compare this to normal L2S.
> Steps 1 and 2 are the same.
> For L2S, both pairs are created and put in the U layer. 1 alg is then used to orient corners, then another to permute everything. So essentially 2LLL with an XXcross 95% of the time, other 5% is better.
> For your idea, EO is not needed possibly making it slightly more efficient, though I am not too sure. So, insert 1 edge, essentially doing 3 pairs just without one corner. Then 2 Algs to finish F2L and do OLL, and 1 to do PLL. Essentially a Xcross with a 3LLL 90% of the time, other 10% is better.
> ...


I think this Idea would be probably better, but you have to remember that some people are too lazy to learn all those Algs.
I think maybe your method is faster, but I think that as an entry-level L2S idea, mine may be halfway decent. Mostly because the algorithm count is better than CFOP, and so is the movecount
anyway, I'm not saying any one is better, Im just saying that one is faster while one is easier to learn


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I think this Idea would be probably better, but you have to remember that some people are too lazy to learn all those Algs.
> I think maybe your method is faster, but I think that as an entry-level L2S idea, mine may be halfway decent. Mostly because the algorithm count is better than CFOP, and so is the movecount
> anyway, I'm not saying any one is better, Im just saying that one is faster while one is easier to learn


True, but tbh I would still pick CFOP over your idea.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 20, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> True, but tbh I would still pick CFOP over your idea.


thats fine


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I think that a petrus block and then insert edge and do a psuedo-L2S would actually be pretty fast. I can get sub-30 with the method i proposed earlier(to put in in perspective im sub-40 with my main) here's the method right now:
> 1.Create Petrus 2x2x3(during inspection)
> 2.insert last d-layer edge and one remaining e-slice edge, ignoring the corner under it.(you could do cross + 2 f2l2 pairs if you wanted to)
> 3.create the final corner-edge pair and then orient the edges with Vandenbergh-Harris last slot(~5 algs), and then without caring for the final d-layer corner, use one of the 7 MGLS CLS -I algs(7 and mirrors, there is a 2-gen alg for every single case) to orient all the final corners.
> ...



This is a less efficient version of zz-ct.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 20, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> This is a less efficient version of zz-ct.


what's the premise of that?
also, I think that that LCMF corners-first method may be good. i mean, cmon, he does less TPS than I do , and he can average 15 secs. With tou, I average sub-40, maybe I should try! it'll also teach me EG method too so thats a plus.
What are the algorithms effatah? for the E2L and such? please tell :3


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> what's the premise of that?
> also, I think that that LCMF corners-first method may be good. i mean, cmon, he does less TPS than I do , and he can average 15 secs. With tou, I average sub-40, maybe I should try! it'll also teach me EG method too so thats a plus.
> What are the algorithms effatah? for the E2L and such? please tell :3



Since it's ZZ you don't have to do vhf2l. I guess your next step is pretty much tsle. Instead of doing three sledge hammers and a pll you just do a ttll to solve the whole cube. You are doing two extra looks than zz-ct.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 20, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Since it's ZZ you don't have to do vhf2l. I guess your next step is pretty much tsle. Instead of doing three sledge hammers and a pll you just do a ttll to solve the whole cube. You are doing two extra looks than zz-ct.


Wait this could be a really cool idea. What if we added in a bit of some other stuff too:

1. 2x2x2 in BDL (6 moves)
2. Pair in FDL + E-slice EO (6 moves)
3. 2x2x1 added on to the 2x2x2 in the back to form a 2x2x3 + 1 pair (8 moves)
4. Final E-slice edge with LL EO (6 moves)
5. COLL (10 moves)
6. L5EP (10 moves)

46 STM seems pretty good to me


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 20, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Wait this could be a really cool idea. What if we added in a bit of some other stuff too:
> 
> 1. 2x2x2 in BDL (6 moves)
> 2. Pair in FDL + E-slice EO (6 moves)
> ...



I think you replied to the wrong person.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 20, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Wait this could be a really cool idea. What if we added in a bit of some other stuff too:
> 
> 1. 2x2x2 in BDL (6 moves)
> 2. Pair in FDL + E-slice EO (6 moves)
> ...



In step 2, is the pair a 2x2x1, or a 1x1x2 Block?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 20, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> In step 2, is the pair a 2x2x1, or a 1x1x2 Block?


1x1x2


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 20, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> I think you replied to the wrong person.


Oops yeah sorry


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 20, 2016)

So one basic method that I think is a little overlooked is CF, just one of those generic methods that was developed early and everyone thinks of every now and then. But, it can be pretty efficient when used right. So let's try combining a few methods with it and see how they turn out. This could be a fun an interesting experiment.
Petrus: 2x2x3 block (and maybe EO), then solve the corners. Finish L7E (in one alg?). Essentially a 2LLL if the corners and edges are done in one alg with a XXcross.
ZZ: EOline, then solve corners. L10E (lol). Maybe we can solve left and right sides for L10E, then the last U edges will be correct no matter what. So, 2 Algs for first side, then 1 for the other? I wouldn't consider this a 3LLL because this skips so much.
CFOP: basically the same as ZZ but a cross and no EO. Both sides can probably be solved in 1 look, but then the U edges have a chance of being flipped.
So what do you guys think of this experiment? Also feel free to add more.
I think the ZZ or Petrus ones can work out nicely.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 20, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So one basic method that I think is a little overlooked is CF, just one of those generic methods that was developed early and everyone thinks of every now and then. But, it can be pretty efficient when used right. So let's try combining a few methods with it and see how they turn out. This could be a fun an interesting experiment.
> Petrus: 2x2x3 block (and maybe EO), then solve the corners. Finish L7E (in one alg?). Essentially a 2LLL if the corners and edges are done in one alg with a XXcross.
> ZZ: EOline, then solve corners. L10E (lol). Maybe we can solve left and right sides for L10E, then the last U edges will be correct no matter what. So, 2 Algs for first side, then 1 for the other? I wouldn't consider this a 3LLL because this skips so much.
> CFOP: basically the same as ZZ but a cross and no EO. Both sides can probably be solved in 1 look, but then the U edges have a chance of being flipped.
> ...



The petrus variant you described is actually almost exactly what a few people (including myself) came up with and tried to improve but eventually just got to the point when you were more or less using Roux if you could get any more efficient. I think Gilles Roux himself was actually following that reasoning as well (though i may well be wrong- it's been a while since i read the original proposal).

For ZZ, it's interesting. The thing that jumps out at me is how you will probably end up with a fair few E and S moves. this could be solved by rotating to EoEdge but then you almost have SSC-O. It could be interesting though if you found a way to do edges quickly and efficiently (or corners (or both))

CFOP variant looks a lot like waterman to me (though i can see the differences) but overall i think the algs would be too hard to recognise and solve all the edges together or in 2 steps because of the lack of Eo. For it to work, you would need to solve edges in pair or something but that ends up as LMCF


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 20, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> 1. 2x2x2 in BDL (6 moves)
> 2. Pair in FDL + E-slice EO (6 moves)
> 3. 2x2x1 added on to the 2x2x2 in the back to form a 2x2x3 + 1 pair (8 moves)
> 4. Final E-slice edge with LL EO (6 moves)
> ...



Now I get the main aspect of the method.
Is the Corner at FDR solved with Step 4?

This seems like a decent method, the only new thing is placing the E-Slice edge and orienting the rest of the edges.

Example Solve:
Scramble: B2 U B D' F B2 R' L D L2 U2 F' U2 R2 B2 R2 D2 F' U2 B
41 STM Solve, I think Step 4 will take more moves than Step 3, as adding Last Layer Orientation and FDR Pair will likely take more moves.

x' //Inspection
U2 F2 U2 R B' //2x2x2
D R2 D' F //Pair + E-Slice Orientation
R U' R2 U2 R2 //2x2x3 + Pair
U R' F' D R2 U R D' R2 F' //F2L-1E + Edge Orientation
R U R D R' U' R D' R2' //COLL
M u2 M U' M' u2 M' U2 //L5E


----------



## Isaac VM (Apr 21, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Since it's ZZ you don't have to do vhf2l. I guess your next step is pretty much tsle. Instead of doing three sledge hammers and a pll you just do a ttll to solve the whole cube. You are doing two extra looks than zz-ct.


I've been searching for TSLE and TTLL but can't seem to figure out what are they or find any algs, also, I have watched ZZ-CT video and think it's pretty cool, but are there any published algs yet?


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 21, 2016)

Isaac VM said:


> I've been searching for TSLE and TTLL but can't seem to figure out what are they or find any algs, also, I have watched ZZ-CT video and think it's pretty cool, but are there any published algs yet?



I heard the guy who invented the method and put up the video has all the algs, but he wants to wait until he optimizes everything first.

He told me that he wanted to smoothly iron everything out when he shows it to the general public.


----------



## Isaac VM (Apr 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> I heard the guy who invented the method and put up the video has all the algs, but he wants to wait until he optimizes everything first.
> 
> He told me that he wanted to smoothly iron everything out when he shows it to the general public.



I'll be patient then :3


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 21, 2016)

Isaac VM said:


> I'll be patient then :3



If you still have trouble figuring out what the steps are, here is a walkthrough with a scramble and a solution.


Scramble: R2 F2 R' U2 R2 B2 U2 R' B2 D2 U' L2 F L' R2 F' U2 R2 U F' 

EOLine: X' D' L' F L U R2 D'

F2L-1: R U' R' U R' U2 L U2 L U L R' U R D R U' R' D' U

TSLE: R U2 R' U' R U2 R'

TTLL: y' U R' U R U' R' U2 R U R' U' R


----------



## Isaac VM (Apr 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> If you still have trouble figuring out what the steps are, here is a walkthrough with a scramble and a solution.
> 
> 
> Scramble: R2 F2 R' U2 R2 B2 U2 R' B2 D2 U' L2 F L' R2 F' U2 R2 U F'
> ...



Thanks, that really helped me a lot, the fact I also use green on bottom, white on front made the walkthrough so fluid. I am going to play using triggers to orient corners and see what other pretty things I can find.


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 21, 2016)

Isaac VM said:


> Thanks, that really helped me a lot, the fact I also use green on bottom, white on front made the walkthrough so fluid. I am going to play using triggers to orient corners and see what other pretty things I can find.


Yeah this method is really nice. I've been playing with it over the last week. I haven't learned very many of the algs but I generated full tsle and the 2gen set of ttll. It's really weird how the tsle algs can be good and yet still be almost optimal qtm. The method is so nice <3.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 21, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Yeah this method is really nice. I've been playing with it over the last week. I haven't learned very many of the algs but I generated full tsle and the 2gen set of ttll. It's really weird how the tsle algs can be good and yet still be almost optimal qtm. The method is so nice <3.



Aw shucks thanks <3

What's your solution for 5 corners misoriented? Mine's long and ugly and I need a better one.
It's the one that has all for U corners rotated clockwise

My alg is U R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2 R U' R'

Which isn't anywhere as elegant as I want it to be 

Good luck genning, multiple people generating leads to long term innovation


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> Aw shucks thanks <3
> 
> What's your solution for 5 corners misoriented? Mine's long and ugly and I need a better one.
> It's the one that has all for U corners rotated clockwise
> ...


For that case I have:

R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R'


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 21, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> For that case I have:
> 
> R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R'



HAHA, I WAS HOPING IT WASNT THAT ONE
ITS JUST INSERT AND A SUNE

PLEASE TELL ME THAT IS OPTIMAL, THAT WOULD MAKE MY DAY


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> HAHA, I WAS HOPING IT WASNT THAT ONE
> ITS JUST INSERT AND A SUNE
> 
> PLEASE TELL ME THAT IS OPTIMAL, THAT WOULD MAKE MY DAY


It's optimal qtm (and qstm for that matter).


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 21, 2016)

U R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' (12q*) - 12 HTM 2G
*R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R' (12q*) - 11 HTM 2G*
U R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U (13q) - 13 HTM 2G
U R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U' (13q) - 13 HTM 2G
U R' U' R' D' R U R' D R' U2 R' (13q) - 12 HTM
R U2 R' U2 R U R' U' R U' R' (13q) - 11 HTM 2G
R U' R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U R (13q) - 11 HTM 2G
R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R' U (13q) - 12 HTM 2G
R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R' U' (13q) - 12 HTM 2G


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 21, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> U R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' (12q*) - 12 HTM 2G
> *R U' R' U' R U R' U R U2 R' (12q*) - 11 HTM 2G*
> U R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U (13q) - 13 HTM 2G
> U R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U' (13q) - 13 HTM 2G
> ...


What did u use to generate the Algs?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 21, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> What did u use to generate the Algs?



I use Cube Explorer to generate algorithms, as I don't know how to use ACube very well.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 21, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Yeah this method is really nice. I've been playing with it over the last week. I haven't learned very many of the algs but I generated full tsle and the 2gen set of ttll. It's really weird how the tsle algs can be good and yet still be almost optimal qtm. The method is so nice <3.


Would you mind/do you have algs posted somewhere? This method seems interesting and I think I might try to learn it.


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Would you mind/do you have algs posted somewhere? This method seems interesting and I think I might try to learn it.


I don't really want to share my algs until 4Chan formally releases his method. Sorry man.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 21, 2016)

Ah alright, I suppose i can try genning algs as well then. Is there any reason it's being kept under wraps?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2016)

hey efattah so for LCMF what are the edge permutation algorithms or the other algorithms? I mean for a corners first method this is pretty fast, Im hyped.


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Ah alright, I suppose i can try genning algs as well then. Is there any reason it's being kept under wraps?


He wants the method to be really polished when it's released. Generating tsle is pretty easy. I would recommend using the qtm version of cube explorer. You notice how good the algs can be while being almost optimal move wise.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 21, 2016)

Kind of random idea. Guess it can be called "Columns Last". Probably won't be very efficient, but whatever.
1. EO?
2. Solve M slice.
3. Solve S slice.
4. Use an alg to solve FL corners.
5. Finish the L4P (last 4 pairs).
Again, just a random thought I had.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 21, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> He wants the method to be really polished when it's released. Generating tsle is pretty easy. I would recommend using the qtm version of cube explorer. You notice how good the algs can be while being almost optimal move wise.


How do you think this method compares to mainstream ones? (CFOP, Roux, ZZ)


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> How do you think this method compares to mainstream ones? (CFOP, Roux, ZZ)



It's basically a gambler's method.

At the highest level of cubing, it can give absolutely ridiculous singles due to the 20% OLL skip, 1/360 "true" LL skip, and absurdly short/fast algs like triple sledge. The combination of a short TSLE and TTLL would approximate an non-forced LL skip caused by a bad F2L pair.

But in terms of averages, the TSLE step takes as much time as OLL with ZZ, and the TTLL is roughly equivalent to PLL.
At the very most, it only saves as much time as it takes to do that slot.

So at the highest level, just *imagine ZZ with* one less slot, and some *sick singles*.
(Which, I guess might be better than normie ZZ, but with normie ZZ, there's tons of tricks like ez ZBLL, CLS, influence tricks, and stuff that might make it a moot point.)

Honestly, if the pair is pre-made or R U R', I'm inserting it and doing ZBLL.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> It's basically a gambler's method.
> 
> At the highest level of cubing, it can give absolutely ridiculous singles due to the 20% OLL skip, 1/360 "true" LL skip, and absurdly short algs like triple sledge. The combination of a short TSLE and TTLL would approximate an non-forced LL skip caused by a bad F2L pair.
> 
> ...


Is it worth switching to from FreeFOP?


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 21, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I like that idea, and I think we can add something to help influence more so EJLS won't be all that is influencing the Orientation.
> 
> So what if we changed it to:
> 
> ...


This is a very similar finish to HTA if I understand correctly. Do I understand correctly?
Also the amount of algs would be huge. If I understand correctly, my math is bad though, it would be about alot of algs.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 21, 2016)

2180161 said:


> This is a very similar finish to HTA if I understand correctly. Do I understand correctly?
> Also the amount of algs would be huge. If I understand correctly, my math is bad though, it would be about alot of algs.



This is a similar version to ECE (Or SSC, or AB, all the same methods), which is a "Sub-Optimal" Method to HTA.
I don't know how many algorithms there would be, as there are 3 more pieces to solve along with no AUF's for symmetric cases due to Non-U Layer Pieces.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

Hey Guys, I came up with an Idea for doing a 1-look corners(or something that requires both orientation and permutation algorithms) that is very alg-efficient, and could be also taught to noobs as a 2-look. first is to have an OCLL algset that doesn't affect the positions of the corners(like a 2-gen OCLL that restores the positions after) and the regular permutation algorithms. that means that you can 1-look both the orientation and permutation case before you solve them, you just remember, the OLL and the PLL case(and any AUF's in between). This would be useful for methods like corners-first, ortega, roux, pikashit, etc. 
recognition would be the same as it is for 1-look corners, i think.

so, what do you think? executing 2 algorithms in 1 look? a good idea?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey Guys, I came up with an Idea for doing a 1-look corners(or something that requires both orientation and permutation algorithms) that is very alg-efficient, and could be also taught to noobs as a 2-look. first is to have an OCLL algset that doesn't affect the positions of the corners(like a 2-gen OCLL that restores the positions after) and the regular permutation algorithms. that means that you can 1-look both the orientation and permutation case before you solve them, you just remember, the OLL and the PLL case(and any AUF's in between). This would be useful for methods like corners-first, ortega, roux, pikashit, etc.
> recognition would be the same as it is for 1-look corners, i think.
> 
> so, what do you think? executing 2 algorithms in 1 look? a good idea?


Why not just learn COLL? The recognition is probably better, the algs are shorter and can be executed faster.


JTWong71 said:


> This is a similar version to ECE (Or SSC, or AB, all the same methods), which is a "Sub-Optimal" Method to HTA.
> I don't know how many algorithms there would be, as there are 3 more pieces to solve along with no AUF's for symmetric cases due to Non-U Layer Pieces.


ABC isn't sub-optimal HTA. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it is more efficient than HTA. Do you mean just the regular Thistlethwaite/Kociemba Algorithm?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

I figured it out: im going to use the CMLL orientation-only algorithms. that should help.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 22, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> ABC isn't sub-optimal HTA. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it is more efficient than HTA. Do you mean just the regular Thistlethwaite/Kociemba Algorithm?



Yeah, I meant the Computer Thistlewaite 2-Phase Algorithm.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Apr 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey Guys, I came up with an Idea for doing a 1-look corners(or something that requires both orientation and permutation algorithms) that is very alg-efficient, and could be also taught to noobs as a 2-look. first is to have an OCLL algset that doesn't affect the positions of the corners(like a 2-gen OCLL that restores the positions after) and the regular permutation algorithms. that means that you can 1-look both the orientation and permutation case before you solve them, you just remember, the OLL and the PLL case(and any AUF's in between). This would be useful for methods like corners-first, ortega, roux, pikashit, etc.
> recognition would be the same as it is for 1-look corners, i think.
> 
> so, what do you think? executing 2 algorithms in 1 look? a good idea?


naw the 2gen pure twists are really slow. If you want CxLL to be one look without learning the algs then just learn how the CO algs affect CP and recognize both steps in one look.


----------



## PurpleBanana (Apr 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey Guys, I came up with an Idea for doing a 1-look corners(or something that requires both orientation and permutation algorithms) that is very alg-efficient, and could be also taught to noobs as a 2-look. first is to have an OCLL algset that doesn't affect the positions of the corners(like a 2-gen OCLL that restores the positions after) and the regular permutation algorithms. that means that you can 1-look both the orientation and permutation case before you solve them, you just remember, the OLL and the PLL case(and any AUF's in between). This would be useful for methods like corners-first, ortega, roux, pikashit, etc.
> recognition would be the same as it is for 1-look corners, i think.
> 
> so, what do you think? executing 2 algorithms in 1 look? a good idea?


This is similar to an idea I've seen for a 1-look, 2-algorithm OLL system which uses edge-only orientation algs so that the OCLL case can be predicted beforehand. 

There is a reason neither is used.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 25, 2016)

How is this for a method, Part ZZ and Part Petrus:

I. 2x2x2 Block (In BDL)
II. EO (Steps 1 and 2 can be combined with practice)
III. F2L (Blockbuilding)
IV. Last Layer (EO is done, Subsets such as ZBLL for 1LLL, OCLL/PLL...)

Example Solves:

36 STM
x2 //Inspection
R2 F' R' B' D' R2 L F' //2x2x2 + EO
U2 F2 //EOArrow + 1
R' L' U' R2 //Block
U' l F M' U' R2 //F2L (Cancel into ZZLL)
U2 R2 U' R U' R' U R' U' D R' U R U D' R //ZZLL

37 STM
z2 y //Inspection
D' L' F L B' R F L U' L //EOArrow + 1
U' R D R2 U D' //2x2x3
R U R U R' //F2L
y' R2 U' R2 U' R U2 D' R U' R' U' D R U R2 U2 //ZBLL


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> How is this for a method, Part ZZ and Part Petrus:
> 
> I. 2x2x2 Block (In BDL)
> II. EO (Steps 1 and 2 can be combined with practice)
> ...


Nice idea, I think ZZLL is best for this just because of ZBLL's sheer amount of Algs. It only requires and extra "look" of phasing, which can literally be executed in less than a second with practice and its barely even considered a look.
As far as I can tell, though, it's just Petrus with with an early EO and a restricted block building phase, which might help with speed.
I always thought of ZZ and Petrus as basically the same because Petrus just solves EO later, unlike ZZ, and when you finish The EO in Petrus it basically is ZZ and when F2L is finished for both you get the same results.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Nice idea, I think ZZLL is best for this just because of ZBLL's sheer amount of Algs. It only requires and extra "look" of phasing, which can literally be executed in less than a second with practice and its barely even considered a look.
> As far as I can tell, though, it's just Petrus with with an early EO and a restricted block building phase, which might help with speed.
> I always thought of ZZ and Petrus as basically the same because Petrus just solves EO later, unlike ZZ, and when you finish The EO in Petrus it basically is ZZ and when F2L is finished for both you get the same results.



Many people don't like ZZ because of the restrictions in moves early on. With Petrus, people don't use it as a speedsolving method because it requires more thinking and fingertricks are harder, also, no restrictions.

With the method idea, a Petrus block is made, and after EO, you can also manipulate the F-Layer with 180 turns.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Many people don't like ZZ because of the restrictions in moves early on. With Petrus, people don't use it as a speedsolving method because it requires more thinking and fingertricks are harder, also, no restrictions.
> 
> With the method idea, a Petrus block is made, and after EO, you can also manipulate the F-Layer with 180 turns.


So it's Petrus with feedom of the F face...
This could work. I feel like you can solve most or all of the rest of the 2x2x3 while influencing the LL.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So it's Petrus with feedom of the F face...
> This could work. I feel like you can solve most or all of the rest of the 2x2x3 while influencing the LL.



That is pretty much true as I think about it.
Petrus is already very efficient, but the first two steps don't necessarily have the 'Best' fingertricks.
ZZF2L Statistics show that it takes more average moves than CFOP-F2L.
EO can be done in an average of 3-4 moves.
A 2x2x2 block can be done in around 5-7 moves on average. 

I am also trying to figure out a way to influence the last layer during F2L to the point where I can skip the whole LL.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> That is pretty much true as I think about it.
> Petrus is already very efficient, but the first two steps don't necessarily have the 'Best' fingertricks.
> ZZF2L Statistics show that it takes more average moves than CFOP-F2L.
> EO can be done in an average of 3-4 moves.
> ...


Skipping the whole LL is already invented, L2S.
For you method though, I would solve a 2x2x3 in the back and do L2S in the front.
For the beginning block building, the best thing to do is restrict it and it'll be more finger trick friendly.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Skipping the whole LL is already invented, L2S.
> For you method though, I would solve a 2x2x3 in the back and do L2S in the front.
> For the beginning block building, the best thing to do is restrict it and it'll be more finger trick friendly.



I mean taking use of more than just two slots, only influencing on two slots will likely take more moves than influencing on three or four slots.

Example:
30 STM
x' //Inspection
U2 F2 U D L D R' U R' B //XXCross + EO
z R D R U' R' U R2 D' //F2L-3 + Last Layer Setup
R' D U' R D' R U R U' R U R //F2L-4 + LL


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I mean taking use of more than just two slots, only influencing on two slots will likely take more moves than influencing on three or four slots.
> 
> Example:
> 30 STM
> ...


Did you phase or correct EO in this? Was hard to tell. It could work out. Also, as far as I can tell, you only took advantage of the 2 slots. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to take advantage of all 4 slots because you would need algs to make the pairs, most likely, but 3 could be possible. First is EO, then CO, then PLL?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 26, 2016)

Speed-heise/ZBLL

1. Heise blocks --> F2L-1 (no EO)
2. ZBLS
3. ZBLL

x2 L' F // First square
D' // Second square
L2 U' R2 F' R U2 R // Third square
F2 U2 F2 // Fourth square
L' B' // F2L-1
y2 F R2 U2 F R F' U2 R2 F' // ZBLS
U R L B2 L D' R2 U R2 L' B2 L D R' L2 // ZBLL


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 26, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Speed-heise/ZBLL
> 
> 1. Heise blocks --> F2L-1 (no EO)
> 2. ZBLS
> ...



Nice Solve.
Then, when you see how few moves F2L-1 is, you see how many moves are used for ZBLS+ZBLL.
ZB took over 50% of your solve...


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 26, 2016)

Doing it in a more standard Heise, I got:

34 STM
x2 L' F // First square
D' // Second square
L2 U' R2 F' R U2 R // Third square
F2 U2 F' // Fourth square
U F' U L' y U R' //EO + F2L-1
U R' F R U R U' R2 //AB3C (Lucky, got to cancel a couple moves)
B2 R F' R' B2 R U' //L3C


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Doing it in a more standard Heise, I got:
> 
> 34 STM
> x2 L' F // First square
> ...


Do you know how the one-pair approach works? I am trying to learn it but the best I can do is two-pairs...


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Do you know how the one-pair approach works? I am trying to learn it but the best I can do is two-pairs...



I kind of know how to do the one pair, but sometimes I make both pairs and then two of my edges are misplaced.
I will usually try different moves to get different results.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 26, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> How is this for a method, Part ZZ and Part Petrus:
> 
> I. 2x2x2 Block (In BDL)
> II. EO (Steps 1 and 2 can be combined with practice)
> ...


I came up with the exact same thing a while back. here


2180161 said:


> *Petrus-a (A petrus variant)*
> 
> Hello. Before I begin, I have found no such variant of Petrus, or any for that matter, so that is why this is Petrus-a. Anyway, now for the steps, with the approximated movecount following the step:
> 2x2x2 block:7?
> ...


there it is, It is a different ll, but nothing major


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

2180161 said:


> I came up with the exact same thing a while back. here
> 
> there it is, It is a different ll, but nothing major


Maybe adding speed heise or something similar or LPELL would help? LPELL into L4C for FMC or even Speedsolving?
I feel like this would be great with some LL influence.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Maybe adding speed heise or something similar or LPELL would help? LPELL into L4C for FMC or even Speedsolving?
> I feel like this would be great with some LL influence.


I thought about LPELL, but decided against it. can't remember why though. I did however think about CP and LPELL, 2-gen of course, which would provide a 14? alg LL, all 2-gen.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

2180161 said:


> I thought about LPELL, but decided against it. can't remember why though. I did however think about CP and LPELL, 2-gen of course, which would provide a 14? alg LL, all 2-gen.


EO+Pseudo CP+EP can make for an awesome 1lll. I think it would be best for fmc no matter what you do...


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 27, 2016)

Kind of a random idea I had when I was thinking about CP. As with most of my random ideas, it probably isn't very efficient but could be on to something.
1. 2x2x3 and EO. Pretty easy.
2. CP. Also pretty easy.
3. Finish F2L but the corner do not have to be oriented. I think this will help speed up F2L.
4. EPLL
5. O6C. Just orient the remaining corners using 1 alg. Recog shouldn't be too bad, just normal OCLL with an extra corner to look at.
I mostly focued on low alg count with this. I'm pretty sure it would be less than CFOP.
I think CP methods could be so much better and absolutely amazing with a good recog system, which we clearly don't have. I will try, and then post your idea.
Mine isn't that great, but it is an idea to get started.
1. In inspection, plan out how to solve the corners of the first layer. Two adjacent corners on one side don't have to be oriented. The solved ones will be part of a 2x2x3.
2. While doing this, look ahead and see which corner case you have. You should figure out the case by the time you finish the FL corners.
3. Perform CP.
4. Finish the 2x2x3 using pseudo 2-gen.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 27, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> 1. 2x2x3 and EO. Pretty easy.
> 2. CP. Also pretty easy.
> 3. Finish F2L but the corner do not have to be oriented. I think this will help speed up F2L.
> 4. EPLL
> 5. O6C. Just orient the remaining corners using 1 alg. Recog shouldn't be too bad, just normal OCLL with an extra corner to look at.



Would this leave pure corner flips?
How many moves do you think they would average?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 27, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I think CP methods could be so much better and absolutely amazing with a good recog system, which we clearly don't have. I will try, and then post your idea.
> Mine isn't that great, but it is an idea to get started.
> 1. In inspection, plan out how to solve the corners of the first layer. Two adjacent corners on one side don't have to be oriented. The solved ones will be part of a 2x2x3.
> 2. While doing this, look ahead and see which corner case you have. You should figure out the case by the time you finish the FL corners.
> ...



I also think that CP Methods can work well, but yes, recognition is hard.
I've done it with Petrus and I got 2 solves that are 26 HTM/STM.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 27, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Would this leave pure corner flips?
> How many moves do you think they would average?


Good question, I'm not too sure. It shouldn't be too many.


JTWong71 said:


> I also think that CP Methods can work well, but yes, recognition is hard.
> I've done it with Petrus and I got 2 solves that are 26 HTM/STM.


Cool  Any ideas for a good recog system?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 27, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Cool  Any ideas for a good recog system?



Nope, nothing other than brute force for me.
If I do CP, I'll solve one corner.
I just remember that if BDR is solved, then CP is solved if FDR swaps with FUR, and UBL swaps with UBR, or unless of course all pieces are already correctly placed.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 27, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> 1. 2x2x3 and EO. Pretty easy.
> 2. CP. Also pretty easy.
> 3. Finish F2L but the corner do not have to be oriented. I think this will help speed up F2L.
> 4. EPLL
> ...



I tried generating algs for this because I didn't believe it could be good, but this H perm R U' R U' R U2 R U' R U' R might be really nice for OH?

Too bad the corner twists are kind of awful, though. There are 8×7=56 cases if you don't allow rotations (one of which is a skip), and the average move count with optimal (6-gen) algs is about 13.55, not counting AUF. (The subset with two corners in the D layer twisted the same way is the worst, with average move count 14.63.) Restricting the algs to 2-gen will increase the move count even more.

As for alg count, this definitely doesn't compare favourably to OCLL/PLL (~30 algs) or even COLL/EPLL (~45 algs).


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 27, 2016)

How is this for a 1LLL with less algorithms, with some F2L Influence of course...
Before approaching the Last Layer, EO is solved, and then after Last Slot, 2 Adjacent Corners and the In-Between Edge is solved. This will leave 17 1LLL Cases, 2 Pure Flips, 5 PLL's, 5 T-Set ZBLL's, and 5 U-Set ZBLL's.

L2S or something along those lines may help a lot to make the line before Last Layer.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 28, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> How is this for a 1LLL with less algorithms, with some F2L Influence of course...
> Before approaching the Last Layer, EO is solved, and then after Last Slot, 2 Adjacent Corners and the In-Between Edge is solved. This will leave 17 1LLL Cases, 2 Pure Flips, 5 PLL's, 5 T-Set ZBLL's, and 5 U-Set ZBLL's.
> 
> L2S or something along those lines may help a lot to make the line before Last Layer.


I had the EXACT same idea today, I kid you not.
This could work out awesome IMO, we just need an efficient way of solving the line.
EO is pretty easy, just solve in the beginning or after a 2x2x3 block.
Here is my idea for the line:
Solve EO and F2L-1. 
Solve 2 pairs: the last F2L pair and a LL pair. Both pairs should be able to be aligned so that the R face is free (besides F2L).
Position the corner so that however you insert it, the corner connects with the LL pair forming a line.

However this is done, I think the best way to do this is to intuitively position the last corner of a LL pair so that it joins with the pair when the last F2L pair is inserted. It may take some time to get used to and fast at, but I think it will be much like F2L in the sense that it will just come naturally eventually. EO may also be able to be solved during the insertion.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 28, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> However this is done, I think the best way to do this is to intuitively position the last corner of a LL pair so that it joins with the pair when the last F2L pair is inserted. It may take some time to get used to and fast at, but I think it will be much like F2L in the sense that it will just come naturally eventually. EO may also be able to be solved during the insertion.



I have tried generating a few of these...
Some of the movecounts go up to 16 moves.


wir3sandfir3s said:


> This could work out awesome IMO, we just need an efficient way of solving the line.
> EO is pretty easy, just solve in the beginning or after a 2x2x3 block.
> Here is my idea for the line:
> Solve EO and F2L-1.
> ...


I just thought about something else about this last night...
Since there are 17 Last Layer cases, you have a 1/18 chance of getting a Last Layer Skip.
Also, you only need to look at 3 stickers at most to know the permutation cycle for Line Last Layer.
Orientation recognition is really done almost subconsciously for me, so I will only need to look for COLL recognition for 2 Corners. If there is a swap, then there is a J-Perm or an F-Perm, looking at one edge can tell you. If there is no corner swap, there is a U-Perm or pure flip.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 28, 2016)

S


JTWong71 said:


> I have tried generating a few of these...
> Some of the movecounts go up to 16 moves.
> 
> I just thought about something else about this last night...
> ...


New idea:
The recog would be look for headlights and then find the edge that goes between them, probably. If there are no headlights, then use a different alg. Simple.
At that point, it can either be a les alg intensive 2LLL or a LS method for LL.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 28, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> New idea:
> The recog would be look for headlights and then find the edge that goes between them, probably. If there are no headlights, then use a different alg. Simple.
> At that point, it can either be a les alg intensive 2LLL or a LS method for LL.



I don't see where the LS part is said.
The headlights idea is pretty good.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 4, 2016)

1 Look Line Last layer! (nicknamed *1L*OL *L*OL *L*OL This is awesome)
This CFOP/ZZ/Petrus variant was inspired by brainstorming ways of restricting the last layer during F2L so that the amount of cases for a 1-look last layer dropped. This is the result of me and JTWong71's brainstorming.
The Idea is to have a solved 1x2x3 Line, with edges already oriented as in WV.
Some of the benefits is that 1/3 of the time you get a really easy PLL(U-perms, F-perm, J perms), and recognition is actually really good. There is also a 1/18 chance of skipping the last layer altogether, and 8 out of 18 times you get a really fast 2-gen case.

This variant comes in three parts:
-solve F2L-1 and eo
-solve 2 corner edge pairs
CE pair a:U Layer corner-edge pair and insert in slot(part of the solved line)
CE pair b:F2L corner-edge pair placed at BL
-F2L + L(aka LS+L) - 9 cases
-1LLL(*1* *L*ook *L*ine *L*ast *L*ayer) - 18 cases(5 PLL, 1 solved)



Spoiler: Algorithms for F2L+L



The algorithms are grouped by the position of the final Line corner.(2/3 of the line is in the F2L slot). The F2L pair is at BL. The orientations are relative to the U layer, not the rest of the Line.

UFR:
Correct Orientation: (U) L' U2 R U' R' U2 L
Clockwise Twist: (U2) R' U2 R U R' U R2 U2 R'
Counterclockwise Twist: R U2 R'

UFL:
Correct Orientation: (U2) R2 D R' U R D' R2 U R U' R'
Clockwise Twist: (U2) R U R' F' U' F U R' F R F'
Counterclockwise Twist:

UBR:
Correct Orientation: (U2) R' F' R U2 R U2 R' F
Clockwise Twist: R U2 R D' R U' R' D R U R
Counterclockwise Twist: R2 D R' U2 R D' R2





Spoiler: Algorithms for 1LLLL



corners oriented:
Just do one of your friendly PLL's. It will either be an F-perm, one of the U-perms, or a J-perm.

(Note: LL Line is placed at UL)
2GLL:

T-Set:
Pure Flip: R' U R U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R
Clockwise U-Perm: (U2) R U2 R U' R2 U' R U R2 U2 R2 U' R U' R
Counterclockwise U-Perm: (U2) R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' R U' R'

U-Set:
Pure Flip: (U) R U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 R U R' U R
Clockwise U-Perm: (U2) R' U' R U R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R' U' R
Counterclockwise U-Perm: (U2) R U R' U' R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U R'

Corner Swap:

T-Set:
F-Perm: F D R' U R U' D' R U F R F' U' R' F'
Ja-Perm (Edge Swap: UB + UR): R2 F' R2 U' R' F' U' F R U R' F R
Jb-Perm (Edge Swap: UF + UR): F R D' R2 D R D' R D F' U' R' U R

U-Set:
F-Perm: F U' R U R' F R' F' R2 U' R' F' U' F U F'
Ja-Perm (Edge Swap: UB + UR): (U') R U' R2 F2 D' F' D F' R U R' F R F'
Jb-Perm (Edge Swap: UF + UR): x' U' R U R' F R U' R' U2 F' U' F R' F' R F'





Spoiler: Setup help



for the first pair, pair up a corner and an edge in the U-layer(make sure they can fit in the slot)
for the second pair, intuitively solve the final CE pair so it preserves the first corner-edge pair(may take some practice). If possible, track the Final Line corner during this step.


----------



## adimare (May 4, 2016)

So, Heise?


----------



## JTWong71 (May 4, 2016)

adimare said:


> So, Heise?


Not exactly.
1LLLL is meant mainly for Speedsolving.
With Heise, look ahead and recognition are much more difficult, having to look for 3-5 edges and 2 Corners.
With 1LLLL, you only have to look for 2 Pieces at a time.
2 For the first CE Pair, 2 for the Next CE Pair, and 1 For the Corner.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 4, 2016)

adimare said:


> So, Heise?


no. not in the slightest.
Your solving a Line on the last layer and restricting the case count to 18.


----------



## DGCubes (May 5, 2016)

Seems promising. I'd like to learn those alg sets sometime.


----------



## adimare (May 5, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Not exactly.
> 1LLLL is meant mainly for Speedsolving.
> With Heise, look ahead and recognition are much more difficult, having to look for 3-5 edges and 2 Corners.
> With 1LLLL, you only have to look for 2 Pieces at a time.
> 2 For the first CE Pair, 2 for the Next CE Pair, and 1 For the Corner.



http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/two_pairs.html


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/two_pairs.html


Just because we solve two pairs does not mean that we are solving heise. 
Generalizations like that are like saying that CFOP has a cross and therefore it is actually just LBL. They are fundamentally different, no l3c or anything like that.


----------



## JTWong71 (May 5, 2016)

The main difference is that you don't permute all of the edges.
Permuting Edges and 2 Corners in one look isn't the best for Speedsolving in most cases.
So instead of solving 7 Pieces at once in Heise, we are solving 5 Pieces, with substeps in between.
Heise can have substeps, but the Edge Permutation a little hard to do in a Speedsolve while preserving Pairs.


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Ja-Perm (Edge Swap: UB + UR): (U') R U' R2 F2 D' F' D F' R U R' F R F'



R' F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' R is faster


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

okay thanks.


----------



## Vexatious (May 5, 2016)

Ya I'm completely lost. So you make a 1x2x2 line where? F2l-1 is basically 2x2x3 like Petrus right? Can you make a tutorial or some example solves


----------



## adimare (May 5, 2016)

Here's an example solve using ZZ for the F2L-1:

Scramble: z2 B2 L2 B2 D2 R2 D2 R2 U R2 F2 U' R' U' B' R2 B2 R2 U L2 F' U'
F' L2 B R' D2 R' D // EO Line
U2 L2 U2 L2 U R U L U L' // First block
U2 R' U R2 U2 R U' R2 // F2L-1
U' R U R' // CE Pair
U' R U2 R' U' // F2L Pair
U2 R2 D R' U R D' R2 U R U' R' //F2L+L
U2 L' U' L F L' U' L U L F' L2 U L // PLL

It's very similar to Heise's two pair approach. In Heise you solve 2 1x1x2 corner-edge pairs and then solve the edges without breaking them up, solving 5 edges and 2 corners in the process (so you're left with 3 corners to solve). With this method, you solve 2 1x1x2 corner-edge pairs with the restriction that one of them has to be the missing F2L block, then you solve those 2 blocks plus one more corner attached to the 1x1x2 block from the top layer (creating the so-called line, which is just a 1x1x3 block), solving 2 edges and 3 corners in the process (so you're left with 3 edges and 2 corners to solve).

I use the Heise two pair approach a lot when solving for fun and it's my go to approach for FMC, and I can tell you it's not really viable for speedsolving for the same reasons I think this method (at its current state) isn't either: creating the 2 corner-edge pairs quickly is not trivial, if you throw in the restriction that one of the pairs has to be the missing F2L block and that when you're done the other one has to be inserted in its place, you're complicating the last layer so much that the effort isn't worth it.

Just my 2 cents tho, probably worth it to keep looking into this one and try to figure out a way to simplify F2L+L; this is light years away from the nonsensical Hawaiian Kociemba, for instance.


----------



## TDM (May 5, 2016)

there's a thread for things like this

also it doesn't look like you put any effort into generating the algs, the non-2-gen algs are awful. Unless you find much better algs I can't see this being very fast at all.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

okay. It is just an Idea, and we decided to propose it.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> Here's an example solve using ZZ for the F2L-1:
> 
> Scramble: z2 B2 L2 B2 D2 R2 D2 R2 U R2 F2 U' R' U' B' R2 B2 R2 U L2 F' U'
> F' L2 B R' D2 R' D // EO Line
> ...


yes, especially because it restricts the amount of cases for a 1LLL to 18, including solved.

And I can do the 2 pairs fast, its just figuring out hoe to manipulate the pairs so you dont destroy the other one.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

some douche just put this into this thread, instead of having its own thread like it did.
Its refined enough to have its own threat, like ZZ-HW


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

TDM said:


> there's a thread for things like this
> 
> also it doesn't look like you put any effort into generating the algs, the non-2-gen algs are awful. Unless you find much better algs I can't see this being very fast at all.


we know, but this is refined enough for its own thread.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

Hey anyone heard of lars petrus's ZBLL? he uses 40 quick algorithms and then uses a combination of two of them to solve any ZBLL, with only 2-3 more moves than optimal solutions. That means that case recognition and memorization of combinations is still there, but its only about 10% of the work. maybe as a trasition into full ZBLL??
also, the algorithms need to be modernized, and so someone needs to help me make better, right-handed algs for these cases, and help fix the cases and such? I would like some help for this. please?


----------



## shadowslice e (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey anyone heard of lars petrus's ZBLL? he uses 40 quick algorithms and then uses a combination of two of them to solve any ZBLL, with only 2-3 more moves than optimal solutions. That means that case recognition and memorization of combinations is still there, but its only about 10% of the work. maybe as a trasition into full ZBLL??
> also, the algorithms need to be modernized, and so someone needs to help me make better, right-handed algs for these cases, and help fix the cases and such? I would like some help for this. please?



You could try using the S/AS ZBLLs or just any ZBLLs in general as if you picked the right algs then you should be able to solve any ZBLL. One the other hand, there is COLL/EPLL.

However, I don't think you actually need to gen any algs as they all likely have corresponding ZBLLs (just pick the right cases from a list) which are pretty up to date so you could just use those.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

The Idea of lars petrus ZBLL's is that you can solve ZBLL in around 2-3 moves more with a combination of two of only 40 fast algs instead of 177.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

anyway, how is the line last layer(Its going on its own thread after the algs have been improved)


----------



## adimare (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Just because we solve two pairs does not mean that we are solving heise.
> Generalizations like that are like saying that CFOP has a cross and therefore it is actually just LBL. They are fundamentally different, no l3c or anything like that.


CFOP is LBL...



Shiv3r said:


> yes, especially because it restricts the amount of cases for a 1LLL to 18, including solved.


Yes but the amount of substeps you put between F2L-1 and the last layer makes it unviable as the CFOP killer I know you're looking for. Imagine you have a solved F2L-1 with EO, here's what you would do using CFOP to finish the solve:
1) Create the last F2L pair
2) Insert it
3) OLL
4) PLL

Here's what you propose:
1) Create a corner-edge pair with pieces from the LL
2) Create the last F2L pair
3) Insert the LL pair in the remaining F2L slot
4) F2L+L
5) 1LLL

So instead of creating and solving one pair and executing 2 algs, you're creating 2 pairs, inserting one, and then executing 2 algs.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> CFOP is LBL...
> 
> 
> Yes but the amount of substeps you put between F2L-1 and the last layer makes it unviable as the CFOP killer I know you're looking for. Imagine you have a solved F2L-1 with EO, here's what you would do using CFOP to finish the solve:
> ...


I already know the CFOP killer, I suggest you try it.

ECE method, also called ABC(Adam-briggs columns) or Briggs-adam method.
Ive gotten some solves about equal to my regular (roux) times, and I felt like I was using a lower TPS, but I got the same time. its move-efficient, ergonomic, and fast.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> CFOP is LBL...
> 
> 
> Yes but the amount of substeps you put between F2L-1 and the last layer makes it unviable as the CFOP killer I know you're looking for. Imagine you have a solved F2L-1 with EO, here's what you would do using CFOP to finish the solve:
> ...


and in fact, the LL pair is already in the slot when we create the F2L pair, so you only need to do some playing with it and you can figure out how to solve the F2L pair without disturbing the LL pair in the slot.


----------



## adimare (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> and in fact, the LL pair is already in the slot when we create the F2L pair, so you only need to do some playing with it and you can figure out how to solve the F2L pair without disturbing the LL pair in the slot.


Having to create the last F2L pair with the restriction that you can't upset the pair you inserted in the F2L slot makes the process harder, so I don't know why you're saying that like it's a good thing. And you still have the same amount of steps I listed (create a pair, insert a pair, create a pair, f2l+l, 1lll), so it's still a lot worse than CFOP.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> Having to create the last F2L pair with the restriction that you can't upset the pair you inserted in the F2L slot makes the process harder, so I don't know why you're saying that like it's a good thing. And you still have the same amount of steps I listed (create a pair, insert a pair, create a pair, f2l+l, 1lll), so it's still a lot worse than CFOP.


Its just as hard(actually easier than) learning F2L. you justhave to find out which cases don't destroy it, and monkey any case towards those cases(somewhat like in f2l, towards CE par and split pair cases).
If you haven't tried, you don't know do you?


----------



## adimare (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Its just as hard(actually easier than) learning F2L. you justhave to find out which cases don't destroy it, and monkey any case towards those cases(somewhat like in f2l, towards CE par and split pair cases).


How can learning how to build 2 pairs and inserting one be easier than learning how to build and insert a single pair?



Shiv3r said:


> If you haven't tried, you don't know do you?


I have tried the method (the algs you posted for UBR clockwise and counterclockwise are backwards btw), and I've been doing Heise 2 pairs for a long long time, so I know all about creating 2 CE pairs after F2L-1. *It's not easier than F2L.*


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

okay. fine. be a critic of every method you look at, just stay away from any decent methods. I could criticize F2L and CFOP all day, but I choose not to.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> How can learning how to build 2 pairs and inserting one be easier than learning how to build and insert a single pair?
> 
> 
> I have tried the method (the algs you posted for UBR clockwise and counterclockwise are backwards btw), and I've been doing Heise 2 pairs for a long long time, so I know all about creating 2 CE pairs after F2L-1. *It's not easier than F2L.*


for the UBR algs, the clockwise twist is the twist from a correct orientation, not to twist it counterclockwise. make any sense?


----------



## adimare (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> okay. fine. be a critic of every method you look at, just stay away from any decent methods.


So what you're saying is that this method isn't one of the decent ones? Okay then


----------



## TDM (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> *some douche just put this into this thread*, instead of having its own thread like it did.
> Its refined enough to have its own threat, like ZZ-HW


That's a nice way to talk about the mods.

I don't really know what you mean by "refined", but imo ZZ-HW could also have been in either this thread or the ZZ thread. Otherwise we're just going to get hundreds of threads about new methods, which is exactly what this thread was made to avoid. 

(btw this is getting a bit off-topic now, so if you want to reply maybe PM me)


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

TDM said:


> That's a nice way to talk about the mods.
> 
> I don't really know what you mean by "refined", but imo ZZ-HW could also have been in either this thread or the ZZ thread. Otherwise we're just going to get hundreds of threads about new methods, which is exactly what this thread was made to avoid.
> 
> (btw this is getting a bit off-topic now, so if you want to reply maybe PM me)


but the only reason this thread exists is to kill ideas. And also, replies to your topic are mixed in with replies to other topics. its kinda annoying.


----------



## stoic (May 5, 2016)

TDM said:


> That's a nice way to talk about the mods.


Can't believe that post got to stay up. 
Do we still even have mods?
I haven't seen any of them posting for ages.
This place gets more like a kindergarten every day.


----------



## gyroninja (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> but the only reason this thread exists is to kill ideas.



Not sure where you are getting that from. It seems to me like a breeding ground for ideas. It's a place to discuss what people are coming up with and give criticism on what's good / bad.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Not sure where you are getting that from. It seems to me like a breeding ground for ideas. It's a place to discuss what people are coming up with and give criticism on what's good / bad.


Ive see some people that don't point out any good aspects, only the negative. I think that it has some kind of xenophobia in it: fear of the unknown.


----------



## gyroninja (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Ive see some people that don't point out any good aspects, only the negative. I think that it has some kind of xenophobia in it: fear of the unknown.


Most of the time those ideas are not original and have been thought up before or are blatantly worse than what we currently do. I'm not seeing this xenophobia you are talking about. Most people will give your idea a fair chance of is original.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

Okay then, but the Line last layer is literally an 18 case 1LLL, doesn't that give it some credit? think about it: we reduced the amount of pieces to solve by 1/3 and we reduce the amount of cases from over 1k to double digits. thats actually kind of incredible.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Okay then, but the Line last layer is literally an 18 case 1LLL, doesn't that give it some credit? think about it: we reduced the amount of pieces to solve by 1/3 and we reduce the amount of cases from over 1k to double digits. thats actually kind of incredible.


The case count is good, but that's not the only thing which affects how good a method is.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> The case count is good, but that's not the only thing which affects how good a method is.


true.
but lazy people want algorithm efficiency.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 5, 2016)

So I've recently found out abou ZZ-LoL and thought of a possibly viable idea for L2S.
1. Solve 2x2x3 in the back, EO, and last cross piece.
2. Create both pairs and put them adjacent to each other in the U layer.
3. Use an alg to insert each one, and while inserting, create a line in place of the pair. This will solve LL.
The alg count shout be much lower than the original L2S idea, as well as recog because the pairs are going in the front. The second alg may be a bit lengthy, though. Please share any thoughts, ideas or criticism


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 5, 2016)

adimare said:


> So what you're saying is that this method isn't one of the decent ones? Okay then


Interesting way to look at it...
Does that mean HK is decent???
(Just a joke don't get mad plz)


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

Okay, so I've been thinking about ZZ and I know that people say it's not popular because EOline can be very hard to get used to and there aren't results sufficiently convincing to back it up.

In an effort to resolve the former, I propose the following beginner's ZZ variant that someone can learn with no prior cubing knowledge (and give them a less painful way to transition into full ZZ later on).

The EZ Method (*rimshot*)
1. Cross (I was thinking on D, but perhaps on U would be possible as well).
2. Place all first layer corners without rotating. The process here could be similar to beginner methods, where you get the corner above its corresponding slot and use RUR'U' and its mirrors to solve.
3. F2L without rotating. Here introduce the idea of a front and front colors (shouldn't be too complicated, it's literally the color of the front center). For each edge piece (in top layer, like most beginner algs assume): get the piece to UF. If the top color is the same as the front color or its opposite, apply an algorithm to solve (e.g. U'RU'R'U'RU'R'URUR' and mirrors). If colors don't match, use FRUR'U'F' to orient the edge, and then solve it using the algorithm.
4. EO of LL using FRUR'U'F'.
5. CP using a similar recognition method to that described in DeeDubb's beginner Roux tutorial (match up corners to corresponding F2L slots, figure out which need to swap) and a Niklas to do the swapping. (I initially was convinced that people should use <R,U,D> Niklas to get used to D fingertricks, but perhaps learning to transition between R and L would be good as well)
6. CO using Sunes.
7. EP using an <M,U> U-perm.

This method would have 6 algorithms (sexy, F2L alg, fruruf, Niklas, Sune, Uperm), 5 of which remain useful later on.
F2L edge recognition is already partially built in, which provides an easier transition into ideas like EOline and orienting 4 edges at a time.
CP before CO might seem a bit odd, but I'm thinking that it would naturally open things up to more advanced CP recognition systems and provide an easier transition into COLL, since you'd be able to learn the algs while already having the recognition for it. This would let you actually understand what each COLL alg does to CP while learning it (personally I find this sort of concreteness very helpful).
I know people use <R,U> U-perms, but I suggest <M,U> here because I think <R,U> fingertricks can be developed during F2L, and <M,U> will be very useful later on when learning H/Z perms.
The only funky part that I see is in steps 2-3, where mirroring algorithms to the left and back might be a little hard to get used to.

Here's the sort of progression I'm imagining between EZ and ZZ (assuming the endpoint is ZZ-a, because that's always seemed the most hardcore to me):
EZ -> solve F2L by inserting pairs -> orient all edges before starting F2L, but after cross -> EOCross -> blockbuilding in the F2L, not just blindly solving cross pieces -> COLL -> PLL? (for when you OLL skip?) -> 2GLL? (for when you CP skip?) -> ZZLL -> ZBLL

Thoughts?


----------



## gyroninja (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Okay, so I've been thinking about ZZ and I know that people say it's not popular because EOline can be very hard to get used to and there aren't results sufficiently convincing to back it up.
> 
> In an effort to resolve the former, I propose the following beginner's ZZ variant that someone can learn with no prior cubing knowledge (and give them a less painful way to transition into full ZZ later on).
> 
> ...



I don't see the difference from beginners method. Why not just teach them normal zz right off the bat (with the beginner ll)? It doesn't take that long to learn how to do eo or zzf2l, they just have to be shown a few cases.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

Well, the difference is that you wouldn't rotate to solve F2L edges, and it's a bit of a lead-in to full EOLine. I don't think normal ZZ right off the bat is good because EO and ZZF2L are both pretty intense and I think that is what turns people away. I'm coming from the perspective of someone with literally no knowledge at all, and based on what I've seen from teaching friends how to solve, throwing things like EO and blockbuilding at newcomers right away isn't the best way to go.

I'm not sure what beginner LL is (i've seen many permutations of EO/EP/CO/CP). What do you consider it to be?


----------



## gyroninja (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Well, the difference is that you wouldn't rotate to solve F2L edges, and it's a bit of a lead-in to full EOLine. I don't think normal ZZ right off the bat is good because EO and ZZF2L are both pretty intense and I think that is what turns people away. I'm coming from the perspective of someone with literally no knowledge at all, and based on what I've seen from teaching friends how to solve, throwing things like EO and blockbuilding at newcomers right away isn't the best way to go.
> 
> I'm not sure what beginner LL is (i've seen many permutations of EO/EP/CO/CP). What do you consider it to be?


EO is actually fun from a non speed focused perspective. It's a little puzzle that you have to solve. ZZF2L isn't too hard to comprehend if you are shown the basic ways of pairing up pieces.

Beginner ll is really ambiguous. It essentially means to me a 4+ looks last layer.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

Interesting. I think you may have a unique perspective on EO--most people I've talked to find the step awkward or difficult to grasp without lots of practice. The recog isn't trivial either, so personally when starting out I found it frustrating when I messed up and had to spend a good 5-10 seconds redetecting edges. That's why I think if we introduce the EO in little pieces like this, it would make more sense to people when transitioning into EOLine.
That said I also don't think much time necessarily has to be spent on the beginner F2L--if someone really gets it, they could just go into EOLine.

I'm not sure about the F2L. Initially I was thinking that one could solve a line, then orient edges as necessary while blockbuilding the F2L, but later figured it might be overwheming with that much freedom and changed it. As far as I've seen, people like more structured beginners' methods over blockbuilding methods, but maybe it's possible to just start with the blockbuilding immediately.

As for LL, it technically could be done in any way, but I just think the way I suggest would be most beneficial down the line (EO CP CO EP). There's nothing particularly new about it, but I think that specific order is important


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Well, the difference is that you wouldn't rotate to solve F2L edges, and it's a bit of a lead-in to full EOLine. I don't think normal ZZ right off the bat is good because EO and ZZF2L are both pretty intense and I think that is what turns people away. I'm coming from the perspective of someone with literally no knowledge at all, and based on what I've seen from teaching friends how to solve, throwing things like EO and blockbuilding at newcomers right away isn't the best way to go.



As someone who learnt EO and blockbuilding as a beginner, I wish I could get rid of this myth forever. EO for ZZ takes just a few hours to learn and blockbuilding is actually easier because you have more options.

ZZ is easy for beginners! Its only CFOP preconceptions that make it seem hard.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

I think it's possible you two have just had an affinity for ZZ though. We should definitely push for dispelling any myths about difficulty, but CFOP has a lot more documentation, its first steps are simpler (they all involve directly solving pieces), and it has an even simpler beginner variant to ease people into F2L pairing. I just think that sort of simplicity is what would allow ZZ have a more general appeal. You may have found it not that bad, but it's possible some 7-year-old who just wants to learn to solve the thing might not enjoy it nearly as much


----------



## adimare (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Here's the sort of progression I'm imagining between EZ and ZZ (assuming the endpoint is ZZ-a, because that's always seemed the most hardcore to me):
> EZ -> solve F2L by inserting pairs -> orient all edges before starting F2L, but after cross -> EOCross -> blockbuilding in the F2L, not just blindly solving cross pieces -> COLL -> PLL? (for when you OLL skip?) -> 2GLL? (for when you CP skip?) -> ZZLL -> ZBLL



I think that the following is a more natural progression:

Beginner LBL -> F2L with pairs -> CFOP with 4LLL -> CFOP with 3LLL -> EO Cross (instant 2LLL without having learned full OLL) -> EO Line.

I think its best to switch to EO as the first step when you can already do proper F2L. Although I have no doubt that a beginner can learn EO very early on, I don't think he'll see any benefits from it until he's doing pair insertions during F2L, so why learn it before that?


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

Hm, true.

In that case, I think it'd be better even to just go with:
LBL with LL as proposed -> F2L with pairs -> EO Cross -> EO Line


----------



## shadowslice e (May 6, 2016)

Tbh, ZZ isn't that bad if you just find a good tutorial like asmallkitten has on his channel. I actually learned basic CFOP, Roux, ZZ, PCMS, VHLS and Petrus (and heise; but i would not recommend that cause it can be pretty difficult) simultaneously when I was around 30 seconds. It actually really wasn't too bad and I got to see all the possibilities for EO.
Basically, asmallkitten's videos for ZZ and a few roux tutorials and you should be able to do it fairly easily given a week or less.


----------



## Berd (May 6, 2016)

ZZF2L wouldn't be hard to teach in a beginner method, sexy move to insert corners, then the R U R U R U' R' U' R' for edges.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Okay, so I've been thinking about ZZ and I know that people say it's not popular because EOline can be very hard to get used to and there aren't results sufficiently convincing to back it up.
> 
> In an effort to resolve the former, I propose the following beginner's ZZ variant that someone can learn with no prior cubing knowledge (and give them a less painful way to transition into full ZZ later on).
> 
> ...


This is the most brilliant thing I have ever heard. go on ahead, and I will support you every step of the way.
I suggest in the "intermediate" section of this you post the petrus ZBLL algset and idea, because it uses 40 algorithms to solve all ZBLL cases.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Interesting. I think you may have a unique perspective on EO--most people I've talked to find the step awkward or difficult to grasp without lots of practice. The recog isn't trivial either, so personally when starting out I found it frustrating when I messed up and had to spend a good 5-10 seconds redetecting edges. That's why I think if we introduce the EO in little pieces like this, it would make more sense to people when transitioning into EOLine.
> That said I also don't think much time necessarily has to be spent on the beginner F2L--if someone really gets it, they could just go into EOLine.
> 
> I'm not sure about the F2L. Initially I was thinking that one could solve a line, then orient edges as necessary while blockbuilding the F2L, but later figured it might be overwheming with that much freedom and changed it. As far as I've seen, people like more structured beginners' methods over blockbuilding methods, but maybe it's possible to just start with the blockbuilding immediately.
> ...


for last layer, I taught my sister 4-look last layer(2Look OLL, 2Look PLL) and she totally gets it. so Last layer isn't a problem. 
But I suggest that us, teodius, make a tutorial for this? I will definitely help!!!
ZZ-N, for ZZ-Newb


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

we have to figure out though, how to get this method to be a natural progression to ZZ. I suggest:
-Line on top
-flip over and insert one cross edge with only R, U, and L moves.(this may help some people who can't bear destroying the stuff they've already done.) and if the cross is misoriented, then we do the alg. 
-finish F2L on one side, then do the same thing on the right(this will help with EO detection, maybe fix last layer edges in the process, like in petrus)
-last layer


----------



## Vexatious (May 6, 2016)

Here's an idea for a tutorial 
The cube will be held with yellow on top and blue in front. Every time you find two bad edges, you place them in UF and RF (withiout using F and B) and then perform sledgehammer(or you could mirror the alg). 

To find bad edges containing l/r, just find orange or red on top bottom, or e-slice front or back.
To find bad edges containing u/d, just find with or yellow on the first or third layer, or elide sides

And then make EO line with move restrictions
Then instead of making a cross, focus on building one block at a time( left block then right block or vice versa). Teach learners how to "hide pieces" to pair them up.

Last layer can be done in any way


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

teodius's idea makes sense, more than yours. I think you think taht noobs can do more than you think they can.


Vexatious said:


> Here's an idea for a tutorial
> The cube will be held with yellow on top and blue in front. Every time you find two bad edges, you place them in UF and RF (withiout using F and B) and then perform sledgehammer(or you could mirror the alg).
> 
> To find bad edges containing l/r, just find orange or red on top bottom, or e-slice front or back.
> ...


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

After some thought I agree with the other comments here on starting with LBL. Now I'm thinking as follows:

LBL for F2L, then LL: EO CP CO EP -> CFOP F2L + LL with full EPLL -> rotationless CFOP F2L (sledge to orient bad edges) + LL with one-look CO and advanced CP recog -> EOCross -> EOLine + blockbuilding F2L + COLL/EPLL

I feel like people are saying the LL can be completed in any way, but I really think this specific progression is what should be taught in order to allow for smoother transition into ZZ.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

LBL goes to CFOP. please dont teach that. If we want people to learn ZZ, Edge orientation early on has to be larned


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

Well, there's not a very easy way to introduce EO early on without it seeming completely arbitrary to a beginner (as adimare mentioned, a beginner really doesn't have much use for it). Arbitrariness doesn't really help much in garnering interest (why do this weird EO thing to insert F2L edges when you could just do normal LBL?), so either this progression or we find a very different beginner method that could lead into ZZ

Perhaps the best way to do this after all is just to introduce EO right off the bat--but not in full. So it would go like this:
1) Orient U and D face edges
2) Orient E edges
3) Make the line
4) Blockbuild the F2L
5) LL: EO(skipped), CP(Niklas), CO(Sune), EP(Ua)

With this it would be important to explain why the orientation step is useful (basically explaining the benefits of reduction) and why a beginner should care about it.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

what about teaching how to orient U and D layer edges instead, then do the E edges later on?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

because I think that would be easier to grasp for noobs.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

I think keeping them as two different steps should be simplification enough--if don't orient E edges in the very beginning, you run into the same problem as my initial idea. To a beginner, there's no reason to do an alg before inserting an edge with another alg when there are many many resources that tell you to just rotate to the proper position and do one alg. Beginners won't necessarily see the benefit of minimizing rotations


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

youre right.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Beginners won't necessarily see the benefit of minimizing rotations


tell them that it makes it easier later on.
could you create the line _then_ orient E and D edges?


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

That would make EO a lot more difficult. You'd have to break the line every time you wanted to orient stuff. Plus, normal ZZ makes EO before line, so it would teach things backwards. Definitely EO first


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

good Idea!
now lets make a tutorial.


----------



## Vexatious (May 6, 2016)

But that takes away the advantages of ZZ- 2gen without rotations


Edit: never mind didn't see latest post


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

split it up into D layer EO->E slice EO maybe?


----------



## Vexatious (May 6, 2016)

Do you have a YouTube?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> Do you have a YouTube?


me, yes, although It has maybe 2 averages of 5 on it , and some Roux speedsolves.
maybe 5 speedcubing videos overall.


----------



## Vexatious (May 6, 2016)

I'm assuming the tutorial for beginners is going to be there


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> I'm assuming the tutorial for beginners is going to be there


mine or teodius's. 
also, herre's JTWong's buy-in to the idea:
Identify the D-Layer Edge Orientations.
Identify the U-Layer Edge Orientations.
If it comes to 4+, bring 4 of them to the F-Layer and do an 'F' Move.

E-Slice Edges are more difficult.
You could tell a beginner to bring each E-Slice Edge to their respective layers and see if the color matches.


----------



## JTWong71 (May 6, 2016)

You can teach them to bring the D-Layer edges to their respective layers to check how many bad edges there are.
Do the same with the yellow edges.

E-Slice Edges are explained above.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

Yeah, I think some clever way of breaking down EO into multiple substeps is definitely the way to go.
Much simpler than my initial idea, and makes more sense

I could make a tutorial, but don't h ave too much time to do so


----------



## JTWong71 (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, I think some clever way of breaking down EO into multiple substeps is definitely the way to go.
> Much simpler than my initial idea, and makes more sense
> 
> I could make a tutorial, but don't h ave too much time to do so



I would want to make a tutorial, but I'm not allowed to make any videos.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

I could but I don't have a decent camera rig,(digital point-and shoot sitting on the box it came in)


----------



## JTWong71 (May 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I could but I don't have a decent camera rig,(digital point-and shoot sitting on the box it came in)


We could always make a Written Tutorial, although that usually does not turn out well.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

Yeah, I think people usually like videos more. Are you sure you can't just find some secluded area and do it, JT?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> We could always make a Written Tutorial, although that usually does not turn out well.


visualcube maybe?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, I think people usually like videos more. Are you sure you can't just find some secluded area and do it, JT?


I can do it. but beware i got the teenager voicebreak pretty hard, and i sound terrible on video.


----------



## JTWong71 (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, I think people usually like videos more. Are you sure you can't just find some secluded area and do it, JT?


Yeah, I'm not allowed to have a Youtube to post videos on.



Shiv3r said:


> visualcube maybe?


That might work, but videos are still easier to understand most of the time.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

How would you parents know, exactly? Seems like you could do it pretty anonymously.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> How would you parents know, exactly? Seems like you could do it pretty anonymously.


dude. dont make him break any rules. He might have those stereotypical asian parents or super overprotective ones. Ill do it, its fine, as soon as I get home.


----------



## JTWong71 (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> How would you parents know, exactly? Seems like you could do it pretty anonymously.


I still do not want to make a video when I am told not to...


----------



## Shiv3r (May 6, 2016)

neither would I.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

What are the generally accepted thoughts on ZZ-Profane Koala? 



The general idea being to come up with a decent recognition method by pushing the F2L corners to specific locations and recognizing patterns from there.
It's interesting because it can be extended (recognition can be developed for F2L corners in different locations), possibly to the point where you could quickly identify CP after finishing first block


----------



## JTWong71 (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> The general idea being to come up with a decent recognition method by pushing the F2L corners to specific locations and recognizing patterns from there.
> It's interesting because it can be extended (recognition can be developed for F2L corners in different locations), possibly to the point where you could quickly identify CP after finishing first block


Both Shiv3r and I tried working on figuring out a way to improve CP Recognition.
It doesn't look like there is any way to figure it out using COLL-Type Recognition, as there are too many Corner Orientation Cases.


----------



## Teoidus (May 6, 2016)

CP recognition and ZZ-d in general just feels so irritatingly close to being viable.
if only there were just some obscure, but simple-to-use pattern...

What was the method you two were workign on?


----------



## gyroninja (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> What are the generally accepted thoughts on ZZ-Profane Koala?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think it's good as normal zz-d since it has you do a whole block first.


----------



## JTWong71 (May 6, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> CP recognition and ZZ-d in general just feels so irritatingly close to being viable.
> if only there were just some obscure, but simple-to-use pattern...
> 
> What was the method you two were workign on?


It wasn't really a method.
We were just trying to come up with ideas that could improve CP Recognition, if we tried implementing it in a future method.


----------



## 4Chan (May 6, 2016)

I used to use a variant of ZZ-D for OH.

CPLS is easy to recognize.

With ZZ, get F2L-1, then 

1. Form the pair
2. Hover the pair over FR empty slot.
3. Pretend the corner in the DFR position is in the top.
4. Look at the swap with this corner as a reference.

From there, it's pretty obvious which direction the corners go. 
There are only 7 scenarios: front swap, back swap, left swap, right swap, left diagonal swap, right diagonal swap, and no swap.

Only 7 short algs, one of which is trivial (U R U' R') LOL
2-gen ezpz

But it's only worth it if you know 2GLL.
But for me, it wasn't really worth it because it's one more look than just herpderping the ZBLL.


----------



## Aiminer357 (May 12, 2016)

New Method Time!

I'm really good at making dumb methods.

I don't have a name for this method yet, so just wait.

The concept of this method is to turn it into a 3x3x2. Or something like that. I can't remember why I did this. It is based on the Thistlewaite Algorithm. Or something like that.

It has x steps.
1. EO
2. Insert all E layer edges.
3. Orient all corners.
4. Solve like a 3x3x2.
a) You could do the standard 3x3x2 method
b) Or solve the first layer via block building or cross and then corners. And then PLL.

This can definitely be improved. Step 1 and 2 can be combined. And Step 4 is very flexible.

This is just a concept. I may go back and upgrade this. Tell me if I made a good method or a total dud.

p.s. can someone in detail explain SSC? The wiki is hard to understand.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 12, 2016)

Aiminer357 said:


> New Method Time!
> 
> I'm really good at making dumb methods.
> 
> ...


 Isn't this *exactly* what the first steps of the human thistlethwaite are?



> p.s. can someone in detail explain SSC? The wiki is hard to understand.



Does this help?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 15, 2016)

Hey.

So Im a Roux solver, and sometimes I end up with getting a realllly easy 2x2x2 block during inspection. SO instead of solving F2B, I do a little variant instead:

I.2x2x2 in BDL
II.find pairs and finish F2B in some order
III.CMLL
IV.L5E

I end up getting around the same times as my roux solves.
This may be just because I really only use it when I can clearly see a 2x2x2 block in only a few moves, I dont know.
how does it sound?


----------



## JTWong71 (May 15, 2016)

The only problem I see with doing this is that the M-Slice won't be as free to be used as usual during the Second Block. Some CMLL algorithms may not work with preserving one of the Edges.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 19, 2016)

efattah said:


> A few people asked me to post example solves and reconstructions with my new LMCF method, so I did that, this video has two example solves with reconstructions (a 10.60 second 38 move solve and a 14.96 second 48 move solve):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hey effatah can you send me some algorithms for the E2L, please? this method looks fun


----------



## Cale S (May 19, 2016)

fun LSLL idea for ZZ or maybe CFOP

example: R U2 F' U' F U' F' R' U' R U' F R' U2

R U' R'
r U R' U' r' F R F'
U' R' U' R' U' R' U R U R U

basically just corner>COLL>L5E
the L5E algs seem pretty nice
not always worth it but for bad F2L cases (like this) I think it might be


----------



## Shiv3r (May 19, 2016)

cool! i


Cale S said:


> fun LSLL idea for ZZ or maybe CFOP
> 
> example: R U2 F' U' F U' F' R' U' R U' F R' U2
> 
> ...


it actually looks viable.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 19, 2016)

Cale S said:


> fun LSLL idea for ZZ or maybe CFOP
> 
> example: R U2 F' U' F U' F' R' U' R U' F R' U2
> 
> ...


Im going to try some of these with a petrus Idea me and wong had, Ill share some example solves.


----------



## 4Chan (May 20, 2016)

Cale S said:


> fun LSLL idea for ZZ or maybe CFOP
> 
> example: R U2 F' U' F U' F' R' U' R U' F R' U2
> 
> ...



OHhhHHhh, that'd be sick if the corner was already placed.
This is pretty nice. o.o


----------



## Shiv3r (May 20, 2016)

4Chan said:


> OHhhHHhh, that'd be sick if the corner was already placed.
> This is pretty nice. o.o


I agree, the 2-gennness is amazing.
what if we solved the F2L corner while affecting the LL corners in some way?
like a CPLS with only the corner not the edge so after that we only have 2-gen OCLL algorithms and then the L5E?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I agree, the 2-gennness is amazing.
> what if we solved the F2L corner while affecting the LL corners in some way?
> like a CPLS with only the corner not the edge so after that we only have 2-gen OCLL algorithms and then the L5E?


So solve a corner and permute the rest? I think it is better with a whole slot because then you can do 2GLL


----------



## Shiv3r (May 20, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So solve a corner and permute the rest? I think it is better with a whole slot because then you can do 2GLL


or do CLS-I algs, insert it(unoriented) and use EJF2L to orient them, then permute corners and do the L5E.
all the EJF2L algs can be 2-gen.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 21, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> or do CLS-I algs, insert it(unoriented) and use EJF2L to orient them, then permute corners and do the L5E.
> all the EJF2L algs can be 2-gen.


EJF2L can be counterproductive. People say it's easier to insert unoriented, but I don't see the point. Just insert it solved with 1 extra move, which gets rid of a longer alg and 9 cases. At that point, your just doing COLL, which isn't even that efficient...


----------



## crafto22 (May 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> or do CLS-I algs, insert it(unoriented) and use EJF2L to orient them, then permute corners and do the L5E.
> all the EJF2L algs can be 2-gen.


That's a horrible idea. Inserting it oriented takes the same number of moves as inserting it unoriented. You're adding an extra look


----------



## crafto22 (May 25, 2016)

A super efficient method with a ton of freedom but very difficult recognition:

1. Solve two 2x2x1 blocks on B like Roux blocks without the front pairs, but they don't have to match in colour in any way
2. Solve the front corners and then the U layer corners using CMLL
3. Solve 2x3x1 blocks like Roux blocks but they don't necessarily have to match
4. L6E

In order to achieve the greatest possible efficiency, one must choose their first two blocks wisely in order to achieve a low movecount. After doing a couple dozen solves I've found that I can usually solve the blocks in about 8 moves. For the third step, it's important to choose your blocks wisely. You want to solve the block efficiently, but also influence the upcoming L6E for maximal efficiency.

Here is an example solve:

D U' L' F U L2 U' R B D' F D F2 B2 R2 D' B2 U L2 U F2 U2

x2 R' B' U F R2 B' L // Blocks (7/7)
U' F R U2 B' R' F R2 B R2 F' // D layer corners cancelled into a Sune CLL (11/18)
M2 U2 F M2 F' // 2x3x1 blocks (5/23)
U2 M' U2 (M R) U R' U' M' U R U' r' // L6E done using an ELL finish (12/35)

This example solve was actually one of the longer solutions I've gotten but since people are always so skeptical I didn't want to use one of the best solves as an example. 35 ATM is still very very good if you ask me.

Okay so obviously this has one huge problem: recognition. In this particular example solve recognition was not really a problem since it just so happened that the most efficient blocks also made recognition easy, but it won't always be this simple. If I could invent some recognition system this could be really good.


----------



## JTWong71 (May 25, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Okay so obviously this has one huge problem: recognition. In this particular example solve recognition was not really a problem since it just so happened that the most efficient blocks also made recognition easy, but it won't always be this simple. If I could invent some recognition system this could be really good.


Wouldn't fingertricks also be a problem for the method?
It looks like you are using a decent amount of B Moves during the Example Solve.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 25, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> A super efficient method with a ton of freedom but very difficult recognition:
> 
> 1. Solve two 2x2x1 blocks on B like Roux blocks without the front pairs, but they don't have to match in colour in any way
> 2. Solve the front corners and then the U layer corners using CMLL
> ...


I totally agree with you, this method is amazingly efficient just terrible recog. To fix recog (or make it better), you have to see where it is bad, in this case CxLL and the second block. To fix the second block is easy: plan first in inspection, and look ahead while building it. For CxLL, you have the freedom of two extra edges so we can use this to our advantage and create a new alg set, but i don't see the point in that as two extra free edges isn't really too much freedom. We can also influence the corners during previous steps, but I like the simplicity in this method and I don't want to ruin that. I think the best thing for this case is trying to improve the CxLL execution.

Also, the example isn't working for me, but that may just be human error on my part.


----------



## KevinM (May 25, 2016)

This is a 3x3 last slot subset, I would like to call KMLS (Kevin Min Last Slot) and this will take a butt load of effort to accomplish. Although I do not expect anybody to learn the whole thing, but it is nice to know some of the east ones ( ill include in the post)
Basically, this can be called WVCP (Winter variation cp) which means on your last slot, when all edges are oriented, you will use an algorithm to permute the top colors, and the corners. Sounds INSANE. Right? But there are algs that are simple.(Coming up on yt. I will update this post when it does) Such as an alg which is just a J or T perm with R U R' cancelled, or some insertion cancelling into a coll. 
I will get most algs from experiences, or using cube explorer, and find the most finger trickable.
If anybody is interested in helping me(it is a lot of algorithms to do alone!) Private message me or email me at [email protected]


----------



## gyroninja (May 25, 2016)

KevinM said:


> This is a 3x3 last slot subset, I would like to call KMLS (Kevin Min Last Slot) and this will take a butt load of effort to accomplish. Although I do not expect anybody to learn the whole thing, but it is nice to know some of the east ones ( ill include in the post)
> Basically, this can be called WVCP (Winter variation cp) which means on your last slot, when all edges are oriented, you will use an algorithm to permute the top colors, and the corners. Sounds INSANE. Right? But there are algs that are simple.(Coming up on yt. I will update this post when it does) Such as an alg which is just a J or T perm with R U R' cancelled, or some insertion cancelling into a coll.
> I will get most algs from experiences, or using cube explorer, and find the most finger trickable.
> If anybody is interested in helping me(it is a lot of algorithms to do alone!) Private message me or email me at [email protected]


Bilde(man) has a complete wvcp alg sheet. It's probably posted earlier in this thread (and also in it's own thread?).


----------



## shadowslice e (May 25, 2016)

KevinM said:


> This is a 3x3 last slot subset, I would like to call KMLS (Kevin Min Last Slot) and this will take a butt load of effort to accomplish. Although I do not expect anybody to learn the whole thing, but it is nice to know some of the east ones ( ill include in the post)
> Basically, this can be called WVCP (Winter variation cp) which means on your last slot, when all edges are oriented, you will use an algorithm to permute the top colors, and the corners. Sounds INSANE. Right? But there are algs that are simple.(Coming up on yt. I will update this post when it does) Such as an alg which is just a J or T perm with R U R' cancelled, or some insertion cancelling into a coll.
> I will get most algs from experiences, or using cube explorer, and find the most finger trickable.
> If anybody is interested in helping me(it is a lot of algorithms to do alone!) Private message me or email me at [email protected]


Do you mean this?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 25, 2016)

I had an idea for a newb method, kind of a transition between a beginner method and CFOP. 
backstory:
When I was learning CFOP, I didn't learn F2L for a while. For a lot of the time, I didn't even do corners->edges. I would solve the F2L edge, then solve the corner using some quick 2-gen algorithms. So I decided to try to expand that to make a method that is reasonably fast and can be used as a stepping stone to intuitive F2L.

so here are the steps for TFOP(*T-*style *F*2l *O*ll *P*ll)
-Solve a cross
-Insert the F2L edges as in Keyhole without adjusting D face.
-Use one of 3 fast algorithms to solve the F2L corners
-Last layer however you like


----------



## crafto22 (May 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I totally agree with you, this method is amazingly efficient just terrible recog. To fix recog (or make it better), you have to see where it is bad, in this case CxLL and the second block. To fix the second block is easy: plan first in inspection, and look ahead while building it. For CxLL, you have the freedom of two extra edges so we can use this to our advantage and create a new alg set, but i don't see the point in that as two extra free edges isn't really too much freedom. We can also influence the corners during previous steps, but I like the simplicity in this method and I don't want to ruin that. I think the best thing for this case is trying to improve the CxLL execution.
> 
> Also, the example isn't working for me, but that may just be human error on my part.


Nope example solve works. Also the block isn't the problem, the problem is CMLL recog and L6E recog, although I've been able to improve that quite a bit. For now I've been orienting all edges as if the second block matched and then I simply imagine that that edge is a different. Is sorta hard to explain, maybe I'll do a video example solve to explain it better. Also I got a 25 move solution this morning (5 move 2x2x1s, 7 move corners, 3 move 2x3x1s and 10 move L6E), and the L6E wasn't particularly good. I think corners could be as low as 5 with cancellations and L6E can occasionally be 8. Also the 2x3x1s can quite often be solved with a quick M U M trigger or something short like that. I'm pretty sure a lucky speedsolve could take as few as 21 moves, which would be almost a third of CFOP's average moves. Even with the horrible recog this method could be super efficient which would make up for the pauses.


----------



## crafto22 (May 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Wouldn't fingertricks also be a problem for the method?
> It looks like you are using a decent amount of B Moves during the Example Solve.


You could rotate and execute them as U moves, I simply didn't show that in the example solve. In terms of ergonomics this method isn't actually too bad.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 25, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Nope example solve works. Also the block isn't the problem, the problem is CMLL recog and L6E recog, although I've been able to improve that quite a bit. For now I've been orienting all edges as if the second block matched and then I simply imagine that that edge is a different. Is sorta hard to explain, maybe I'll do a video example solve to explain it better. Also I got a 25 move solution this morning (5 move 2x2x1s, 7 move corners, 3 move 2x3x1s and 10 move L6E), and the L6E wasn't particularly good. I think corners could be as low as 5 with cancellations and L6E can occasionally be 8. Also the 2x3x1s can quite often be solved with a quick M U M trigger or something short like that. I'm pretty sure a lucky speedsolve could take as few as 21 moves, which would be almost a third of CFOP's average moves. Even with the horrible recog this method could be super efficient which would make up for the pauses.


I came up with this with me and jtwong, but either solving corners like above, or building the 2 blocks and use some kind of L2S to skip CMLL.
The problem was that it could simply not be fast, its faster to solve roux FB and SB than building 2 1x2x2s and solving the corners.


----------



## crafto22 (May 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I came up with this with me and jtwong, but either solving corners like above, or building the 2 blocks and use some kind of L2S to skip CMLL.
> The problem was that it could simply not be fast, its faster to solve roux FB and SB than building 2 1x2x2s and solving the corners.


How so? Technically you're solving Roux blocks without two edges then just CMLL. Finally you insert those last edges but you have way more options and you can optimize L6E. So basically this method HAS to be faster than Roux (in theory, and only if recog was good)


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I came up with this with me and jtwong, but either solving corners like above, or building the 2 blocks and use some kind of L2S to skip CMLL.
> The problem was that it could simply not be fast, its faster to solve roux FB and SB than building 2 1x2x2s and solving the corners.


Using L2S to solve corners by orientation then permutation may not be a bad idea, the recog would be much quicker, it would combine parts of steps and I imagine the move length average wouldn't be too bad because of all the freedom...


----------



## crafto22 (May 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Using L2S to solve corners by orientation then permutation may not be a bad idea, the recog would be much quicker, it would combine parts of steps and I imagine the move length average wouldn't be too bad because of all the freedom...


I don't think L2S would be very efficient, NMCLL already exists so why don't we us the recog from that?


----------



## gyroninja (May 25, 2016)

Can you noobs just shut up and realize that cmll recognition is already good. I have no problem with it and can see what case I have quickly I'm sure proficient roux solvers have no problem with cmll recognition either.

This method isn't better then Roux because you are sacrificing ergonomics. Doing fb then sb is more ergonomic than doing back two blocks than DF corners. You also lose ergonomics in l6e by having to solve virtually an additional UL/UR pair. This also messes up eo since you now have 8 pieces to orient. Do you do eo before inserting FL/FR of all 8 or do it before and risk the edges currently in FL/FR bring bad.

I don't think the few moves you save by not inserting FL/FR are worth the ergonomics you lose.


----------



## crafto22 (May 26, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Can you noobs just shut up and realize that cmll recognition is already good. I have no problem with it and can see what case I have quickly I'm sure proficient roux solvers have no problem with cmll recognition either.
> 
> This method isn't better then Roux because you are sacrificing ergonomics. Doing fb then sb is more ergonomic than doing back two blocks than DF corners. You also lose ergonomics in l6e by having to solve virtually an additional UL/UR pair. This also messes up eo since you now have 8 pieces to orient. Do you do eo before inserting FL/FR of all 8 or do it before and risk the edges currently in FL/FR bring bad.
> 
> I don't think the few moves you save by not inserting FL/FR are worth the ergonomics you lose.


Haha it's funny how you're calling us noobs. If you could even comprehend that what we're talking about is NON-MATCHING CLL then maybe I'd spend some time explaining the things you don't understand about how this method works.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 26, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Haha it's funny how you're calling us noobs. If you could even comprehend that what we're talking about is NON-MATCHING CLL then maybe I'd spend some time explaining the things you don't understand about how this method works.


He has a point, though. The ergonomics aren't that great, but that can be fixed. I will work on this idea because it seems cool and probably tomorrow I'll share what I've experimented with.


----------



## Calode (May 26, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Haha it's funny how you're calling us noobs. If you could even comprehend that what we're talking about is NON-MATCHING CLL then maybe I'd spend some time explaining the things you don't understand about how this method works.


Perfect example of how to lose all respect in one post.


----------



## crafto22 (May 26, 2016)

Calode said:


> Perfect example of how to lose all respect in one post.


If that's what makes people lose all respect for me I'm surprised that you think people still respected me.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> If that's what makes people lose all respect for me I'm surprised that you think people still respected me.


I respect you, because the methods you propose(ECE EZD) _work._ i mean, cmon, ECE has gotten sub-10, and Ive seen no other new up and comig method get that low.


----------



## crafto22 (May 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I respect you, because the methods you propose(ECE EZD) _work._ i mean, cmon, ECE has gotten sub-10, and Ive seen no other new up and comig method get that low.


Well thank you. I was referring to our friend back there saying that I lost all respect with that post. I don't even understand how that's possible if little outbursts like that made me lose all respect I would have lost all of it a long time ago XD


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Well thank you. I was referring to our friend back there saying that I lost all respect with that post. I don't even understand how that's possible if little outbursts like that made me lose all respect I would have lost all of it a long time ago XD


Its really easy to lose respect if youre like me and have none in the first place.


----------



## crafto22 (May 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Its really easy to lose respect if youre like me and have none in the first place.


That isn't true I respect you you've put a lot of work into a lot of different methods and you've helped other people a lot. anyway this conversation doesn't really fit here so let's set this aside and focus on methods now since respect isn't even what I'm going for I just want to suggest useful ideas for new methods.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> That isn't true I respect you you've put a lot of work into a lot of different methods and you've helped other people a lot. anyway this conversation doesn't really fit here so let's set this aside and focus on methods now since respect isn't even what I'm going for I just want to suggest useful ideas for new methods.


how about this:
intuitively solving EO during petrus so you get a really fast 2-gen F2L.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> how about this:
> intuitively solving EO during petrus so you get a really fast 2-gen F2L.


How?

If you want something like this you could also try partial edge control during the whole of F2L


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> How?
> 
> If you want something like this you could also try partial edge control during the whole of F2L


petrus blocks are very efficient, and with the stuff me and some other people are working on, we will make petrus great again(trump, shut up, no one likes you.)


----------



## gyroninja (May 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> how about this:
> intuitively solving EO during petrus so you get a really fast 2-gen F2L.


This is already part of the method. After a 2x2x3 is made it's put in the back and eo is done. They do a y' and have 2gen f2l.


----------



## Calode (May 26, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> If that's what makes people lose all respect for me I'm surprised that you think people still respected me.


Who are you?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2016)

Calode said:


> Who are you?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


hes a decent person who created a method that has gotten sub-10 solves. he is also active here a lot. Ill vouch for him. On the other hand, I have never seen you anywhere on the forum, you dont seem too active.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> This is already part of the method. After a 2x2x3 is made it's put in the back and eo is done. They do a y' and have 2gen f2l.


aha! but the EO is solved intuitively _While _expanding to a 2x2x3 so as soon as youre done with it there is no need for rotations.


----------



## Calode (May 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hes a decent person who created a method that has gotten sub-10 solves. he is also active here a lot. Ill vouch for him. On the other hand, I have never seen you anywhere on the forum, you dont seem too active.


No, I don't talk a lot in the forums. I'm pretty active on the cubes subreddit.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2016)

Calode said:


> No, I don't talk a lot in the forums. I'm pretty active on the cubes subreddit.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


We should make a roast thread so if things get too hot on the other threads, they just take it to the roasting thread.


----------



## Sion (May 27, 2016)

I came up with an f2b variant that is pretty unique and I find it efficient myself, and there are two steps:

Solve the DL and DR edges.

Then, slove four f2l pairs around them. Acess to the M slice makes this step much faster and efficient.

Then, you have acess to any last steps you want, but I suggest CMLL and l5eop or lse.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2016)

Sion said:


> I came up with an f2b variant that is pretty unique and I find it efficient myself, and there are two steps:
> 
> Solve the DL and DR edges.
> 
> ...


FB is considerably faster, and the DR edge+ 2 F2L pairs is what most CFOP usere transitioning to Roux does.
I tried something like this, but got slower times.

Any thoughts on TFOP, the transitional-into-CFOP method I proposed earlier that no one commented on?


----------



## gyroninja (May 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> FB is considerably faster, and the DR edge+ 2 F2L pairs is what most CFOP usere transitioning to Roux does.
> I tried something like this, but got slower times.
> 
> Any thoughts on TFOP, the transitional-into-CFOP method I proposed earlier that no one commented on?



I don't think a transition method to f2l is needed. F2L in cfop is already simple enough.


----------



## Sion (May 27, 2016)

I use this to optimize my pcms so I don't need to worry as much about my S slice pairs.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> I don't think a transition method to f2l is needed. F2L in cfop is already simple enough.


Yes, but how hard is it for beginners to even understand F2L? I think that as a trainer for CFOP, TFOP may be better just because it teaches the same psuedo-F2L I learned as a beginner.(I placed E edge first, then solved it with a few algs) just those algorithms alone and I learned intuitive F2L by myself.


----------



## Sion (May 27, 2016)

The method is made for an easier refference f2l f2b hybrid as it has no rotations, o e of the other reason why I chose Colums over cfop. But you are right, and the method can easily be used for transition.


----------



## mark49152 (May 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> i mean, cmon, ECE has gotten sub-10, and Ive seen no other new up and comig method get that low.


Which sub-10 solver uses ECE?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (May 27, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Which sub-10 solver uses ECE?


The only one I know of is crafto22, the creator.


----------



## sqAree (May 27, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Which sub-10 solver uses ECE?



crafto basically.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Which sub-10 solver uses ECE?


crafto22 has gotten sub-10 solves, the mark of a good method.


----------



## mark49152 (May 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> crafto22 has gotten sub-10 solves, the mark of a good method.


I'm not going to go back and read the whole ECE thread again, but I don't recall seeing any worthwhile evidence to validate this as a "good" method. That's not to say it doesn't have potential, but one or two lucky solves doesn't prove it. 

The steps to develop a new method should be as follows: come up with an idea, develop it to prove it works, then show the evidence to others; and if you do a good enough job, other people will pick it up too.

In the case of ECE and SSC, there are no videos of proper averages as evidence, and no users of the methods. In the method poll two weeks ago crafto22 voted for CFOP. So the inventor doesn't even rate the idea enough to switch to ECE himself. The methods are just unproven theories.

I don't mean to disparage the methods or the desire to innovate, but I do feel that the SSC and ECE threads are rambling and directionless. They keep popping up to the top with new posts, but the content is just conjecture and more random ideas, and the method development doesn't go anywhere. What they really need is someone to actually commit to their idea, spend a month or two practising, and then make an honest ao12 video (or more) and explain how it works for real, after a serious attempt to develop and use it properly.

I hope the method developers read this as constructive advice, not criticism.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> I'm not going to go back and read the whole ECE thread again, but I don't recall seeing any worthwhile evidence to validate this as a "good" method. That's not to say it doesn't have potential, but one or two lucky solves doesn't prove it.
> 
> The steps to develop a new method should be as follows: come up with an idea, develop it to prove it works, then show the evidence to others; and if you do a good enough job, other people will pick it up too.
> 
> ...


Mark, would you like to try it out? also, according to effatah: the mark of a decent method is when it has gotten a sub-10 solve, even a lucky one. He himself has gotten sub-10 seconds with his own method. the only problem I have with it is that it requires you to know full EG and a lot of other algorithms.


----------



## sqAree (May 27, 2016)

To be honest there exists a pretty decent version of SSC. True, people still think they can do better and create a better post-belt system, but there are at least two fine-enough systems for it already.

I see your point about the missing evidence. As someone who partially helped developing a current version of SSC (all credit to shadowlice who developed like 99% of it!) I have a good overview about the whole method and am convinced it can get as fast as CFOP or Roux. I have a busy semester and no time to commit myself to get fast at another method right now but I actually plan to do that in the summer.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2016)

sqAree said:


> To be honest there exists a pretty decent version of SSC. True, people still think they can do better and create a better post-belt system, but there are at least two fine-enough systems for it already.
> 
> I see your point about the missing evidence. As someone who partially helped developing a current version of SSC (all credit to shadowlice who developed like 99% of it!) I have a good overview about the whole method and am convinced it can get as fast as CFOP or Roux. I have a busy semester and no time to commit myself to get fast at another method right now but I actually plan to do that in the summer.


The advantage of ECE is the no EOline.

also, Crafto branched off in a different direction with it, with EZD(considered the fastest post-belt strategy) and a lot of other things. Also, Crafto has committed to playing with it
so I talked to shadowslice, he's giving the credit for the ECE method to crafto22 because of the extent he's experimented with it.

what variant is the one youre talking about?


----------



## sqAree (May 27, 2016)

I am purely talking about SSC. The EOline is actually something I prefer over the ECE-variants.

I'm quite skeptical EZD is the fastest post-belt strategy, even for the ECE variants.

I know that SSC and ECE are closely related and at this point I stop caring who of them gets the credit for what. We know that shadowslice created the original SSC method and crafto developed it with the idea of not solving EO directly. I myself only gave an idea for a nice CO system.

As for post-belt methods the original approach of SSC is good enough in my opinion with the advantage of good accessibility for Roux users and a total alg count of 5 (or 8) algs. The other system one could use is the one with Roux blocks and PLL finish, which is even more efficient.

My point was only that we have working systems (for both ECE and SSC variants) and that I agree someone should write a complete tutorial (which I plan to do once I have time).


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2016)

sqAree said:


> I'm quite skeptical EZD is the fastest post-belt strategy, even for the ECE variants.


crafto22's fastest solve with ECE(8.something seconds) was done with EZD. Its a nice finish, and also the algorithm count is max 16(really 10 algs)


----------



## mark49152 (May 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Mark, would you like to try it out? also, according to effatah: the mark of a decent method is when it has gotten a sub-10 solve, even a lucky one.


Yes, I would play around with it just as I have with other methods because I enjoy learning more about how the cube works, but I wouldn't devote time to learning algs or proper practice without more experienced users to tell me I'm not wasting my time. I am not a good enough solver to test it or help with development though. I don't think anyone would be convinced by seeing me solve with ECE .

We are overdue a new method to challenge the big four. It will come eventually, and I'm hopeful to see someone stand up and promote a good idea and develop it into a real contender - but that will take much more than posting an idea and naming it.

I'm not sure I agree with the comment you attributed to @efattah. While it would be difficult to get a sub-10 single with a bad method, the occasional fast single is not enough to qualify a method as good.


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 28, 2016)

I agree with Mark.

Sub 10 singles are meaningless when we don't know the average. What's his average of 100 like? Or even better, average of 1000?

I'd like to propose a solid and measurable sign of a good method: if a person can set their PB average of 100 with it, and get a sub-15 official average with it, then it's a good method. 

I do think that someone who devotes effort to SSC/ECE/EZD/ABC/whatever could do this easily, but until that happens, it's all just speculation.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 28, 2016)

I would love for SSC to be much more popular than it currently is but I do see why people have reservations about using it. This is probably why I am trying to get sub-10 with a proven method (roux) first (hopefully this will be sooner rather than later or maybe over the summer). Honestly, at the moment I average around 18-20 with it using a much more basic form as I simply haven't had the time to get around to learning the algs which is about the same as my ZZ times, slightly faster than petrus, slightly slower than CFOP etc. I think you get the point.

When I first proposed the method, it was definitely met with mixed reviews (this was not helped by how I just couldn't do notation) though overall more positive than I was expecting and I did not expect that some point down the line that anyone would become interested in it. It was almost purely hypothetical. I had no knowledge of HTA, kociemba, Orient first etc as I was still much of a noob then (I hope I am better now but sometimes...) and was simply trying to improve on the first i proposed; something like RC-A i may or may not have left the page on the wiki if anyone wants to look. I was intitailly, very unsure of it because i had been speedcubing for a very short time, had joined the forums only a little later and had only run the idea past a couple of people with a bit more experience than me: Berd and Dan Cochrane. Basically, i was a noob then. However, looking back on the method and how it has developed i do think that it has potential. I personally have never said it was an outright "brilliant/fantastic/revolutionary gamechanging method; only that it has potential and it could be very good and have the highest speed potential of any method i have made. The main problem i have to getting faster times is that it is just so different from any other method I've tried (except maybe HTA) because it uses no blockbuilding (actually the while point behind the method) so i have trouble as i have tried to develop my blockbuilding over everyone else.

With all that said, i do believe that SSC cab stand on par with at least Petrus, maybe some of the other methods, potentially even CFOP and Roux (though i think roux is already approaching the best method you can get for 3x3, i sort of agreed with Antoine in this respect in that it may be better than CFOP) though if someone is willing to try without having the backup of another method being sub-10, they are a braver person than i.

Sorry if this was meandering and repetitive, it was a train of thought kind of thing but I hope you can see how I feel about SSC.


----------



## efattah (May 28, 2016)

People often don't realize what a huge uphill battle it is to develop a new method that is competitive; consider that although CFOP was generally in place at the 1982 Worlds, even after 21 years of working on it mostly in isolation, the 2003 worlds saw a winning average of 20.0 seconds. Most methods improve when they are worked on by hundreds of people at once, and refined. One or two people working on a new method face a multi-year struggle to create something fast, not to mention a huge and risky time commitment into a project which will most likely fail. I believe official results are really what matters, so even though I have been working on a new method for 6 months, there's no point in even talking about it until me (or someone else) registers a fast official average, and the same goes for other new methods.

One thing I will mention is that while teenagers have the advantage in terms of hand speed and reaction time, the truth is that all of the major methods were developed by people who were significantly older and 'past their prime' in terms of age related advantages. This is why if the developer of a method can even register a sub-15 official average (at age 30, 40, 50 or whatever), there is promise that a teenager who invested in it could do much better.

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## sqAree (May 28, 2016)

I'm not even sub15 with CFOP (my main method), how am I supposed to be sub15 with SSC quickly enough? 

I'm not going to abandon CFOP because I invested so much time and effort in it already. If I learn SSC, it would be a secondary method but if one day I average sub10 with it I'd be totally willing to "sacrifice" one comp not using CFOP, just proving SSC can be fast.


----------



## Teoidus (May 28, 2016)

What are the average move counts for SSC and ECE?


----------



## JTWong71 (May 28, 2016)

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/SSC_(Shadowslice_Snow_Columns)
Here is says 37-50, according to the wiki.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 3, 2016)

Eh, "new" method. Almost definitely thought of before no name for it. If someone finds it interesting they can think of a name but I don't think it is good for speed though it can be efficient in some scenarios.


Spoiler: concept



This is based on human thistlethwaite but doesn't break the steps down so much.
Basically, treat opposite colours as the same until the final step (ie green=blue, red=orange, white=yellow) and blockbuild. Below is just a suggestion based on tripod but ideally you should be able to do anything from petrus to roux to pcms to triangular fransisco.





Spoiler: steps



1) 2x2x3 block- if you are good at blockbuilding you can often plan this in inspection. I can do it about half the time. (7/7)
2) finish F2L-1 (5/12)
3) 2x2 block on U (5/17)
4) finish 3 colour reduction (all faces are opposite colours)-some algs but no idea how many accurately-maybe 50 (8?/25)
5) final permutation of pieces (12/37)- from heise's site

Remember this is just estimate and I'm probably nowhere near exact.





Spoiler: pros



1) low movecount
2) easy blockbuilding
3) many blocks will just appear





Spoiler: cons



1) double turns aren't nice to fingertrick
2) needs a lot of flexibility though fmcers may like it
3) lots don't in first step
4) each piece essentially has to be solved twice
5) could be a lot of algs if you do a lot of variants



So general feelings: could be fun, not particularly good for speedsolving, some applications in FMC and looks cool


----------



## crafto22 (Jun 3, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Eh, "new" method. Almost definitely thought of before no name for it. If someone finds it interesting they can think of a name but I don't think it is good for speed though it can be efficient in some scenarios.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: concept
> ...


This sounds great but the move count doesn't seem to make sense. In theory, shouldn't solving the pieces "twice" technically require more moves than simply efficiently solving in the first place? Although I can see how this would be good if you want to be efficient in a speedsolve since it's easier to blockbuild without as much thinking. And recognition for the last step probably sucks a lot.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 3, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> This sounds great but the move count doesn't seem to make sense. In theory, shouldn't solving the pieces "twice" technically require more moves than simply efficiently solving in the first place? Although I can see how this would be good if you want to be efficient in a speedsolve since it's easier to blockbuild without as much thinking. And recognition for the last step probably sucks a lot.


No, in the same way human thustlethwaite doesn't: the block options are much more expansive and require fewer moves to do: for example, you on the typical scramble, you can usually find a 2x2 block in about 3 moves, a 2x2x3 in 7 etc.

Also, the final permutation is intuitive not alg based so no recog needed.


----------



## crafto22 (Jun 3, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> No, in the same way human thustlethwaite doesn't: the block options are much more expansive and require fewer moves to do: for example, you on the typical scramble, you can usually find a 2x2 block in about 3 moves, a 2x2x3 in 7 etc.
> 
> Also, the final permutation is intuitive not alg based so no recog needed.


Okay but even so the last step of this method doesn't seem very good. Is the last step just solving from EOBelt+CO? If so isn't this just a less efficient SSC?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 3, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Okay but even so the last step of this method doesn't seem very good. Is the last step just solving from EOBelt+CO? If so isn't this just a less efficient SSC?


Not quite: this is {R2,L2,D2,U2,B2,F2} rather than {R2,L2,B2,F2,U,D}

But even so, yes it does such for speedsokves hence why I said the method isn't great for that.


----------



## crafto22 (Jun 3, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Not quite: this is {R2,L2,D2,U2,B2,F2} rather than {R2,L2,B2,F2,U,D}
> 
> But even so, yes it does such for speedsokves hence why I said the method isn't great for that.


Okay, still, how many algs and is recognition any good?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 3, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Eh, "new" method. Almost definitely thought of before no name for it. If someone finds it interesting they can think of a name but I don't think it is good for speed though it can be efficient in some scenarios.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: concept
> ...


I tried it. Seems nice, Just need to figure out the final step algorithms. seems like unless you have a crappy color scheme where in less light opposite colors look alike it could be really hard to recognize. but I am interested!!!
also, I can't find the separation algorithms on Ryan Heise's site. Do you know where I can find them?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 3, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I tried it. Seems nice, Just need to figure out the final step algorithms. seems like unless you have a crappy color scheme where in less light opposite colors look alike it could be really hard to recognize. but I am interested!!!
> also, I can't find the separation algorithms on Ryan Heise's site. Do you know where I can find them?


There are no algs for the final step: its completely intuitive apart from maybe N perms. It is identical to the very last step in Thistlethwaite.

Example solve based on Roux
Scramble: R2 F' L2 B D2 U2 B D2 B' F2 D2 U' R2 U' B2 L' D F2 R U
y' U2 F (lol)//FB (2/2)
U R' U2 r2 U r' U R//SB (10/12)
L U' R' U L' U' R//CMLL (7/19)
U' M' U M' U M' U2 M U' (9/28)

If you want to finish from here you can I'm just tired as f*** so cba


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 4, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> There are no algs for the final step: its completely intuitive apart from maybe N perms. It is identical to the very last step in Thistlethwaite.



It actually has six times the number of states of the last step in Thistlethwaite, as the square group <U2,D2,L2,R2,F2,B2> has two non-obvious corner restrictions.



Spoiler: algebra



The corners can be divided into two tetrads that never mix if you apply only half turns, and a half turn effects an odd permutation on each of these tetrads. If the permutation signs don't match between the tetrads, then you have an "N perm" kind of case. This gives a factor-of-2 increase compared to the square group.

For either tetrad, all 24 permutations are possible since every 2-cycle within a tetrad is possible, which generates S_4. If we consider the stabiliser of one of the tetrads in the square group (i.e. if we solve one tetrad first), this subgroup has exactly four elements and is abelian; the only such subgroup of A_4 is V_4. Since |A_4|/|V_4| = 12/4 = 3, this gives another factor-of-3 increase compared to the square group. Representatives of the two non-identity cosets are the UFL-UBR-DFR corner cycle and its inverse.



So if you hit a corner 3-cycle case, you could either use two N perms (sounds bad) or learn just one additional alg to deal with it. Not quite "no algs", but needing only two algs is still pretty neat. The downside is that these algs aren't short, so you inflate your move count by 12-13 moves five-sixths of the time. HTA avoids this issue by solving the corners completely (not just in the "opposite colours" sense).


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 4, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> It actually has six times the number of states of the last step in Thistlethwaite, as the square group <U2,D2,L2,R2,F2,B2> has two non-obvious corner restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh ok I see I sort if missed that part when skimming over the email. It's easily rectifiable though: just add maybe 2-3 moves if we have to separate corners in the first step and maybe one more move to do the algs so this may be mostly inconsequential. Though I don't think that method was for speed anyway (and the movecounts are pretty hypothetical anyway).

In simple put terms: treat 2 sets of opposite colours as the same and one set as different.


----------



## TDM (Jun 4, 2016)

maxwellj02 (from Reddit, I don't think he's on SS) and I were talking about doing PLL parity at the same time as OLL parity. A couple of the common OLL parity algs just do OLL parity, but some of the others do double parity. His suggestion was to recognise PLL parity before OLL parity, and then choose one of two OLL parity algs so that you would solve PLL parity at the same time. But of course, even if the algs are good, recognition would be terrible. I've also seen this suggested a few times before.

Something I haven't seen before was using the fact that _almost all the good OLL parity algs solve the same OLL case_. Both for double parity and just OLL parity. Not only this, but most pieces are oriented too, making recognition easier. So here's a LL method when you have OLL parity:


Do an OLL algorithm which will leave you with this OLL case. You'll have to learn which OLL to use when, which is I think another 57 cases to learn. But no new algorithms (or very few).
Recognise PLL parity. Much easier to do with all the pieces oriented.
Do an OLL parity algorithm to solve OLL and PLL parity (if necessary) in one step. Two algs for this step, one of which you already know.
PLL! And you never get double parity.
Advantages:

Fewer moves if you get PLL parity, same number of moves otherwise.
You don't have to recognise PLL parity after OLL, which means you can use faster recognition systems like 2-sided PLL recog.
In fact since you've recognised PLL before doing OLL parity you'll often know which PLL you're getting anyway, so you can have zero pause between OLL and PLL.
Not many new algorithms at all.
Disadvantages:

PLL parity recognition is a little harder. You can see more pieces at once but not all of them are oriented.
More pauses in LL, unless you can predict PLL before OLL parity.
The number of cases you need to learn is quite large (I think it's ~60).
What do you think? Any advantages/disadvantages I've missed?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 4, 2016)

TDM said:


> OLL parity stuff


Pretty sure I've posted about that before and got no interest whatsoever. I had the idea while working on doing CLL/ELL if I had OLL parity, so I could take care of both parities at once. I have some badly organised algs for both forcing the correct CLL case (for the cases where it's better than just doing CLL), and also an incomplete list for 1-looking the rest of the solve. PM me an email address if you want me to send them, they're in an Excel sheet. I've not found the time to learn it yet, so if you give it a go let me know how well it works.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 4, 2016)

huh. seems interesting. But I don't have a 4x4 so I can't say for sure if it would be nice.

I had an Idea for using edge flip algs and manipulation of the M slices to pair up edges intuitively(M centers unsolved). would it work?


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 5, 2016)

I have also thought about his but not tried it much. My idea was to solve an OLL case that would leave a single edge flipped. Then do two-sided PLL recognition on the opposite good sides. After PLL you will be left with either a single edge flip, or an opposite edge swap with one of those flipped. So two OLL parity algs needed. I never got round to hunting down good algs. I just assumed that opposite swap would likely have better algs than adjacent swap. Two-sided recognition on opposite sides would take a bit of getting used to but with lookahead shouldn't be too bad.


----------



## TDM (Jun 5, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Pretty sure I've posted about that before and got no interest whatsoever. I had the idea while working on doing CLL/ELL if I had OLL parity, so I could take care of both parities at once. I have some badly organised algs for both forcing the correct CLL case (for the cases where it's better than just doing CLL), and also an incomplete list for 1-looking the rest of the solve. PM me an email address if you want me to send them, they're in an Excel sheet. I've not found the time to learn it yet, so if you give it a go let me know how well it works.


Oh, I must have just not seen that then. Sorry. That sounds like an interesting approach too, I hadn't thought of using CLL-ELL. I'll PM you.



mark49152 said:


> I have also thought about his but not tried it much. My idea was to solve an OLL case that would leave a single edge flipped. Then do two-sided PLL recognition on the opposite good sides. After PLL you will be left with either a single edge flip, or an opposite edge swap with one of those flipped. So two OLL parity algs needed. I never got round to hunting down good algs. I just assumed that opposite swap would likely have better algs than adjacent swap. Two-sided recognition on opposite sides would take a bit of getting used to but with lookahead shouldn't be too bad.


Opposite swap is definitely better than adjacent swap. But I don't that it would always give you an opposite swap if you recognised the PLL case from just looking at L/R, unless the edges were phased, which doesn't happen often. Instead I think you'd have to recognise using the two sides which had opposite coloured edges, meaning you'd use adjacent sides 2/3 of the time and opposite sides 1/3 of the time.


----------



## Sion (Jun 5, 2016)

This is a silly idea I was toying with, it's a stupid little method, probbly nothing special, but here it is:

Solve top face

Orient the bottom face (I suggest you get an epll case)

Solve Last edges.

I dunno if this is any good, probably isn't, but I just wanted to share it.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 6, 2016)

TDM said:


> But I don't that it would always give you an opposite swap if you recognised the PLL case from just looking at L/R, unless the edges were phased, which doesn't happen often. Instead I think you'd have to recognise using the two sides which had opposite coloured edges, meaning you'd use adjacent sides 2/3 of the time and opposite sides 1/3 of the time.


I see what you mean. Thanks for saving me from wasting my time thinking about that one any further!


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 6, 2016)

Sion said:


> This is a silly idea I was toying with, it's a stupid little method, probbly nothing special, but here it is:
> 
> Solve top face
> 
> ...


Isn't this just sandwich?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 6, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Isn't this just sandwich?


It's more like upside down waterman but you orient more edges than the regular version.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 6, 2016)

if were talking about CF methods, Ill bring my modern spin on minh thais CF method:
-Roux FB on R face(I suggest actually making it white/yellow, even though most rouxers don't do that anymore)
-solve the 2 L face corners intuitively
-some kind of Cll/CxLL (I use CMLL) on R face, like in waterman
-keyhole in the R face
-use one of the algorithms posted on rubikscube.info(rotated Z) to insert the last L edge and orient the M edges
-permute M edges

how to translate the algorithms on that page: all E moves are inverted(E'->E, etc.) and made into M moves, all the R moves are turned into U moves(no inversions)

anyway, this is pretty much minh thai's CF method with a few notable differences:
-the U face in minh thai's method is instead of L face, so you have almost a sandwich-like method
-you block build the "U" face(really L face on here) instead of key holing in the edges
-

-advantages:
-faster than minh thai's method
-blockbuilding is more efficient
-while building FB, there are only 2 pieces to track, and after that only 1
-the <M, U, R> moveset is pretty nice
-for roux solvers, there is only one new angst to learn, with about 7 cases.
-may be useful to help a new transition from a beginner CF method to Roux

just a stupid Idea, may be a good practice for routers onlooking FB and practicing CMLL, because those are the first 2 steps.
what do you guys think?


----------



## crafto22 (Jun 7, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> if were talking about CF methods, Ill bring my modern spin on minh thais CF method:
> -Roux FB on R face(I suggest actually making it white/yellow, even though most rouxers don't do that anymore)
> -solve the 2 L face corners intuitively
> -some kind of Cll/CxLL (I use CMLL) on R face, like in waterman
> ...


That doesn't make sense, how would you solve CMLL on right if that's where you're block is? I think you need to reformulate this because right now I can't tell what you mean, sorry.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm assuming the FB is actually on the left, just like in Roux.

If so, I think it'd be better to keyhole in 3 edges in the R face, and then go straight into LSE.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 7, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I'm assuming the FB is actually on the left, just like in Roux.
> 
> If so, I think it'd be better to keyhole in 3 edges in the R face, and then go straight into LSE.


The last part is just a different version of LSE, where you insert one edge, solve the other edge while solving EO, then permuting the M edges.

I meant FB on left, im sorry.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 7, 2016)

I'm aware, I just think normal LSE will be more efficient. This could be good if you found a fast way to insert those last three edges on R


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 7, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I'm aware, I just think normal LSE will be more efficient. This could be good if you found a fast way to insert those last three edges on R


You could track all 3 simultaneously.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 7, 2016)

or, you could figure out some nice slice turn algs so you can do it rotationlessly(without ARFing, explained in next post). maybe even throw in some waterman "solve 2 redged in ring" stuff, too.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 7, 2016)

first full solve with it: 36.72

given the fact that I average around 24-28 seconds, thats decent for the first time trying a method.

also, I think that for LSE it may be faster to not have to worry about them being ARF'ed( adjust r face) correctly so your ulsolved L/R edged for LSE could be at UL(it always will be there, actually) and RF, or UL and RD, or anything like that. The reason I suggested the LSE variant I did is because you can solve any 3 edges on the R face and recog isn't too bad.


----------



## JimCube (Jun 8, 2016)

i just had a thought, make crosses all around,except the last two edges on the top cross, then do corners algorithms, which should be similar to 2x2 algs because 2x2 are just 3x3 corners right?, then do the last two edges. however, you would have to devise algs that preserve the crosses. lookahead might be good because crosses are relatively easy to look ahead, altho the move count might be high.  i call it CCL2E, crosses, corners, last 2 edges. i might work but im certain it will never beat cfop tho


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 8, 2016)

JimCube said:


> i just had a thought, make crosses all around,except the last two edges on the top cross, then do corners algorithms, which should be similar to 2x2 algs because 2x2 are just 3x3 corners right?, then do the last two edges. however, you would have to devise algs that preserve the crosses. lookahead might be good because crosses are relatively easy to look ahead, altho the move count might be high.  i call it CCL2E, crosses, corners, last 2 edges. i might work but im certain it will never beat cfop tho


You have just described beginners F2L, accept you solve 2 LL edges during F2L... Or EF minus 2 edges, at the cost of having to do an alg to solve the orientation of the last 2 edges. Think about that - your method is WORSE than EF...


----------



## gyroninja (Jun 8, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> You have just described beginners F2L, accept you solve 2 LL edges during F2L... Or EF minus 2 edges, at the cost of having to do an alg to solve the orientation of the last 2 edges. Think about that - your method is WORSE than EF...


No, he's just suggested a worse form of phasing.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 8, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> No, he's just suggested a worse form of phasing.


I don't see it, he never described whether the unsolved edges were opposite or adjacent. It is more of a worse EF.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 8, 2016)

you guys heard of TFOP, the beginners method I came up with that JTWong has gotten sub-10 with?


----------



## JTWong71 (Jun 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> you guys heard of TFOP, the beginners method I came up with that JTWong has gotten sub-10 with?


That was only a couple solves, and were pretty lucky.
I average around 15-18 Seconds with TFOP.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 8, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> That was only a couple solves, and were pretty lucky.
> I average around 15-18 Seconds with TFOP.


compared to over 20 seconds with normal LBL.


----------



## crafto22 (Jun 9, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> No, he's just suggested a worse form of phasing.


What he never mentioned anything about the edges being phased or not, he just said to solve them. How is he suggesting a worse form of phasing?


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 9, 2016)

Is TFOP that thing where you solve the E slice, and then solve the F2L corners using 3 F2L algorithms? If so I can't imagine that being too bad, and certainly easier to sub-x than beginner's LBL.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 9, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Is TFOP that thing where you solve the E slice, and then solve the F2L corners using 3 F2L algorithms? If so I can't imagine that being too bad, and certainly easier to sub-x than beginner's LBL.


thats what it was, yes. Seems like a better Idea to teach than LBL.

I also had an Idea where you solve the D layer, solve U corners, then use setup moves and the H-perm(or T-perm if you want to reuse algs) to solve all the rest of the edges. pretty much a mix of LBL and old pochmann(which should totally be a beginners method BTW)


so for the half-roux, half-corners first method, I had an Idea to rapidly keyhole the R edges: 
1.pair up RB and RF(orientation and order doesn't matter) and place them at DF and DB.
1.5: if the DF edge goes to RB, then execute an R2
2:using one of 4 algorithms(1.both oriented, 2/3 one flipped, 4 both flipped) to solve the RF and BR edges simultaneously.
3.solve the DR edge


----------



## JTWong71 (Jun 9, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> thats what it was, yes. Seems like a better Idea to teach than LBL.
> 
> I also had an Idea where you solve the D layer, solve U corners, then use setup moves and the H-perm(or T-perm if you want to reuse algs) to solve all the rest of the edges. pretty much a mix of LBL and old pochmann(which should totally be a beginners method BTW)



I made an Example Solve with it, and the only problem I have with for teaching beginners are for Edge Parity and Edge Orientation to solve an Edge completely.

y //Inspection
R2 U F' R' F2 R2 //D-Layer Corners
(B D' B') M2 (F L F') U2 M2 //Finish First Layer
U R U R' U R U' R D R' U' R D' R2 //Solve Corners
(F) M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 (F') //Edge-1
(d L') M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 (L) //Edge-2
(d' R) M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 R' //Edge-3
(U' R') M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 (R)//F2L
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' //LL Edge-1
(M D' L2) R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' (L2 D M') //LL Edge-2
M' U' M' U' M' U2 M U' M U' M U2 //Parity


----------



## gyroninja (Jun 10, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> What he never mentioned anything about the edges being phased or not, he just said to solve them. How is he suggesting a worse form of phasing?


He's phasing the edges adj instead of opposite.


----------



## crafto22 (Jun 10, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> He's phasing the edges adj instead of opposite.


Oh I see what you mean by leaving two edges out he's technically phasing them.


----------



## Sion (Jun 14, 2016)

Here's my shot at what I would consider to be what I would've came up with if I were an 80's cuber, as a method of solving (It's something I came up with myself completely, and I just need to learn how to create algs for it)

-solve one cross on one side, and 3/4 cross on the other side intuitively
- use a permutation alg to complete the 3/4 cross
- solve the remaining four corner-edge-corner pairs in four looks, solving one column at a time

I find this method to be more general in it's steps and solving procedures, but generating algs for it will be very tedious!


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 15, 2016)

Sion said:


> Here's my shot at what I would consider to be what I would've came up with if I were an 80's cuber, as a method of solving (It's something I came up with myself completely, and I just need to learn how to create algs for it)
> 
> -solve one cross on one side, and 3/4 cross on the other side intuitively
> - use a permutation alg to complete the 3/4 cross
> ...


So basically reverse PCMS (MSPC?)... Algs for last edge shouldn't even be needed. Tbh, no matter how you solve the columns, Roux will be more efficient. For example, say you solve the columns by doing all corners in 2 looks then edges, you will be left with L4E which is best solved on M slice, but here it will be E slice. So you tilt the whole method by a Z move. Basically you are just creating the Roux blocks restrictively and inefficiently and adding 2 extra edges which you solve in L6E... Definitely an 80's idea, but not that great...


----------



## OLLiver (Jun 15, 2016)

Has anyone thought of combining Roux+ZB?
Because Roux has a low movecount, how about solving F2B, orient all edges, permuting the bottom two, leaving a ZBLL case on top.
This would have a low move count and recog for ZBLL isn't much harder than CMLL. Unsure about move count for orienting all edges and permuting bottom edges.
Thoughts?


----------



## TDM (Jun 15, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> Has anyone thought of combining Roux+ZB?
> Because Roux has a low movecount, how about solving F2B, orient all edges, permuting the bottom two, leaving a ZBLL case on top.
> This would have a low move count and recog for ZBLL isn't much harder than CMLL. Unsure about move count for orienting all edges and permuting bottom edges.
> Thoughts?


Yes, people have thought of this before. Permuting the bottom two edges would be more difficult than ULUR, so you're really asking if CMLL+L4E is faster than ZBLL: and I don't think it is. Lookahead is also worse. So I'm fairly sure Roux is faster.

But you could do it if you _really_ liked ZBLL


----------



## 4Chan (Jun 15, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> Has anyone thought of combining Roux+ZB?
> Because Roux has a low movecount, how about solving F2B, orient all edges, permuting the bottom two, leaving a ZBLL case on top.
> This would have a low move count and recog for ZBLL isn't much harder than CMLL. Unsure about move count for orienting all edges and permuting bottom edges.
> Thoughts?



I once thought about doing ZBLL instead of CMLL to influence the edge permutation, but I wasn't good enough at it. ):


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 15, 2016)

TDM said:


> Yes, people have thought of this before. Permuting the bottom two edges would be more difficult than ULUR, so you're really asking if CMLL+L4E is faster than ZBLL: and I don't think it is. Lookahead is also worse. So I'm fairly sure Roux is faster.
> 
> But you could do it if you _really_ liked ZBLL


I had an idea: why not solve F2B and EO, then place LR edges(easier to track), and then do U/U' M2 and execute a ZBLL(probably a 21LL/EZBLL for all them lazy folks-- ~45 algs for all them cases), then undo setups.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 15, 2016)

the reason I hate CFOP is the rotations, so i was playing with a rotationless F2L today. I call it *ROTFL *(*Rot*ationless *F*2l/*F*ridrich *L*ast Layer). its sorta like blockbuilding a freeFOP, except for one thing: no rotations.
so here's how i did it:
Roux FB
keyhole in one or both D edges(sometimes left em just because it was easier to leave em out)
finish F2L like petrus
OLL/PLL

after a few tries, I almost got a sub-20 time(I avg about 25-27 secs). the surprising thing: my TPS was crappier than my normal roux TPS, yet my times were faster.


----------



## Sion (Jun 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> the reason I hate CFOP is the rotations, so i was playing with a rotationless F2L today. I call it *ROTFL *(*Rot*ationless *F*2l/*F*ridrich *L*ast Layer). its sorta like blockbuilding a freeFOP, except for one thing: no rotations.
> so here's how i did it:
> Roux FB
> keyhole in one or both D edges(sometimes left em just because it was easier to leave em out)
> ...



That's sort-of another form of FreeFOP using F2B for F2L. I tried it, I suggest learning ZZ, since using it feels like CFOP, but ZZ F2L has no rotations.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 15, 2016)

Sion said:


> That's sort-of another form of FreeFOP using F2B for F2L. I tried it, I suggest learning ZZ, since using it feels like CFOP, but ZZ F2L has no rotations.


I use roux. Eoline is hard, i average about 15 seconds more with ZZ and thats just the EOline.
I also like roux a lot better. but the idea still stands, and although I have llower TPS than I normally would for CFOP, I still get at least 8 seconds better on average over CFOP.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 15, 2016)

Sion said:


> That's sort-of another form of FreeFOP using F2B for F2L. I tried it, I suggest learning ZZ, since using it feels like CFOP, but ZZ F2L has no rotations.


and its not really F2B->F2L, its more like 1) FB 2)solve the rest of F2L with r, M, U moves


----------



## Sion (Jun 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> and its not really F2B->F2L, its more like 1) FB 2)solve the rest of F2L with r, M, U moves



I did try mixing blockbuilding styles with Orienting/Permuting styles, better left separate. It seems faster since OLL/PLL isn't intuitive like something as LSE, but while you get quicker in that manner, someone using LSE will get faster since they have two less cubies to permute and once they get killer recognition, they can glide through it with a faster TPS.

I'm not saying your method is terrible, but i'm thinking you should try another last step that's unique to this method that could be faster, maybe something such as having the last CE pair Permute the remaining corners, sorta like a winter variation, which can Lead to something like an ELL, LSE, or L5EOP/EPLL combo.

those are some of my ideas thrown into the ring.


----------



## TDM (Jun 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I had an idea: why not solve F2B and EO, then place LR edges(easier to track), and then do U/U' M2 and execute a ZBLL(probably a 21LL/EZBLL for all them lazy folks-- ~45 algs for all them cases), then undo setups.


This actually sounds like it could be good. The ZBLL recognition will be very difficult and you're still using more moves than Roux, so I don't think it's faster - but if you can find a good recognition system I think it'll be a good method.

(unless there's something obvious I'm missing here)


----------



## Sion (Jun 15, 2016)

TDM said:


> This actually sounds like it could be good. The ZBLL recognition will be very difficult and you're still using more moves than Roux, so I don't think it's faster - but if you can find a good recognition system I think it'll be a good method.
> 
> (unless there's something obvious I'm missing here)



i'm thinking for this maybe you can use a winter variation CLL with the last pair, and it could potentially lower movecount, like L5C&P could maybe be a name for that substep.

Say, thinking about it, it actually may help with roux itself once developed!!


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 15, 2016)

TDM said:


> This actually sounds like it could be good. The ZBLL recognition will be very difficult and you're still using more moves than Roux, so I don't think it's faster - but if you can find a good recognition system I think it'll be a good method.
> 
> (unless there's something obvious I'm missing here)


To clarify:
1) Solve UL/UR or UF/UB directly to DF/DB
2) ZBLL, using the fact that two of the LL edges have a different colour on top, maybe that could actually be useful?

Hmm, sounds interesting, I hope someone looks into it (I don't do Roux or ZBLL).


----------



## OLLiver (Jun 15, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> To clarify:
> 1) Solve UL/UR or UF/UB directly to DF/DB
> 2) ZBLL, using the fact that two of the LL edges have a different colour on top, maybe that could actually be useful?
> 
> Hmm, sounds interesting, I hope someone looks into it (I don't do Roux or ZBLL).


I can do ZBLL but my roux skills are limited


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 16, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> I can do ZBLL but my roux skills are limited


I can do roux but my ZBLL skills are limited


----------



## OLLiver (Jun 16, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I can do roux but my ZBLL skills are limited


well this sucks.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 17, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I can do roux but my ZBLL skills are limited


use the 21LL at this page:
lar5.com/cube/270


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 21, 2016)

I've got a couple ideas. They're alright (ish? Idk).

We all know that one forgotten page on the wiki in the experimental methods section, COALL... Basically ZB with less Algs. And with ZZ-CT being a thing now, I have an idea. I think. My ideas will hopefully get better with summer and all... Anyway. Solve with CFOP till last slot. Easy? Good. Now, this is weird. Insert the last edge with an oriented corner while applying a 4 flip if needed... If all edges are already oriented, or 2 are oriented then don't do it. Should be 54 Algs. Now do TTLL or some weird type of TTLL for 2 unoriented to finish the solve.
Now it gets weird... You can add some weird form of phasing to this orienting LS, bringing it "only" up to 162 Algs, while drastically lowering Algs for LL... This means that the 2 unoriented edges always end up opposite... You can also add CP or whatever (on its own) and it will still be 162 Algs. 
Now something very weird but pretty awesome, like future-of-cubing-altering awesome. What if you could execute 2 Algs at the same time? I have had this idea for a while but I think this is far as I am going to be able to take it. So, CO can be solved 2 gen, and EO can be solved with a combination of M and U moves. In theory, there should only be 3 Algs needed for EO in LL and 27 for WV or 90 something for TSLE (whatever you choose). If, while genning new Algs for this, Algs were optimized for compatibility with each other, and a little practice, RU and MU moves can blend with each other easily. Recog shouldn't be too bad, I think.
Now, this also means that you can have 10 Algs OLL which is interesting...

And my last idea is ZBLL but with a 4 flip. Basically ZBLL but with no edges oriented. Should be same number of Algs and stats, but yeah. That's it. Good if you already know ZBLL and want a higher chance of LL skip in CFOP.


----------



## sqAree (Jun 21, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Now something very weird but pretty awesome, like future-of-cubing-altering awesome. What if you could execute 2 Algs at the same time? I have had this idea for a while but I think this is far as I am going to be able to take it. So, CO can be solved 2 gen, and EO can be solved with a combination of M and U moves. In theory, there should only be 3 Algs needed for EO in LL and 27 for WV or 90 something for TSLE (whatever you choose). If, while genning new Algs for this, Algs were optimized for compatibility with each other, and a little practice, RU and MU moves can blend with each other easily. Recog shouldn't be too bad, I think.
> Now, this also means that you can have 10 Algs OLL which is interesting...



Oh, can you give an example for that?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 21, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I've got a couple ideas. They're alright (ish? Idk).
> 
> We all know that one forgotten page on the wiki in the experimental methods section, COALL... Basically ZB with less Algs. And with ZZ-CT being a thing now, I have an idea. I think. My ideas will hopefully get better with summer and all... Anyway. Solve with CFOP till last slot. Easy? Good. Now, this is weird. Insert the last edge with an oriented corner while applying a 4 flip if needed... If all edges are already oriented, or 2 are oriented then don't do it. Should be 54 Algs. Now do TTLL or some weird type of TTLL for 2 unoriented to finish the solve.
> Now it gets weird... You can add some weird form of phasing to this orienting LS, bringing it "only" up to 162 Algs, while drastically lowering Algs for LL... This means that the 2 unoriented edges always end up opposite... You can also add CP or whatever (on its own) and it will still be 162 Algs.
> ...


Lookahead for 4-flip ZBLL would actually be really good, because you could basically look at the corner orientation and the top layer and you could recognize the alg.
recognition would actually be really good, I think.


----------



## 4Chan (Jun 21, 2016)

4-flip ZBLL already exists, it's called anti-ZBLL, and it SUCKS because whenever you're flipping that many pieces, the algs are bad.

6 years ago, a guy learned a huge fraction of it, and honestly, it's not worth it for speed.
But yeah, recog is sick.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 21, 2016)

sqAree said:


> Oh, can you give an example for that?


Of what (lol)


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> 4-flip ZBLL already exists, it's called anti-ZBLL, and it SUCKS because whenever you're flipping that many pieces, the algs are bad.
> 
> 6 years ago, a guy learned a huge fraction of it, and honestly, it's not worth it for speed.
> But yeah, recog is sick.


you know, you could do wonething like 21LL for it... learn 4 lags that 4-flip while permuting edges, then solve L4C(recon at same time)


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jun 21, 2016)

what's the average movecount for anti-zbll?
not that I'm actually going to learn it


----------



## Cale S (Jun 21, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> what's the average movecount for anti-zbll?
> not that I'm actually going to learn it


looks like about 13.11
http://birdflu.lar5.com/?cop=&oll=&co=&cp=&eo=0&ep=&clicked=#eo&list=positions
but it seems like some cases are counted multiple times so not entirely accurate


----------



## sqAree (Jun 21, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Of what (lol)



I meant the thing about executing two algs at the same time as I'm not quite sure what you mean.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jun 21, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Now do TTLL or some weird type of TTLL for 2 unoriented to finish the solve.


wait I'm confused. The last layer corners are not oriented yet, so how can you use TTLL? You just inserted the last slot edge with an oriented corner, so what about the LL corners?


wir3sandfir3s said:


> You can also add CP or whatever (on its own) and it will still be 162 Algs


I don't get it.Can you give an example?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 21, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> wait I'm confused. The last layer corners are not oriented yet, so how can you use TTLL? You just inserted the last slot edge with an oriented corner, so what about the LL corners?
> 
> I don't get it.Can you give an example?


The LL corners are oriented because when you insert the last F2L edge with an printed corner, you are doing a less restrictive WV (I think it's a subset of TSLE). Did I miss that part? Whatever. Also, you are doing a 4 flip if needed.
For adding CP or phasing to "TSLE", it's literally just TSLE while doing CP or phasing two edges, basically more Algs to use to your advantage.


----------



## 4Chan (Jun 21, 2016)

I'm all for innovation, but TSLE + CP is thousands of algs with ridiculous recognition.
With five corners moving around, you then have to account for 5 cycles, and it gets absolutely absurd with alg count.

Even though TTLL has 5 cycles, everything's oriented so rotational symmetry makes it super small. 
If things are misoriented, you can't abuse rotational symmetry.

One of the benefits of TSLE is that it completely ignores permutation of every piece other than a single edge.
By not caring about anything else, that's how the algs are nice.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> I'm all for innovation, but TSLE + CP is thousands of algs with ridiculous recognition.
> With five corners moving around, you then have to account for 5 cycles, and it gets absolutely absurd with alg count.
> 
> Even though TTLL has 5 cycles, everything's oriented so rotational symmetry makes it super small.
> ...


for CP, (I use this for OH BTW), I detect CMLL case and based on if it is a _x_1, _x_2, _x_3, I do the appropriate AUF(I have them all written down for all 6 possible CMLL numbers) and then do a niklas(or 2 for the diagonal case.)


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> I'm all for innovation, but TSLE + CP is thousands of algs with ridiculous recognition.
> With five corners moving around, you then have to account for 5 cycles, and it gets absolutely absurd with alg count.
> 
> Even though TTLL has 5 cycles, everything's oriented so rotational symmetry makes it super small.
> ...


TTLL can be reduced to 24 algs(not including 9 PLLs, so 33 in total) with phasing(as in Navi method)

also, I was thinking instead of orienting all/permuting all, would it make sense to make an alg set to solve, say, all the edges and the most convenient corner(EO solved already, as in ZZ/ZB), then you can use an L3C finish? because its not easy to calculate, i think the alg count would be pretty low, as the corner oprions(I think) would be an adjacent cycle/swap, a cycle/swap that twists the corner one of 2 ways. combine that with EPLL and you have a 12 alg 1st look, and a 24(?) alg L3C.


----------



## 4Chan (Jun 21, 2016)

From what I understand, it'd be:

1. Insert edge + edge permutation + 1 correct corner
2. Solve everything

Yep, that'd work with low move count and alg count, but with tough recognition for the first step.
Since you'd have multiple corners to consider.

I'd say give it a try!
.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 21, 2016)

4Chan said:


> From what I understand, it'd be:
> 
> 1. Insert edge + edge permutation + 1 correct corner
> 2. Solve everything
> ...


I would, but what would the real alg count be?

also , if combined with ZZ/petrus and LPELL, you could make it a 3-alg first look because edges are already permuted.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 21, 2016)

As a tradeoff for more algs but easier recog, you could AUF for the EPLL's and then figure out where the corner at FR has to go.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 22, 2016)

I had an interesting idea for a ZZ+ Roux mix.
this is to make the most fluid method ever, because ZZF2L is really fluid, but the Last layer is just as unfluid as CFOP. 
I like roux's last steps, CMLL and LSE, but the blockbuilding is a little less fluid(lookahead is not as good as ZZF2L)

so what I did was this:
step 1:EOUnline- this is an EOline but with either A)2 U layer edges instead of line or B) place the UR/UR edges in the line instead, to make a really fast last steps
step 2:ZZF2L- because the line is a psuedoline this looks a lot more like F2B+EO, but treat it like ZZF2L.
step 3:COLL-Either influence into a shorter algset or use full COLL, either way, not too bad alg-wise.
step 4:finish with a kind of LSE-not really an LSE, but based on your EOUnline choices, it could be: 
A)4b and 4c
B)do an M2 to solve UL/UR and then do 4c: because of how it starts, you can use BU recog right at this point, right after COLL.

maybe not good movecount wise, But I think that if we are looking for the most fluid method we combine the two most fluid things anyone has come up with yet: ZZF2L and LSE.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I had an interesting idea for a ZZ+ Roux mix.
> this is to make the most fluid method ever, because ZZF2L is really fluid, but the Last layer is just as unfluid as CFOP.
> I like roux's last steps, CMLL and LSE, but the blockbuilding is a little less fluid(lookahead is not as good as ZZF2L)
> 
> ...


This won't be fluid as you won't easily be able to easily see the FB. In addition, you may well have edges in the awkward places in FD/BD. As well as this, the movecount will be higher than just Roux F2B which I would consider to be better than ZZF2L as it has better lookahead becuas eyou don't have to blockbuild after a slightly jarring transition after EO.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 22, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> This won't be fluid as you won't easily be able to easily see the FB. In addition, you may well have edges in the awkward places in FD/BD. As well as this, the movecount will be higher than just Roux F2B which I would consider to be better than ZZF2L as it has better lookahead becuas eyou don't have to blockbuild after a slightly jarring transition after EO.


No, ZZF2L, can be equally as efficitent as roux F2B, you just need to do more FMC stuff and blockbuild. also, the FD/BD problems are fixed by either putting a random U layer edge or by putting in UR and UL so after COLL its just M2 and 4c.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I had an interesting idea for a ZZ+ Roux mix.
> this is to make the most fluid method ever, because ZZF2L is really fluid, but the Last layer is just as unfluid as CFOP.
> I like roux's last steps, CMLL and LSE, but the blockbuilding is a little less fluid(lookahead is not as good as ZZF2L)
> 
> ...


Can use improvement. IMO best first step is to solve EO and UR and UL, then place these edges as if they were the EO line. Then do ZZF2L into COLL, probably with some influence, then "resolve" UR/UL into L4E. I think this would best be approached as:
1. I solve with yellow on top at all times, to I would offset the cube by a X2, Z2 or M2 during inspection, then do EO line, which is actually just placing UR and UL at FD and BD.
2. ZZF2L
3. COLL, probably with some influence.
4. L4E
L4E is a little faster than EPLL because the case is always 3 moves (I think), and solving UL amd UR for good is only 3 moves max., equaling 6 moves which makes it faster than EPLLs, but not by a lot... Improvable.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jun 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I had an interesting idea for a ZZ+ Roux mix.
> this is to make the most fluid method ever, because ZZF2L is really fluid, but the Last layer is just as unfluid as CFOP.
> I like roux's last steps, CMLL and LSE, but the blockbuilding is a little less fluid(lookahead is not as good as ZZF2L)
> 
> ...


I'd improve your method by doing this:
1. Normal EOLine
2. ZZ F2L
3. COLL
4. <M, U> EPLL
This is already one of the most popular ZZ variants.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 23, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> I'd improve your method by doing this:
> 1. Normal EOLine
> 2. ZZ F2L
> 3. COLL
> ...


L4e is ,pre efficient and lookahead is really nice.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 23, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Can use improvement. IMO best first step is to solve EO and UR and UL, then place these edges as if they were the EO line. Then do ZZF2L into COLL, probably with some influence, then "resolve" UR/UL into L4E. I think this would best be approached as:
> 1. I solve with yellow on top at all times, to I would offset the cube by a X2, Z2 or M2 during inspection, then do EO line, which is actually just placing UR and UL at FD and BD.
> 2. ZZF2L
> 3. COLL, probably with some influence.
> ...


yes.


----------



## Temp (Jun 24, 2016)

*Temp's TPLL Algorithms*

*What is TPLL?*
TPLL is a method that I decided to make that allows you to permute both the first layer and the last layer simultaneously after solving the bottom cross incorrectly.

*NOTE:* I will edit this thread to add more algs whenever I have time.

*Opposite Edge Swap on Bottom

Opposite Edge Swap*



*M2 U2 M2*
This case is very easy to memorize and execute.


*Adjacent Edge Swap*



*M2 U M U2 M U2 M2 U M2
(M2 U M') D2 (M U' M2) D2*
The first algorithm isn't very fast, but the second algorithm feels awkward to execute. I would recommend the second case if you are good at fingertricking the D layer.​*

W*



*M2 U M' U2 M U' M2*
This case isn't too hard to learn, but executing it will take practice.
*

Oa*



*M' U M2 U M2 U M*
This case is easy to learn, but executing it will be difficult for right-handed people. Each edge will rotate clockwise.
*

Ob*



*M U M2 U M2 U M'*
This case is easy to learn, but executing it will be difficult for left-handed people. Each edge will rotate counter-clockwise.​


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 24, 2016)

Temp said:


> *Temp's TPLL Algorithms*
> 
> *What is TPLL?*
> TPLL is a method that I decided to make that allows you to permute both the first layer and the last layer simultaneously after solving the bottom cross incorrectly.
> ...


Apart from the EPLL, almost all the other algs suck


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 24, 2016)

Temp said:


> ​



Been thought of, tried, and pretty much universally agreed upon that it's not worth it


----------



## TDM (Jun 24, 2016)

I know all the EPLL cases for this (I call it "parity EPLL", and as others have said those are the only nice algorithms. All others aren't worth it - and adj swap isn't very good even though it's an EPLL. But the other EPLLs can be useful for Roux sometimes.



shadowslice e said:


> http://i.imgur.com/V93NM.png


you tried


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jun 25, 2016)

It was a very nice layout, though. Very visually appealing.
(Referring to Temp's post)


----------



## DavidKCuber (Jun 27, 2016)

1. Orient all edges( EOLine minus the line)
2. Solve two opposite 1x2x3 blocks. This will be alot smoother due to the orientation of the edges.
3. Solve COLL
4. Last 6 edges 

You get to skip step 4a in the last 6 edges due to the orientation of the edges.

What do yoi guys think?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jun 27, 2016)

you could've posted it here https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/

idk if this has been proposed before (probably has), but I don't think it's good. It's harder to plan blocks if you do EO first.


----------



## GuRoux (Jun 27, 2016)

on average, 4a takes about 5 moves.
the eoline would take more than that. 
first block and second block will be less efficient if you want to keep orientation.
coll is worse than cmll. 

the method won't be that bad, but would be clearly worse than regular roux.


----------



## DavidKCuber (Jun 27, 2016)

Thanks for your opinions! It is obviously not that developed and definitely has bad points.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Jun 29, 2016)

Okay, very similar to CFOP...but an idea nonetheless. It's kinda like a method variation of CFOP
-Solve a cross on the bottom face.
The difference here is you don't need to worry about the way the edges are placed, so you can have an adjacent or opposite swap on the bottom.
-F2l
Same as CFOP
-OLL
Again same.
-PBCL?
Okay, since you have an edge swap on the bottom, the PLL will obviously be different. So I was thinking about generating a new set of PLLs for an opposite or adjacent swap on the bottom.

If you like learning more algs this could be an option...
If this was not ny idea please tell me!


----------



## Chicken Noodle (Jun 29, 2016)

While I'm no expert, it's easy for almost anyone to see that this method is fairly pointless.
You'd have to learn at least double the PLLs (recognition would probably also be pretty bad) to maybe save 1 or 2 moves for the cross. And considering the fact that it usually takes 6 or less moves to solve any cross, there's not much to be gained from this method.

If you like learning more algs, you should learn ZBLL or even give ZZ-CT a try.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Jun 29, 2016)

Chicken Noodle said:


> While I'm no expert, it's easy for almost anyone to see that this method is fairly pointless.
> You'd have to learn at least double the PLLs (recognition would probably also be pretty bad) to maybe save 1 or 2 moves for the cross. And considering the fact that it usually takes 6 or less moves to solve any cross, there's not much to be gained from this method.
> 
> If you like learning more algs, you should learn ZBLL or even give ZZ-CT a try.


I see your point.
Thanks for not being rude and stating your idea in a polite manner.


----------



## efattah (Jun 29, 2016)

Chicken Noodle said:


> While I'm no expert, it's easy for almost anyone to see that this method is fairly pointless.
> to maybe save 1 or 2 moves for the cross.



Actually it's not that obvious at all. If you assume that you saved 2 moves for the cross, it means that your lookahead during the 15 second inspection is significantly increased to the point where you would be able to build your first F2L pair in the inspection almost every time and some experts who can already do x-cross might even be able to build the 2nd pair during the inspection.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada


----------



## Chicken Noodle (Jun 29, 2016)

That's a valid point, but cubers who are advanced enough to see first or even second pair (for easy cross solutions) during inspection are probably fast enough with CFOP that switching to this method wouldn't help very much. I think that becoming colour neutral (or just more practice) would be a better investment of time for them.
Also, this benefit will probably be negated by the last layer recognition. It would be the equivalent of learning full 4x4 PLL including parity (correct me if I'm wrong), which no one uses.
Another thing is that if you are completely free in the placement of cross edges, you could end up with an EPLL (U-perm, H-perm, Z-perm) on the bottom. How would you deal with those? You could do the regular PLL, followed by an x2 or z2, and then the EPLL or learn even more algs, neither of which is that great.

EDIT: Not full 4x4 PLL, only the adjacent and opposite edge swap cases.


----------



## DGCubes (Jun 30, 2016)

Chicken Noodle said:


> That's a valid point, but cubers who are advanced enough to see first or even second pair (for easy cross solutions) during inspection are probably fast enough with CFOP that switching to this method wouldn't help very much. I think that becoming colour neutral (or just more practice) would be a better investment of time for them.
> Also, this benefit will probably be negated by the last layer recognition. It would be the equivalent of learning full 4x4 PLL including parity (correct me if I'm wrong), which no one uses.
> Another thing is that if you are completely free in the placement of cross edges, you could end up with an EPLL (U-perm, H-perm, Z-perm) on the bottom. How would you deal with those? You could do the regular PLL, followed by an x2 or z2, and then the EPLL or learn even more algs, neither of which is that great.
> 
> EDIT: Not full 4x4 PLL, only the adjacent and opposite edge swap cases.



I like to leave 2 opposite edges swapped in cross if it's easier. If you can do some form of CP during OLL, then you'll end up with an EPLL, which can often result in a PLL skip if you do some setup moves and M2 U2 M2. If you can't do any CP, you can still sometimes force a better PLL case (e.g. getting a T-perm instead of an F-perm). Also, adding onto the actual method proposed, I feel like it wouldn't be that hard to learn recognition. We've already done it for normal PLL, and this is practically the same thing, but different cases. I think it's a pretty cool idea, but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to learn all the algs.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jun 30, 2016)

K
here's something for ZZ

During ZZF2L, instead of making two 1*2*3 blocks on the left and right, you can make one 2*2*3 block on the left or on the right


Spoiler: Example



random scramble: B' L2 F2 L2 D2 R2 U2 F' R2 D2 U2 L' B2 D' U' R D R B2 F'

F B' U B U2 L2 D' //EoLine
U R' U R U2 R2 U R //Square
L U L' R U' R'// Right block
z U' R' U' sexy R U R' //Big block
U R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U R' U' R U' R' U//2gen ZBLL
48 HTM


If you're neutral between solving it the normal way and solving it this way you have a higher chance of getting lucky cases.

Sorry if this is a dumb idea or if it's been proposed before (I haven't read all 100 pages of this thread)


----------



## JimCube (Jun 30, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> K
> here's something for ZZ
> 
> During ZZF2L, instead of making two 1*2*3 blocks on the left and right, you can make one 2*2*3 block on the left or on the right
> ...


I tried your solves and it was awesome. Not sure about effieciency tho.


----------



## TDM (Jun 30, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> Sorry if this is a dumb idea or if it's been proposed before (I haven't read all 100 pages of this thread)


I think this is the most proposed ZZ variant.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Jun 30, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> I like to leave 2 opposite edges swapped in cross if it's easier. If you can do some form of CP during OLL, then you'll end up with an EPLL, which can often result in a PLL skip if you do some setup moves and M2 U2 M2. If you can't do any CP, you can still sometimes force a better PLL case (e.g. getting a T-perm instead of an F-perm). Also, adding onto the actual method proposed, I feel like it wouldn't be that hard to learn recognition. We've already done it for normal PLL, and this is practically the same thing, but different cases. I think it's a pretty cool idea, but I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to learn all the algs.


Yeah know I see your point, my variant is for people who like learning algs and case recognition. I'm not an algorithm kind if person, I prefer intuition. But there are pros and cons, so this could be an experimental idea...


----------



## S1neWav_ (Jun 30, 2016)

Chicken Noodle said:


> Another thing is that if you are completely free in the placement of cross edges, you could end up with an EPLL (U-perm, H-perm, Z-perm) on the bottom. How would you deal with those? You could do the regular PLL, followed by an x2 or z2, and then the EPLL or learn even more algs, neither of which is that great.
> 
> EDIT: Not full 4x4 PLL, only the adjacent and opposite edge swap cases.



You should try to align as many edges as possible before the f2l to avoid nasty edge swaps, and the D layer adjustment could easily be seen during inspection.


----------



## Sion (Jun 30, 2016)

Here's an idea I was pondering for a substep of Roux.

Instead of creating one block at a time, what if you solve each block simultaneously? I alternate between PCMS and Roux, and I always feel dumbfounded when I created a CE pair, and it was for the wrong block. Not just that, In Roux, it's also a little annoying when F moves are blocked. In PCMS, which is my main method, it gets super confusing when you really have nothing to refer off of, which Roux has. So here's an Idea of what I call S²B (Sion's Simultaneous Blocks). S²B still ends up with two 1x2x3 blocks on opposite Layers, sort-of like the relation of ZZ F2L to CFOP F2L, which two different ways of getting to the same state. Below is a VERY detailed explanation of the steps, but it's really simple.

1: Create a 1x2x2 Block on either the R or L face.
2: Create another Corner-Edge Pair with the same D layer color as your first block. However, Unlike Gilles's F2B, which just solves one whole block then moving onto the next, S²B allows the freedom of creating one of the other CE pairs that , which could absolutely help when trying to be move efficient.
3a: If you created the CE pair that makes a complete 1x2x3 block (L/R Color adjacent), you can continue on with the second block. 
3b: If you create one of the other two possible CE pairs that _does not_ solve a 1x2x3 block (Diagonal or F/B Color Adjacent), Place it in it's respective slot, and Create another 1x2x2 block on the opposite face of the first 1x2x2 block using the freshly solved CE pair (eg: First 1x2x2 block on the R face, create the opposite 1x2x2 block on the L face).
4b: Solve the last two CE pairs intuitively to finish the first two blocks.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 1, 2016)

Sion said:


> Here's an idea I was pondering for a substep of Roux.
> 
> Instead of creating one block at a time, what if you solve each block simultaneously? I alternate between PCMS and Roux, and I always feel dumbfounded when I created a CE pair, and it was for the wrong block. Not just that, In Roux, it's also a little annoying when F moves are blocked. In PCMS, which is my main method, it gets super confusing when you really have nothing to refer off of, which Roux has. So here's an Idea of what I call S²B (Sion's Simultaneous Blocks). S²B still ends up with two 1x2x3 blocks on opposite Layers, sort-of like the relation of ZZ F2L to CFOP F2L, which two different ways of getting to the same state. Below is a VERY detailed explanation of the steps, but it's really simple.
> 
> ...


People do this already, and most of the time there are more efficient ways...


----------



## DELToS (Jul 4, 2016)

*My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C*

I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:

1) First 4 Columns: The first step is to solve the corners of the first layer and the edges of the second layer at the same time, much like F2L pairs, but less moves are required than F2L as it's more efficient.
2) Corners of the Last Layer: It's all in the name. You solve the corners of the last layer of the cube. You can just use COLL algorithms, but there are probably shorter algorithms for some cases because you don't have to preserve the edges of the first layer. I only reccomend learning these ones if you want to get really serious about the method. I call the algorithm set CNLL (Corners of the Last Laster without regards to the Non-Equator edges). These algorithms are not yet generated.
3) Edges of the First Layer: These can be solved using M and U moves, as well as rotations. But for the last edge, you would use an algorithms (still using only M and U moves) to solve EOLL as well, so there is no OLL at all. I have created these algorithms by hand and I will put them below.
4) EPLL: Solve the remaining edges on the top layer using PLL algorithms. The corners should already be solved. These cases include both U permutations, as well as the H and Z permutations. There is a 1/12 chance for a skip of this step.

Pros of this method:
- Low overall move count, providing you're good at the first step.
- The last 2 steps can be done with only M and U moves (plus some rotations on the 3rd step).
- The algorithms for LE-OLL (last edge OLL, the algorithm set for the 3rd step) are very easy to learn because there are only M and U moves.
- The first step can be done very quickly and efficiently if you're good at it.
- I assume look ahead isn't very difficult for the first step.
- Overall fairly straightforward and not a difficult concept to grasp.
- Recognition is VERY easy for LE-OLL (you only have to look at the top side).
- There is the option to learn 176 algorithms for LE-OLL to be able to always skip EPLL.

Cons of this method:
- The first step takes lots of time and practice to get good at.
- 60 algorithms total (although you may know some of them, including the 4 EPLLs)

Finally, here are all the algorithms for LE-OLL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-w199qf5vxWtXRJLJlVCstCobG2852IbNAJRz_OoCr8/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## JTWong71 (Jul 4, 2016)

DELToS said:


> *My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C*
> 
> I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
> F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:
> ...


Isn't this just PCMS with a different way of solving the D/U Layer Edges?


----------



## Sion (Jul 4, 2016)

DELToS said:


> *My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C*
> 
> I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
> F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:
> ...



Most of the steps here (1,2, and 4) are already part of a well-known method called PCMS (It is my main method acutally, so yeah!). Many people come up with it, and it is actually an excellent method. The part that i'm interested in is your LE-OLL, which is really interesting. I'm not sure if it is L5EOP, so if you can explain the difference, it would be nice.


----------



## DELToS (Jul 4, 2016)

Sion said:


> Most of the steps here (1,2, and 4) are already part of a well-known method called PCMS (It is my main method acutally, so yeah!). Many people come up with it, and it is actually an excellent method. The part that i'm interested in is your LE-OLL, which is really interesting. I'm not sure if it is L5EOP, so if you can explain the difference, it would be nice.


I can't see any difference, but for whatever reason L5EOP has 4 more cases where the last edge of the first layer is already solved, which I don't understand.


----------



## DELToS (Jul 4, 2016)

Actually, it seems like "my" method and PCMS are identical except that in PCMS center location doesn't matter until later in the solve


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 5, 2016)

DELToS said:


> *My New 3x3 Method Idea - F4C*
> 
> I've had an idea for this method for almost a year now, but I've recently organized my thoughts and made it better, so here it is.
> F4C stands for First 4 Columns because that's step 1 of the method. Here are all the steps:
> ...


To summarize: this method is literally just a variant of FreeFOP, accept the arrow is instead solved before LL edges. Maybe viable?


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 5, 2016)

It's more a PCMS variant than FreeFOP variant. I'm not sure solving all the cross edges after columns is the most efficient way to solve after columns (think best is still to solve two opposite edges, then LSE), since it's basically just 3 edges into L5EOP.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 5, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> It's more a PCMS variant than FreeFOP variant. I'm not sure solving all the cross edges after columns is the most efficient way to solve after columns (think best is still to solve two opposite edges, then LSE), since it's basically just 3 edges into L5EOP.


The variant of FreeFOP I am referring to is the one in which you solve the arrow (3 cross pieces), solve the pairs, CLL, and L5E. F4C (literally a different way of saying columns first) does columns, arrow then L5E, however it is also easily relatable to PCMS. FreeFOP is one of my main methods so I just saw it as that.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 5, 2016)

Yeah, I've never heard of FreeFOP having "variants". As far as I understand it, it's just free blockbuilding for the F2L -> OLL, PLL. What you're describing seems closer to columns


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 5, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, I've never heard of FreeFOP having "variants". As far as I understand it, it's just free blockbuilding for the F2L -> OLL, PLL. What you're describing seems closer to columns


Well, it's not really variants just different ways to do LL. F2L-1, "OLL" then PLL is the most common "variant".


----------



## VDW1014 (Jul 6, 2016)

Hey I'm Alex. I have made a method that finishes similar to roux, but works out the E-Layer Edges in a new way. It is more of a roux variant to solve for fun. Please check it out and give me feedback. IF YOU DECIDE TO EDIT SOMETHING, GO TO

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:VDW_Method 

and let me know what you want to edit followed by your name.

my method is here: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/VDW_Method


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 6, 2016)

VDW1014 said:


> Hey I'm Alex. I have made a method that finishes similar to roux, but works out the E-Layer Edges in a new way. Please check it out and give me feedback. IF YOU DECIDE TO EDIT SOMETHING, GO TO
> 
> https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Talk:VDW_Method
> 
> ...


Interesting. I feel like this is one of those methods that has been proposed before several times. So, if I am not mistaken, the steps of the method are as follows:
1. Roux blocks, without the E layer edges. 
2. CMLL
3. Solve E slice 
4. L6E
Basically Roux with an extra step. And more moves, worse ergonomics, less fluidity, and maybe worse lookahead? Let me explain:
The first step is not that many moves less than normal Roux blocks, which are usually solved around 6-8 moves. By doing your alternative first step, you are only cutting off 4 moves maximum and adding more moves to the 3rd step. Also, by doing this, your solve becomes much more restricted. Basically, by the end of the third step, your cube looks exactly the same (minus L6E) as a normal Roux solver's by the second step (if you count both blocks as one step). You are just building your blocks differently, and that is literally the only thing at separates your method from Roux. So, in summary, your method is Roux with a worse block building step.


----------



## VDW1014 (Jul 6, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Interesting. I feel like this is one of those methods that has been proposed before several times. So, if I am not mistaken, the steps of the method are as follows:
> 1. Roux blocks, without the E layer edges.
> 2. CMLL
> 3. Solve E slice
> ...


 My idea is to work a different way of F2L. This is not a speed solving method, it's just something I came up with on the fly for fun based on roux. I think also instead of a roux approach at the beginning, corners first could apply then add two edges to the bottom also. I also wanted to utilize the E Layer more and challenge myself to see if I could get fast while using a method where the E Layer turns are definitely present. This is more fun than boring CFOP and... I did plan on using roux in the last step anyway, that is why it is so similar. It's because I based it off of roux.


----------



## antech101 (Jul 6, 2016)

so in CFOP, i think i found a new way to do F2L, it might be super inefficient compared to the other way to do F2L but i thought i'd share it anyway.

So it basically starts by making half of the cross with the 2 edge pieces for cross next to eachother, then you insert an F2L pair in that area, you solve another edge piece for cross, then insert another F2L pair in that gap, then you insert the final edge piece and solve the last 2 F2L pairs.

So is this already a thing? And is it slower compared to intuitive F2L?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 6, 2016)

antech101 said:


> so in CFOP, i think i found a new way to do F2L, it might be super inefficient compared to the other way to do F2L but i thought i'd share it anyway.
> 
> So it basically starts by making half of the cross with the 2 edge pieces for cross next to eachother, then you insert an F2L pair in that area, you solve another edge piece for cross, then insert another F2L pair in that gap, then you insert the final edge piece and solve the last 2 F2L pairs.
> 
> So is this already a thing? And is it slower compared to intuitive F2L?


so 2x2x2->2x2x3->F2L-1->F2L
Basically a worse petrus because it is more inefficient and you don't have freedom of blockbuilding.


----------



## antech101 (Jul 6, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> so 2x2x2->2x2x3->F2L-1->F2L
> Basically a worse petrus because it is more inefficient and you don't have freedom of blockbuilding.


oh, xD


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 6, 2016)

obligatory "or you could just use Petrus"


----------



## qwertycuber (Jul 7, 2016)

Hi guys, I was casually solving my 6x6 yesterday, and I came up with this idea to do edge pairing. I do not know if this was already developed, so I will ask you guys to tell me if this was already brought up by someone before:

Step 1:
Solve all cross edges (if you will do white cross, solve the white edges), and put them to the bottom so that the cross will be solved. This is done for better lookahead.

Step 2:
Solve all the inner 2 edges like you would on a 4x4.

Step 3:
Solve the edges like a 5x5.

Note:
These steps are done after all the centers are solved.

Conclusion:
I don't know if this is very efficient compared to what people usually do, but I just got my first 6x6 yesterday so I have very little experience with this. Please tell me if this was already made, or if I just made up a new way to do the edge pairing stage for 6x6.


----------



## mafergut (Jul 7, 2016)

antech101 said:


> so in CFOP, i think i found a new way to do F2L, it might be super inefficient compared to the other way to do F2L but i thought i'd share it anyway.
> 
> So it basically starts by making half of the cross with the 2 edge pieces for cross next to eachother, then you insert an F2L pair in that area, you solve another edge piece for cross, then insert another F2L pair in that gap, then you insert the final edge piece and solve the last 2 F2L pairs.
> 
> So is this already a thing? And is it slower compared to intuitive F2L?


hehehe, I do that for Match the Scramble  Of course I am not good enough to match the F2L pair with arbitrary colours so I 1st place the corner then the edge.


----------



## leeo (Jul 8, 2016)

With the Orientation and Permutation steps of the 3x3x3 solve so nicely packaged into alg. sets - it occurred to me that perhaps an alg. set can be applied at the onset.

If I view the cube solving as a sorting problem, then as inspection I might read: Top face corners: in Top face, in Top face, to bottom face, in top face -- Top face edges: to bottom layer, in top layer, to middle layer, to bottom layer - not paying any attention at this stage to orientation.

The idea would be to get the whole cube into a fast-solvable mid point, moving many units at a time with a carefully crafted set of algs. I was thinking of a target as having only one "to bottom face" corners, and only one "to middle layer" edge and at most only one "to bottom layer" edge -- but I open this up to debate. The ultimate goal is to generate a method for achieving consistent 6-second solves.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 8, 2016)

How about:

1) EOLayer - EO, and D layer corners, oriented but not necessarily permuted
2) 'EG' - center and eo safe EG algs to solve all corners
3) Need help on edges. Thought about sighted M2 which is okay but the movecount is high


----------



## Cale S (Jul 8, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> How about:
> 
> 1) EOLayer - EO, and D layer corners, oriented but not necessarily permuted
> 2) 'EG' - center and eo safe EG algs to solve all corners
> 3) Need help on edges. Thought about sighted M2 which is okay but the movecount is high


maybe do an alg to put edges in their respective layers first?


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 8, 2016)

Cale S said:


> maybe do an alg to put edges in their respective layers first?



I toyed with this for a bit, you can do alot with setups to (y x) Z perm (x y) to swap out E slice and U/D layer edges, but I'm not sure it works for all cases. And then E slice then EPBL. Maybe I'll gen something better for 'separation' tomorrow


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 8, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> How about:
> 
> 1) EOLayer - EO, and D layer corners, oriented but not necessarily permuted
> 2) 'EG' - center and eo safe EG algs to solve all corners
> 3) Need help on edges. Thought about sighted M2 which is okay but the movecount is high


You mean SSC/ECE?


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 8, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> You mean SSC/ECE?



No, it's somewhat different. My idea is a corners first method that disregards the E-slice (or any edge solving) until later on. Also, corners are done in two steps in this method (layer, EG) whereas it looks like they are done in three in the ones you mentioned (some D-layer corners, WV, permute). And again, this is edges last. So there are 12 edges left to solve after corners are done, but they are oriented relative to <R,U,L,D,F2,B2>, as in ZZ


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 8, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> No, it's somewhat different. My idea is a corners first method that disregards the E-slice (or any edge solving) until later on. Also, corners are done in two steps in this method (layer, EG) whereas it looks like they are done in three in the ones you mentioned (some D-layer corners, WV, permute). And again, this is edges last. So there are 12 edges left to solve after corners are done, but they are oriented relative to <R,U,L,D,F2,B2>, as in ZZ


Oh ok I see.

Though SSC corners can be done in two thanks to some innovation which SqAree and I came up with that is described on the wiki page here. I made a few posts about it in the thread though I haven't managed to get around to properly update the op recently.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 9, 2016)

*Tentative idea for 4x4 direct solving method*
My attempt to do something similar to stadler, but hopefully not as inefficient.

(Note: the notation I use has l' r = M', not l' r = x)

1. FB (1x3x4 on L)
2. SB (1x3x4 on R) with <l, r, R, U>
3. CMLL
4. L28P = L12E + L4C with <l, r, U>

Obviously the only really new part here is the last step, so here's my approach:
4.1. Orientation
4.1a. OBlock: orient a 4x3x1 on l slice (so U/D colors only on D, F/B colors only on the l half of F/B centers)
4.1b. EO with <r, U> (one r/r' flips all edges on r, and this is analogous to 3x3 arrow case)
4.1c. OL4C: orient the last 10 center pieces (w/ <l, r, U> Niklas)​4.2. ULUR with <l2, r2, U> + M' U2 M
4.3. Permutation with <l, r, U2>
4.3a. Pair L8E
4.3b. L4C (3x3 redux)
4.3c. L4E (+PLL parity)​
Pros:
No OLL parity
Rotationless
Lookahead in step 4 easier than in cage/stadler (EO can be detected w/o looking at B/D, reduction-based approach -> don't have to look for specific pieces -> cases are easy to come by, always solving a specific thing involving very few pieces -> things are easy to track and identify, similar to 3x3 LSE)
Centers don't take forever like in cage/stadler
Direct solving is fun, slice turns are fun

Cons:
Lookahead may be hard in F2B
Without being able to plan whole FB in inspection, effieciency is non-ideal
OL4C, L8E, and L2C currently still take more moves than I'd like
No easy way use 3x3 hax like CMLLEO or ULUR influencing during EO (though I was thinking one might be able to influence OL4C during EO)

Still developing algs, but current average movecount estimate based on own solves:
50 F2B + 10 CMLL + (8 Oblock + 6 EO + 16 OL4C) + 8 ULUR + (16 L8E + 16 L4C) + 5 L4E (+ 6 PLL parity) = 135-141 STM

Compare with me going to cubesolv.es, opening up a bunch of ~30second 4x4 reconstructions, and getting an avg Yau/Hoya movecount of (131 + 120 + 154 + 139 + 137 + 124 + 134 + 173 + 176 + 158 + 162 + 158 + 161 + 155 + 135 + 136 + 137)/17 = 146.47 STM


----------



## Sion (Jul 9, 2016)

Here is a method that is similar to heise, but sorta different. I call it "The Blocky Method":

1: B1: Solve a 2x2x3, having the 3 cubie legnth vertical.
2: B2 make a 1x2x3 where the 3 cubie legnth is horizontal.
3: B3 solve a 1x2x2, solving f2l.

4: V-PLL: because of step one forcing a V case, it becomes a 1lll.

I think this may be good for FMC, but not as much for standard solving, because the blocks are all intuitive.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 9, 2016)

Sion said:


> Here is a method that is similar to heise, but sorta different. I call it "The Blocky Method":
> 
> 1: B1: Solve a 2x2x3, having the 3 cubie legnth vertical.
> 2: B2 make a 1x2x3 where the 3 cubie legnth is horizontal.
> ...


You mean Tripod?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 9, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> You mean Tripod?


I think its a different method
Not sure but I think you keep making blocks until you get a V shape 1lll like this
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_U_R2_F_R_F2_U_F_U2_U-_R-_U_L-_U2_R_U-_R-_U2_R_L
right Sion?

For block building, you can't really make the third block (B3) intuitively. I think you have to use algs because there's too many restrictions. After step B2 you've pretty much already finished psuedo-F2L


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 9, 2016)

Any thoughts on the 4x4 idea?

Currently trying to optimize 4.1


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 9, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> I think its a different method
> Not sure but I think you keep making blocks until you get a V shape 1lll like this
> https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_U_R2_F_R_F2_U_F_U2_U-_R-_U_L-_U2_R_U-_R-_U2_R_L
> right Sion?
> ...


It's Tripod with the pair already inserted which in standard tripod is the second to last step but the LL is the same.

Tripod is 2x2x2->2x2x3->F2L-1 (in whatever orientation)->F2L-1+2x2x1 in U-> insert pair (finish F2L)-> Tripod LL (the "V-LL" described on the post).


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 10, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Any thoughts on the 4x4 idea?
> 
> Currently trying to optimize 4.1


sounds interesting. If I had a 4x4 I would try it out. I generally like direct solving methods better than reduction methods, so Ill definitely try it out!!!


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 10, 2016)

at first I didnt understand the Idea, because it seems like theres 10 corners, until I realized the L4C at the end stood for last 4 centers.
I thought up of some big cube Idea where you solved F2B and CMLL(at least corners) and then used the slices for edge pairing.
your final 2 steps could be to create 2-color seperation like in roux, then to solve the centers and then the edges.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 10, 2016)

That is basically what's happening yeah. After UL and UR dedges are solved, two-color separation arises naturally.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 11, 2016)

anyway, I had this idea for a rotationless petrus and a less hard EO:
FB
orient 3 edges and place them in the places the SB would normally go
roux LSE 4a and also place down edges simultaneously
solve 2x2x3+EO.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 11, 2016)

--Sub 40 with sub-40--
okay, so this challenge is simple: design a method that averages under 40 moves during a speedsolve, and record at least sub-40(with sub-40 moves) average of 12 with it.
fastest average wins.
whoever wins will be given recognition and the devotion of a group of people like me who develop solving methods further.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 11, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> *Tentative idea for 4x4 direct solving method*
> My attempt to do something similar to stadler, but hopefully not as inefficient.
> 
> (Note: the notation I use has l' r = M', not l' r = x)
> ...


Don't really get how the EO works. what do you mean by "orient a 4x3x1?

sounds like a cool method though


----------



## sqAree (Jul 11, 2016)

Hm, I'd say planning a 1x3x4 in inspection should be pretty impossible?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 11, 2016)

yeah, but he said that it isnt possible, so it may be un-optimal movecount.


----------



## sqAree (Jul 11, 2016)

Alright. I still find that approach interesting. Can I see a full example solve somewhere, or at least of step 4?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 11, 2016)

yeah, the LSE-equivalent step, I would like to see how that goes.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 11, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> Don't really get how the EO works. what do you mean by "orient a 4x3x1?



Yeah, I wasn't sure how to explain that part clearly. More explicitly, what I meant is that you want to build a 4x3x1 "block" on the l inner slice that satisfies the following:
U/D colors only on D
F/B colors only on the half of the F/B center that's on the l slice

The approach I take to do this, if that helps to clarify:
Form a 2x1 bar of center pieces made up only of U/D colors, use l move to put onto D face
Form a 3x1 bar of pieces, composed of a 2x1 bar of center pieces made up only of F/B colors and one wing piece, such that when inserted with l' U2 l, l U2 l', or M' U2 M or M U2 M', the color of the wing piece that ends up on D face is a U/D color.



sqAree said:


> Alright. I still find that approach interesting. Can I see a full example solve somewhere, or at least of step 4?



I should have one up by tonight.

Example solve

Pulled the first scramble I got from qqtimer and did a solve.
alg.cubing.net doesn't let me write things like M', E2, etc and counts things like 2R' R as two moves, so for move count I was counting in terms of what I thought constituted a "move" during execution (which basically just ends up being a more restrictive form of ATM, since obviously things like 2L 2R are not easily done in one motion). I've put those counts in the comments on the reconstruction, so if you disagree with my counting you can feel free to come to your own conclusions.

Movecount breakdown:
F2C: 12
FB: 12
SB: 37
CMLL: 10
LSD: 83
Orientation: 33 (8 Oblock, 8 EO, 17 OL4C)
Permutation: 50 (11 ULUR+forcing even pairs, 32 finish redux, 7 permute the rest)​Total: 142

Happy to see that things weren't so far off from my initial estimate (50 F2B + 10 CMLL + (8 Oblock + 6 EO + 16 OL4C) + 8 ULUR + (32 Finish redux) + 5 L4E (+ 6 PLL parity) = 135-141 BTM)

I would still like to push the movecount down further, though (the only way I think this could be remotely competitive, as lookahead is harder than Yau/Hoya and I think people usually prefer outer layer turns). I think the main concern on this front is OL4C and finishing up redux. I really hope there's a less nasty alg for finishing edge pairing, and perhaps algs could be genned for orienting or permuting all 4 centers at once.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 12, 2016)

for the end of center EO, you could've done
[2R U2 2R', 2U2 2D2]=r U2 r' U2 D2 l U2 l' U2 D2



Teoidus said:


> I really hope there's a less nasty alg for finishing edge pairing,


for last 2 edge pairs, isn't that the same thing as OLL parity? if you get that case in Yau and try pairing the edges you will get OLL parity later in the solve. So I don't think there is a better alg

really cool method btw


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 12, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> for the end of center EO, you could've done
> [2R U2 2R', 2U2 2D2]=r U2 r' U2 D2 l U2 l' U2 D2


Oh yeah, good point. I'll update my alglist with that



Daniel Lin said:


> for last 2 edge pairs, isn't that the same thing as OLL parity? if you get that case in Yau and try pairing the edges you will get OLL parity later in the solve. So I don't think there is a better alg



Yeah, it seems very similar (I don't have OLL parity algorithm memorized, so maybe they are in fact identical). My hope is that there might be some friendlier alg that doesn't have to preserve solid color centers, or maybe there is some intuitive way to force it not to happen while solving ULUR.

Speaking of forcing skips: if anyone tries this method, you might find that sometimes after ULUR pairing step you have a 3-cycle of wing pieces (so 3 of the last six edges are paired, and the last 3 have to be solved with a 3-cycle). You can solve this by pairing up edges as you would in redux, though what I prefer is to: get exactly two paired edges into the M slice diagonally across from each other, along with two wing pieces that need pairing, then do an l2 or r2 to pair the wing pieces and break the two pairs (3 original pairs + 1 new pair - 2 broken = 2 pairs). After solving ULUR you'll find that the last 4 edges are trivially solvable by l2 or r2 (at least that's what I've found to be true thus far). This way you don't have to rotate or break F2B to complete edge pairing



Daniel Lin said:


> really cool method btw



Thanks! I'm still unsure of its viability but am hoping that it could be competitive with the right adjustments, as I really like the premise of it.


----------



## antech101 (Jul 12, 2016)

So i was bored and decided to just think of new ways to solve a 3x3, and eventually i made something! It may already be a method but i'm proud of myself for figuring it out anyway xD so it basically works like this:

Center: you start off with solving the center layer, not much to be said here.

Edge swap: After you solve the centers you use a simple algorithm to swap the edges so they match their centerpiece

Corner Swap: same thing as edge swap but with corners

Last 2 Layers: You then use CFOP last layer algs to solve the 2 sides


So is this already a method? And are there any ways i can improve on this method? thanks!


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 12, 2016)

antech101 said:


> So is this already a method?


belt


----------



## antech101 (Jul 12, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> belt


man, thought i was on to something there xD


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 12, 2016)

sqAree said:


> Hm, I'd say planning a 1x3x4 in inspection should be pretty impossible?


I think people really good with Roux or big cubes could predict a 1x3x3, not sure about a 1x3x4


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 12, 2016)

hey what if we did something like COL/ZZ-line on left and did FB on d face and SB on U face, then did CMLL on side then you can use E and R moves to solve LSE???
LOL nope this would suck pretty bad


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 12, 2016)

Hey man if you can get good with <E,R> LSE I'd be pretty impressed

Since I can't seem to find a good 4x4 solver that's flexible enough for my needs, I'm biting the bullet tonight and writing up a 4x4 definition file for ksolve. Hopefully some good algorithms will come of it!

In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out if it'd be possible to do:
EO and OL4C at the same time
3x3 redux in one step (this would leave the finish to be: solve ULUR, permute the rest super easily)

I also learned that the last two edges algorithm is indeed just OLL parity in disguise  so chances are the movecount on that monster isn't going down too much


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 12, 2016)

what about for 3x3 redux you do some intuitive M-slice pairing and the solve the centers in one step


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 12, 2016)

That's pretty much what I'm doing now. I'm going to be trying to generate PL4C algorithms, but in the meantime I want to see if there's another approach to this that I'm missing


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 12, 2016)

you could blockbuild the M slices maybe???


----------



## TDM (Jul 13, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hey what if we did something like COL/ZZ-line on left and did FB on d face and SB on U face, then did CMLL on side then you can use E and R moves to solve LSE???
> LOL nope this would suck pretty bad


Gilles suggests this as an option for F2B but then rotating for CMLL, which _could_ work. However you have to rotate and then regrip before CMLL, and you also may not be able to recognise CMLL immediately since you can't see what's on the D face until after rotating.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jul 13, 2016)

you guys are taking this sooo seriously. I was joking people.


----------



## Kubzy (Jul 13, 2016)

*This question goes out mostly to people who know old pocchman or Yau.*
I was recently thinking of 3x3 methods and I though of Yau. I'm not knowledgeable at 4x4 but I know kind of how it works. This method would use like 3 steps and someone good at yau/4x4 could probably make this into a speed method.
The steps:
1: Do the centers(troll step 'cause there are no centers to be made on 3x3)
2: Do the edges, simple beginner method algs would probs work
U R U' R' U' F' U F
U' L' U L U F U' F'
3: Do the corners :/ Here is my problem, I don't solve 4x4 so I don't know how you put the corners in. I know in old pocchman you use like the Y and J perm, so I was thinking of doing something like that but with actually looking. If anyone knows if this would be possible then please tell me the algorithms.

SECOND METHOD FOR 2X2 - Pattern Method

This is a very simple method based on some LBL algs from 2x2 (That's why I'm making a 2x2 method). There are 4 simple steps to this method and I've tested it out.
1: Make the first layer, but instead of making all the colors match make it like a checkerboard, orange and red next to each other and blue and green next to each other while the white is done at the bottom.
2: Do your OLL on the opposite layer.
3: Do your PLL. In my method there are 2 cases (with 3 algs in total)
The horizontal case,
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'.
If you get the horizontal case, you'll have to perform the diagonal algorithm on the bottom to solve the cube.
The diagonal case,
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
THAT ALGORITHM FOR DIAGONAL USE SHOULD ONLY USE IN THIS METHOD IF YOUR PLL CASE ON TOP WAS THE HORIZONTAL CASE.
If you get the diagonal case on your pll, match up the pieces together. If your pieces match, you can simply do R2 B2 R2 to solve your cube.



I sincerely hope someone can find out the solution to Yau on 3x3, and also that someone can give me feedback on the 'pattern' method on 2x2. Remember, this is my first post on this website so please don't go too harsh on me if I do something wrong or if you disagree.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Jul 13, 2016)

For the 3x3 method, what does that have anything to do with Yau and why do you think that method is good? For the 2x2 method, or you could just use ortega


----------



## Kubzy (Jul 13, 2016)

M


Rcuber123 said:


> For the 3x3 method, what does that have anything to do with Yau and why do you think that method is good? For the 2x2 method, or you could just use ortega


y 3x3 method is pertty similar to Yau, it's just that the execution is different because there's one less layer on each axis. I never said this method is good, I just wanted some feedback. For the 2x2, Veressano is a good method, and I know that, but maybe some person could master this method and get a WR/UWR, you never know. This time give me some constructive
criticism. Thank's for your reply?


----------



## TDM (Jul 13, 2016)

the first one is just EF, and the second is beginner's anti-CLL (anti-LBL?)


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 13, 2016)

For your edges first yau3x3-method, corners can be solved by using a bunch of triggers like triple sexy or triple sledge


----------



## Sion (Jul 13, 2016)

Here's a substep idea that I've been toying with. Its called galaxy cross, and it's a new first layer formation to aide in solving.

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=RUR-U-_L_U_L-U-_MUM2U-M2_U_M-_U


It consit's of two Center Edge and Corner Edge pairs. Because of that, a slice will be open for edge pairing and even for some other sort of cool ideas. Thats why I also call it 'Blockbuilder's Cross'

Here are a few ideas of how Galaxy Cross can be used as a first step in solving a cube:
GFOP: Same thing as Cfop, but with Galaxy cross instead of standard cross. This can be faster, since slice moves are open.

Galaxy Roux: Use Galaxy cross to start off F2B. Since there is less to permute, it's quicker to solve.

Crooked Roux: Solve the 1x2x3 blocks vertically, leaving two empty 2x2x3 spots.

Quasar: Create 1x2x3 blocks in the two open slots, and solve the last four cubies on the last layer in a final step.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 13, 2016)

Kubzy said:


> *This question goes out mostly to people who know old pocchman or Yau.*
> I was recently thinking of 3x3 methods and I though of Yau. I'm not knowledgeable at 4x4 but I know kind of how it works. This method would use like 3 steps and someone good at yau/4x4 could probably make this into a speed method.
> The steps:
> 1: Do the centers(troll step 'cause there are no centers to be made on 3x3)
> ...


For the 3x3 method, it would simply be very inefficient without a large number of algs as you are essentially doing edges first which has been toyed around with before and is generally considered to not be great for speedsolving compared to popular current methods.

The only way you could do the corners really efficiently(ish) is by essentially doing 3-style which mean learning quite a few algs and acquiring an understanding if commutators which may not be worth the time as the method is less efficient even with all of these. Basically, it comes down to having to destroy and restore in order to solve more pieces. This is why SSC and Roux are more efficient than CFOP; you don't have to destroy and restore what you have built so much sp those extra moves are negated.

With regards to the 2x2 method, this is a part of a method called varasano/ortega (the name depends on who you ask) though it is more restrictive as you don't get the freedom to build a face which is one of the advantages of those methods.

Anti-CLL and EG could also be considered extentions af these concepts and those are what seethe best solvers (or at least the fastest solver) in the world use.


Sion said:


> ...
> .


This is definately an option that is sometimes used in Roux, however, bar a lucky case, this is slower than the FB->SB as you have to track more pieces and it is less efficient.

Also, for CFOP, it would be more efficient almost definately but more efficient does not necessarily mean faster as you need to factor in lookahead


----------



## Sion (Jul 13, 2016)

Although it may have slightly harder lookahead, wouldn't it be more beneficial in the long run once you get used to Galaxy Cross?


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 13, 2016)

It's just double-square to start, which can be good but doesn't ensure efficiency. You can get some pretty ugly cases that take up to 8-9 moves because pairs get stuck in BDR/BDL


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 13, 2016)

Sion said:


> Although it may have slightly harder lookahead, wouldn't it be more beneficial in the long run once you get used to Galaxy Cross?


Possibly though I am not entirely convinced it would be better overall. Pure FreeFOP is probably more advantageous as you aren't restricted in your blocks and doing FB->SB->M-slice is better lookahead and more efficient though it would be worth doing if you have a lucky case.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jul 13, 2016)

I use my own method, Lazy CFOP, but its only recommended for beginner cubers only. Its basically all methods combined while solving it in a CFOP state. So for example for us beginner cubers, if the cross it too hard to make, we either use roux, columns first, freeFOP, Salvia, Petrus, and etc. It all depends on the scramble. We dont stick with one method in every scramble tho, were basically turning a hard scramble into an easy scramble. So like after i do Roux which is making the 2 1x2x3 blocks, i could do CFCE after that instead of CMLL&LSE. Lazy CFOP only takes the easy parts of all methods and use it as Lazy CFOP tricks. There are a lot of examples and explanantion into this method. Another example is when there is a easy cross, we do the first method CFOP, then instead of F2L, we can rather do keyhole method or edges first, so if i cant do F2L since i cant find a pair quick enough (Lazy CFOP doesnt required lookahead), i can solve the equator slice first, then solve all corners easily, if the corners are in the correct place but not oriented correctly, we can do MGLS, 8355, or just solved the F2L pair by VLS, WV, or normal. Then at last layer we could do OLL, PLL, ELL, COLL, or whatever thats comfortable for the cubers to use. There is also SLL which means Special Last Layer, which is basically easy ZBLL, or easy 1LLL. Thats how lazy CFOP, we use all methods to help us get faster on every each step. We only use easy algorithms, but u can use hard algs if youre comfortable with it.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jul 14, 2016)

Kubzy said:


> *This question goes out mostly to people who know old pocchman or Yau.*
> I was recently thinking of 3x3 methods and I though of Yau. I'm not knowledgeable at 4x4 but I know kind of how it works. This method would use like 3 steps and someone good at yau/4x4 could probably make this into a speed method.


Firstly, welcome!

Secondly, some of the criticism you receive in this thread may seem harsh but you have to understand that almost every new cuber goes through a stage where they want to invent a new method, and every one stumbles on the same handful of ideas. Don't take it personally. A good place to start is to spend some more time understanding existing methods and what makes them good or bad.

Thirdly, keeping in mind my point above, you obviously have no clue how Yau works on a 4x4. Adapted to a 3x3, it would work like this.
1. Cross colour centre and opposite centre (automatically skipped)
2. Three cross edges.
3. Remaining 4 centres (automatically skipped)
4. Fourth cross edge
5. Edge pairing (automatically skipped)
6. CFOP finish with cross skipped.

So if we leave out the automatically skipped steps, it reduces to CFOP which is the most popular 3x3 method anyway. (In fact that's the whole idea of Yau)

The edge pairing step on 4x4 doesn't refer to actually solving the edges. There are two edges for each combination of colours on a 4x4 and the edge pairing step simply involves connecting the two, not necessarily placing them in their final position.

For your 2x2 method, what you propose is actually an improvement over the standard layer by layer method. You may want to look into the Ortega method, which goes one step further in that in your first layer, the side stickers can be any colour, not just opposite. It is one of the most popular 2x2 methods and is very easy to get fast with.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 14, 2016)

Sion said:


> Here's a substep idea that I've been toying with. Its called galaxy cross, and it's a new first layer formation to aide in solving.
> 
> https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=RUR-U-_L_U_L-U-_MUM2U-M2_U_M-_U
> 
> ...


I decided to make a walktrough solve with the cross solved already.
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=RUR-U...easy_OLL
U_F-_U-_L-_U_L_F_//_OLL_and_PLL_skip


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 16, 2016)

I came up with this 4×4×4 direct solving method a few months ago. I don't think it's faster than sandwich (which it's based on), but it's certainly fun to play with.

Step 1: L and R centres. (Let's say white is on L and yellow on R.)
Step 2: Create a white edge pair and extend it to a 2×2 block, then attach it to the L centre. Do this for two more edge pairs.
Step 3: F2L-on-left except for the missing edge block we didn't solve in step 2.
Step 4: CLL-on-right. (Or z' CLL z.)
Step 5: R-layer edges (as in sandwich).
Step 6: Last two L-layer edges.
Step 7: r-slice edges.
Step 8: L4C. (Niklas spam!)

Sample solve.

Other than CLL, this pretty much needs only four algs, though using alternative algs for centre control helps, of course. Step 6 can be done with the slice-Sune as in the sample solve and step 8 can be done with Niklas. Step 7 can be done with just these easy-to-remember (but long) algs:

UBr-DBr swap: (U' R2 U 2R)2 (U' R2 U) 2R2 (U' R2 U)
UFr-DBr swap: (U' R2 U 2R)3 (U' R2 U) 2R' (U' R2 U) 2R2 (U' R2 U)

L4C gets pretty fast since around half of the centres are already solved (or even more if we use centre control in steps 6/7), though this comes at the expense of step 5 being quite heavily restricted.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 17, 2016)

So, if you guys are at all familiar with me by now you will know that I often propose strange and abstract methods/concepts here. This one is no exception, and I think it's by far my best. I kinda wanna keep this post short because I'm learning Algs currently.
1. FB, 2x2x1 in the back.
2. SB, 2x2x1 in the back on the other side.
3. Solve FR and FL
4. Roux style EO and make sure M slice is offset by an M2 for next step
5. LSSLL: Left Side Semi LL, solve the rest of the LL face and the 2 B M slice edges (which are now in front for better recog), while also resetting the M slice for next step, all in 1 alg.
6. RSSLL: Right Side Semi Last Layer, solve the rest of the R slice and the 2 F M slice edges. Cube solved.
The main strong point in the method, I believe, is recog because the first 2 steps solve most of the back part of the cube pushing everything you need to see in front. Also, no rotations (except maybe in Algs) .
Suggestions/criticism? This method is still a WIP which is why it's not too great yet.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 23, 2016)

bgrgndz said:


> So I don't know if this is already made or not and I don't know if this works or not because I don't have a cube nearby. Here it is:
> 
> 1) you solve first layer by making edge-corner pairs and inserting.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's called LBL/Beginners method with a different, maybe less efficient way of doing edges.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 25, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So, if you guys are at all familiar with me by now you will know that I often propose strange and abstract methods/concepts here. This one is no exception, and I think it's by far my best. I kinda wanna keep this post short because I'm learning Algs currently.
> 1. FB, 2x2x1 in the back.
> 2. SB, 2x2x1 in the back on the other side.
> 3. Solve FR and FL
> ...


Don't you have to solve the corners at some point?


----------



## Arthur Williams (Jul 25, 2016)

*DISCLAIMER:* I do not know if this methord has been came up with before I did, but if It was I am sorry person who created it before me.

First of all you need to make f2l minus 1, which is intuitive and there is a million tutorials for. Using this empty slot you can orient and permute the edges. You have to play around with this, if you need help with this ask me to explain some more. You should have a cross solved and permuted on the top layer.

Hold the puzzle so that you have 3 incorect corners facing you. Have 1 corner in the top and 2 on bottom. Choose the corner that would go straight down if held in the top left hand corner If it is on the left do this alg (L' U' L) D' (L' U L) D. If it is on the right do the mirror. (R U R') D (R' U' R) D'. The orientation doesn't matter. You need to do this twice. Next we need to do the Final lbl alg. Hold an incorect corner in the top right hand position. Repeat this trigger until it is oriented correctly, ignore the rest of the cube apart from the top layer. (R' D' R D). Adjust the U face so another corner is in that position, and adjust until the corner is oriented. When the entire U layer is oriented keep doing the trigger until the rest of the cube goes back to the original position the by doing some sort of move without moving the other missoriented corner take the bottom missoriented corner onto the top layer. Now do the repeated step again on the last two corners.


Note: There will be an update for an advanced methord once I have created the algs.


----------



## Arthur Williams (Jul 25, 2016)

Apparently my methord has already been made, but I am making an advanced methord with more algs


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 25, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Don't you have to solve the corners at some point?


You do on the last 2 steps.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jul 26, 2016)

Arthur Williams said:


> Apparently my methord has already been made


lpell+l4c


----------



## MadQuiter (Aug 1, 2016)

Ok. So I just created a method based off 8335 method. Plus a new Possible concept.

Let me explain. First, L2335

*Why the name?*
L Because Of a few reasons. For 1 it helped me remember to keep it the right side to use the buffer to solve. Plus, it's the first initial to my name.
2 you guessed it, 2x2 cube. Also the two possible "parity" cases that can only happen on 2x2. Also the Two Regular Cases that happen. Ironically, make 2x2.
And 335 to honor its origins of [[8335]]

NOTE: THERE IS A FEW CASES I HAVE FIGURED OUT Yet.
By the way the steps are quick overview. I will make complete tutorial and post soon.
Brief 
Steps Include:
1. Make White bottom except for one piece
2. Turn cube over With white on top. 
Empty piece on right.
3. Do the R U R' U' buffer until bottom layer is solved. Then turn the bottom layer until you either see L or backwards L And continue buffer. If you have one side solved in front of you. You have parity. Algorithm: U' z' U2 R' U' R2 U' R' U' R U' R' U'
Also if you get a weird case which you will get, do the Buffer until you get previous case.
4. IF YOU DONT HAVE "Parity" You will have two pieces that need to switch Yellow Closest to white and White closest to yellow. Look for one do a z or z' look for one solid side. If solid side is on right do the sexy R U R' U' four times than D (towards white). Than Sexy Twice. If the White is on left side, do the anti-sexy L' U' L U than do a D' (towards white) Anti-sexy twice.

*Concept Part. *
This will be a COMPLETELY new method come out very very soon.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Aug 1, 2016)

Is there any reason this is supposed to be good?


----------



## MadQuiter (Aug 1, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> Is there any reason this is supposed to be good?


It was just something fun. My new concept is going to be a SpeedSolving method though.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Aug 1, 2016)

MadQuiter said:


> It was just something fun. My new concept is going to be a SpeedSolving method though.


Every new speedsolving method needs work to do to become a viable method but even the newest methods needs to have an idea of why it will be good, implementation can come later.


----------



## MadQuiter (Aug 1, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> Every new speedsolving method needs work to do to become a viable method but even the newest methods needs to have an idea of why it will be good, implementation can come later.


Yeah I guess so. xD


----------



## Smiles (Aug 1, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> You do on the last 2 steps.


sounds like roux but you tried not to make it exactly roux so it's something else now with more steps


----------



## tx789 (Aug 2, 2016)

Solving a three quaters of a face and rotating is awfully inefficent. 2x2 is such a simple puzzle that adding unnessary rotations is much more costly than on 3x3.



Spoiler



LBL isn't hard to learn for 2x2 it takes 7 algs that you all ready know if you know 2 look OLL, add 2 more algs and you know Ortega. There isn't a lot of variety for what you can do on 2x2 in terms of methods. It a simple puzzle.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 2, 2016)

Smiles said:


> sounds like roux but you tried not to make it exactly roux so it's something else now with more steps


It's similar to Roux, and there are a few extra steps, but they are very short and can be optimized pretty easily.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 4, 2016)

So today I wrote up a joke method called ZZ-ghost which essentially boils down to freeblockbuilding Roux.

It got me thinking about post-F2B continuations though and I had an idea: can we use LSE techniques to solve up to phasing and finish the solve with ZZLL?

~9 STM Phasing + ~12 STM ZZLL = 21 STM continuation

vs ~9 STM CMLL + ~15 STM LSE = 24 STM continuation

You don't need to look at corner permutation to solve phasing either, which makes lookahead easier. The larger portion of the solve is algorithmic/can be drilled, and drilled <R,U,F> has a higher tps potential than drilled <M,U>. The portion that is <M,U> has very few half turns, which also have higher tps potential. Obviously, the alg count is much higher, but that doesn't seem to be too big a price to pay.

So lower average movecount, easier lookahead, and higher potential tps? What do you guys think?

Some example solves:

Example

The same scramble using standard Roux continuation

Note that F2B + Phasing (and this phasing took quite a lot of moves, usually I get around 9-11 STM) in the first solve took as many moves as F2B + CMLL in the second solve, and the rest of the solves are comparing drilled tps spam to intuitive <M,U> of similar movecounts.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 4, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> So today I wrote up a joke method called ZZ-ghost which essentially boils down to freeblockbuilding Roux.
> 
> It got me thinking about post-F2B continuations though and I had an idea: can we use LSE techniques to solve up to phasing and finish the solve with ZZLL?
> 
> ...


Interesting idea, may try this out.
So, if I understand correctly the steps are F2B -> Finish F2L + phase -> LL?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 4, 2016)

I've had this idea for a while, but I'm not sure that it would be exactly viable. Basically solve CP In The beginning instead of EO.
1. Inspection: recognize case. Simp,e.
2. 1L CP
3. Using M (and maybe E) moves to move edges and two faces at a time (before re-solving cp) to block build to a specific point, probably F2L.
4. LL, probably 2GLL
Just thought it was interesting, especially the CP part.


----------



## Sion (Aug 4, 2016)

Heres a wierd idea: ZZ-R.

It's pretty much roux +ZZ:

don't create the line formation, but orient edges

create the two blocks minus one pair

winter variation since there are no edges where the eoline would be.

Corner permutation

lse.

the idea is more of brute force and recognition, although i'm starting to question if zz should even be a method or a name for a collective type of orientation methods.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 4, 2016)

Sion said:


> Heres a wierd idea: ZZ-R.
> 
> It's pretty much roux +ZZ:
> 
> ...



People have looked into EO First Roux (which is what this is) and I *think* the general consensus is that a FB is a better use of inspection time and EO is better left for LSE when recog is faster and everything is <M,U>.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Interesting idea, may try this out.
> So, if I understand correctly the steps are F2B -> Finish F2L + phase -> LL?



Yes, but do not finish F2L + phase by solving DF and DB and then orienting and then permuting. Solve it as you would in LSE. You can always form at least one pair of phased edges while doing EO, and the other can be formed 4 moves later, completing the step in like max 13 STM



wir3sandfir3s said:


> I've had this idea for a while, but I'm not sure that it would be exactly viable. Basically solve CP In The beginning instead of EO.
> 1. Inspection: recognize case. Simp,e.
> 2. 1L CP
> 3. Using M (and maybe E) moves to move edges and two faces at a time (before re-solving cp) to block build to a specific point, probably F2L.
> ...



This is a fun idea to think about, hopefully it goes somewhere interesting.

Importantly note that if you scramble the cube entirely <R,U>, then scramble it entirely <L,U>, then solve the left ZZF2L Block using only <L,U>, the cube is still in a 2-gen state, as the 2-gen scrambles "stack" on top of each other in a way (hope this explanation is clear)


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I've had this idea for a while, but I'm not sure that it would be exactly viable. Basically solve CP In The beginning instead of EO.
> 1. Inspection: recognize case. Simp,e.
> 2. 1L CP
> 3. Using M (and maybe E) moves to move edges and two faces at a time (before re-solving cp) to block build to a specific point, probably F2L.
> ...


Recognise one of 40 thousand cases. Simple 

Have you looked at Briggs2? It's the only kinda viable CP first method I've seen and even it isn't so great.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 4, 2016)

Well, yes, it is pretty simple. Build a CP face (ignore orientation), then do a Niklas or any diagonal permutation to solve.

People do this all the time, and even manage to solve orientation with it!

It's called 2x2


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 4, 2016)

I was thinking that if there was to be a 'Ghost' type of ZZ Variant, it would end with L4E, with UL/UR solved, because the average movecount (STM) is pretty low, lower than EPLL.


----------



## sub20oneday (Aug 4, 2016)

not idea but a question:

why no eoll/cpll wouldnt that be fast?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 4, 2016)

sub20oneday said:


> not idea but a question:
> 
> why no eoll/cpll wouldnt that be fast?


The problem with that is that really nobody wants to force an E-Perm, which is 16 moves. So then you may think what if we solve 1 Corner with that, then you are left with A-Perms, but that adds a bunch of algorithms. Lastly, recognition is a little harder than COLL in most people's opinions due to EO being solved, you cannot just look at the top face.

This is interpreting EOLL as Edges of Last Layer, but I would normally think it is Edge Orientation Last Layer, but seeing CPLL making it Edges of Last Layer.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 4, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> Recognise one of 40 thousand cases. Simple
> 
> Have you looked at Briggs2? It's the only kinda viable CP first method I've seen and even it isn't so great.


CP taking 40k Algs?? Uh, then maybe we can find a way to do it intuitively...
Yes, I am a fan of Briggs2. The difference with mine is that it is solved first step so you don't have to slow down, and if you are only turning LU or RU or maybe even FU at a time TPS will probably be pretty high...


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> CP taking 40k Algs?? Uh, then maybe we can find a way to do it intuitively...
> Yes, I am a fan of Briggs2. The difference with mine is that it is solved first step so you don't have to slow down, and if you are only turning LU or RU or maybe even FU at a time TPS will probably be pretty high...


If we are to try this, instead of E Moves for the L-Side Edges, you can just use u2 (Wide).


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 4, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> If we are to try this, instead of E Moves for the L-Side Edges, you can just use u2 (Wide).


You can use u move in place of E moves if you want, you will just have to AUF if you are going to switch sides you are block building.
Btw, I imagine this will take even more time than F2L to get used to, let alone get good at...


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> You can use u move in place of E moves if you want, you will just have to AUF if you are going to switch sides you are block building.
> Btw, I imagine this will take even more time than F2L to get used to, let alone get good at...


Yeah, I think that normal ZZ would be better.
A Roux block on LD will likely be what the First Step is, along with Corner Permutation,
due to the restrictions and what pieces won't be shifted.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 4, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Yeah, I think that normal ZZ would be better.
> A Roux block on LD will likely be what the First Step is, along with Corner Permutation,
> due to the restrictions and what pieces won't be shifted.


Who said this was based on ZZ? It's just one of those weird methods I propose occasionally.
anyway, I thnk that the simple CP first step can be applied to pretty much every method, besides Roux. Also, another cool thing is that you can ignore centers because you will be moving the middle layers anyway.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Who said this was based on ZZ? It's just one of those weird methods I propose occasionally.
> anyway, I thnk that the simple CP first step can be applied to pretty much every method, besides Roux. Also, another cool thing is that you can ignore centers because you will be moving the middle layers anyway.


I know you aren't, but it does also have EO in the beginning.

Part of the thing is that CFOPers say that EO is hard to detect in the beginning, but of course after practice it becomes a lot easier. Having to detect another somewhat hard step will make it difficult to inspect in less than 15 seconds.


----------



## crafto22 (Aug 5, 2016)

Hey folks, I haven't posted in this thread in a while, but I have a new idea so yeah here it is. So basically I do a lot of 2-gen solving just for fun and I figured out how to do some 2-gen winter variation. I don't know 2GLL so I used this winter variation thing to skip 2GOCLL and go straight to EPLL. anyway so this got me thinking, what if we did some sorta thing where we solved F2L-1 with EO done and then did some alg to pair up the last CE pair and solve CP. Then we could just do 2GWV and go straight to EPLL. I don't know if this could possibly be a good idea but just in case it does result in a lower total move count it may be worth trying.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 5, 2016)

Is this possible?

2x2x3 (~13 STM)

Attach 1 CE pair (4 options) forming F2L-1, without one cross edge (~3 STM)

2gen reduction + DF in 1 step (possible...? ~10 STM?)

2gen LSLL (6 STM LS + 12 STM 2GLL)

=> ~46 STM


----------



## Dane man (Aug 5, 2016)

Not sure if this has been suggested (probably has), but here is a silly idea I just had in passing.

Do cross, then the first two slots of F2L. Insert the third slot and orient the edges simultaneously (maybe intuitive in some way?). Insert the last slot and orient corners. PLL

If the third slot and fourth slots don't take too many extra moves, then the extra moves might be lower than the average OLL. If so, this could have potential.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 5, 2016)

Dane man said:


> Not sure if this has been suggested (probably has), but here is a silly idea I just had in passing.
> 
> Do cross, then the first two slots of F2L. Insert the third slot and orient the edges simultaneously (maybe intuitive in some way?). Insert the last slot and orient corners. PLL
> 
> If the third slot and fourth slots don't take too many extra moves, then the extra moves might be lower than the average OLL. If so, this could have potential.


L2S with CFOP.


----------



## James Hake (Aug 6, 2016)

Dane man said:


> Not sure if this has been suggested (probably has), but here is a silly idea I just had in passing.
> 
> Do cross, then the first two slots of F2L. Insert the third slot and orient the edges simultaneously (maybe intuitive in some way?). Insert the last slot and orient corners. PLL
> 
> If the third slot and fourth slots don't take too many extra moves, then the extra moves might be lower than the average OLL. If so, this could have potential.


I have also had some ideas similar to this and might use a similar concept in petrus. Use something similar to VHLS to orient all the edges and while inserting the last pair. Then you can use winter variation for the last slot and get an OLL skip. Or you can just insert normally and use COLL, ZBLL, or just have one of 7 easy OLLs


----------



## Sion (Aug 7, 2016)

I know it isn't talked about, but what about a corners first method for clock? It's my second favorite event being 3x3, and I was dabbling with this idea:

It's still an idea, but maybe it will work:

Solve corners while Simultaneously solving the center clocks.

Orient Edges (just get all the edges and center clock to face the same direction with one alg)

Permute Edges (get all the oriented edges to Face Noon with one alg)

This would take a rather high amount of algorithms, but I haven't seen any real speed clock methods out there.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2016)

*2-gen redux*

FB (9/9) -> <Rr, U>
2x2 in BDR (9/18)
EO+CP with algorithm (9/27) -> <R,U> + (r U2 r')
FD edge + LS (9/36) -> <R,U>
2GLL (14/50)
 = 50 STM

The block can also be made by expanding a 2x2x2 into a 2x2x3 + pair, or by placing 3 heise-like squares.

Almost all algorithms are <Rr, U, F> and consist of combinations of very familiar triggers (R U R' U', R' F R F', F' U F). Average movecount is 7.4 STM with stdev 1.67. Many algorithms are absurdly short. Examples:
R' F R F'
F R' F' R
F' U F
r' F R F' M'
M' U M

They are available (though not yet polished) here. I'll be posting something on recognition later on (the only worry I have with this method, though I think it will not be a problem with enough practice).

Because of the magic of rotational symmetry, step 3 has 55 algorithms instead of 2^6/2 EO * 6 CP = 192. This brings total algorithm count to 55 reduction + 84 2GLL = 139; even less if you decide to just use Sune/ASune -> UPerm (which would still meet the 2GLL 14 STM movecount estimate).

3 example solves with alg.cubing.net links here (49 STM) and here (49 STM) and here (41 STM).


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 8, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> *2-gen redux*
> 
> FB (9/9) -> <Rr, U>
> 2x2 in BDR (9/18)
> ...


Cool, very cool... Except CP 
Maybe combine this with my idea and solve CP in beginning? Just an idea.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 8, 2016)

Something Shiv3r and I thought of...

After a 2x2x3 Block + EO are solved, you then solve the rest of F2L, except the the FR Edge.
Then you use an algorithm to solve Corner Permutation and that F2L Edge simultaneously.

The algorithms are pretty good, averaging 8.167 Moves with only 6 algorithms, a couple are just inverses of each other and are the standard EO preserving algorithms.

This is something that can be easily learned, and used for when the F2L Case comes up as you just need to know standard CxLL Recognition, as the FDR Corner is already solved.

Algorithms


----------



## Sion (Aug 8, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Something Shiv3r and I thought of...
> 
> After a 2x2x3 Block + EO are solved, you then solve the rest of F2L, except the the FR Edge.
> Then you use an algorithm to solve Corner Permutation and that F2L Edge simultaneously.
> ...



Can you do something with this so it is compatible with PCMS? It can help recognition of cases eons faster than a normal CxLL case.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 8, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Something Shiv3r and I thought of...
> 
> After a 2x2x3 Block + EO are solved, you then solve the rest of F2L, except the the FR Edge.
> Then you use an algorithm to solve Corner Permutation and that F2L Edge simultaneously.
> ...


Are you seriously too lazy to take the extra 3-6 moves to pair it?


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 8, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Are you seriously too lazy to take the extra 3-6 moves to pair it?


It is just for when you are solving and the F2L case just comes up.

Also, the Average movecount is around 8 when the standard algorithm is 9 Moves long.


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 8, 2016)

Sion said:


> Can you do something with this so it is compatible with PCMS? It can help recognition of cases eons faster than a normal CxLL case.


I'm not so sure at the moment.
I'll probably have to look into that to see if there's something that can work well for PCMS.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Cool, very cool... Except CP
> Maybe combine this with my idea and solve CP in beginning? Just an idea.



If you can find a way to 2-gen blockbuild efficiently in a way that doesn't affect CP, that would be a damn good method--recog would be ridiculously easy and without recog issues I think 2GR is certainly competitive.

That being said I'm looking into recog now and I'm convinced it's not as big an issue as it looks--there's no need to setup to L5C recog like in ZZPorky and others and it works the same way that any CLL recog does (detect orientation subset, then look for patterns).


----------



## Sion (Aug 8, 2016)

Is there any direct last layer solutions for 4x4? 

I used an intuitive system to solve the puzzle, but I'm stuck with a last layer. No, it isn't parity, but an actual last layer without any reduction steps.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Something Shiv3r and I thought of...
> 
> After a 2x2x3 Block + EO are solved, you then solve the rest of F2L, except the the FR Edge.
> Then you use an algorithm to solve Corner Permutation and that F2L Edge simultaneously.
> ...



Neat idea. How many moves does it save compared to standard Petrus/ZZ?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2016)

Sion said:


> Is there any direct last layer solutions for 4x4?
> 
> I used an intuitive system to solve the puzzle, but I'm stuck with a last layer. No, it isn't parity, but an actual last layer without any reduction steps.



Roux4 in my sig

Alternatively, K4 last layer. snk.digibase.ca/k4/7.htm


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 8, 2016)

Sion said:


> Is there any direct last layer solutions for 4x4?
> 
> I used an intuitive system to solve the puzzle, but I'm stuck with a last layer. No, it isn't parity, but an actual last layer without any reduction steps.


I think there was a method that solves the Corners with CxLL, and then the rest with just Commutators for the rest of the Last Layer like in BLD.

Edit: K4 Method


----------



## JTWong71 (Aug 8, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Neat idea. How many moves does it save compared to standard Petrus/ZZ?


Hm...
So this method is pretty much a Last Slot Subset, so in relative movecount...

I believe Last Slot is around 6.25 Moves on average (Adding 0.25 for AUF), add 8 Moves for OCLL, and 12 for PLL (0.25 for AUF), making Petrus/ZZ Last Slot + Last Layer around 26.5 Moves with standard OCLL/PLL.

With this variant, Inserting One F2L Corner averages 4.5 Moves (0.25 AUF), then the Edge and CP at 8 Moves, and finishing with 2GLL at around 13.25 (0.25 AUF), making the Subset average Movecount around 25.75 Moves.

Although, this I think should be mainly used when the Corner is in the slot already and not the Edge, so 4.5 Moves are saved.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 8, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> CP taking 40k Algs?? Uh, then maybe we can find a way to do it intuitively...
> Yes, I am a fan of Briggs2. The difference with mine is that it is solved first step so you don't have to slow down, and if you are only turning LU or RU or maybe even FU at a time TPS will probably be pretty high...


With either Briggs or B2 you do solve CP in the first block with Roux FB or 2x2x3

Oh, and just my two cents on mehod creation (for speed and lookahead)
1) build blocks which don't have to be broken and then restored during parts of the solve: if you do this you may be better off doing pseudoblocks (SSC is an example of this as you only break what you have already created in the very last step. Roux is also a good example)
2) intuition is your friend. If you can find a way to do something intuitively that is a comparable movecount I would suggest you go for that (another good example of this is Roux LSE)
3) if you use algs, make sure they do two things: solve a fairly large section of the cube and have very good recognition. Also try to develop some system for predicting such as ROLL
4) don't have too many little steps as lots and lots with impede lookahead especially if they are alg based.
5) equally, don't have too few (though this is harder to do). 4-5 major steps should be good.
6) if you include something fancy like EO or CP try to put it at the start or at least find a way to help lookahead.
7) there are maybe 6 key things of which every method should have 3 or 4 somewhere (though they met be done in a slightly different way): EO, EP, CP, CO, Blockbuilding and Algs. (unless you have a really, really revolutionary method).


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2016)

CP recognition @ L5C as promised from earlier: here.

Just like COLL or CMLL recog: AUF to identify orientation subset, identify 3 relevant stickers, disambiguate with pretty simple patterns.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 9, 2016)

Sion said:


> I know it isn't talked about, but what about a corners first method for clock? It's my second favorite event being 3x3, and I was dabbling with this idea:
> 
> It's still an idea, but maybe it will work:
> 
> ...


That seems really inefficient. Also, if you're talking about algs for clock, you probably don't have a good understanding of how clock works. The current method solves the clock with at most 14 cog turns, which is optimal (for fixed pin order). The turns on clock commute, which means that you can do them in any order relative to each other, and since there are 14 clock faces you need 14 different moves to solve it (so says linear algebra).

Since you can't move individual edge clocks in one move without affecting corners, you need to do more twists than necessary and so it's worse than the usual solving method.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 11, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> CP recognition @ L5C as promised from earlier: here.
> 
> Just like COLL or CMLL recog: AUF to identify orientation subset, identify 3 relevant stickers, disambiguate with pretty simple patterns.


Nice, have you made Algs yet? I may invest a bit of time into this.
Also, for the recog doc, what is the orientation of the cube?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 11, 2016)

Main doc here (links to algs and how to recog in there as well).

I post example solves every day on reddit, hopefully they will clear up your other questions


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 12, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> With either Briggs or B2 you do solve CP in the first block with Roux FB or 2x2x3
> 
> Oh, and just my two cents on mehod creation (for speed and lookahead)
> 1) build blocks which don't have to be broken and then restored during parts of the solve: if you do this you may be better off doing pseudoblocks (SSC is an example of this as you only break what you have already created in the very last step. Roux is also a good example)
> ...


briggs recognition is a little terrible: if anyone has a solution, then please share it.


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 12, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So, if you guys are at all familiar with me by now you will know that I often propose strange and abstract methods/concepts here. This one is no exception, and I think it's by far my best. I kinda wanna keep this post short because I'm learning Algs currently.
> 1. FB, 2x2x1 in the back.
> 2. SB, 2x2x1 in the back on the other side.
> 3. Solve FR and FL
> ...


I would like an alg sheet; I would do it, I just need an alg sheet to start.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> briggs recognition is a little terrible: if anyone has a solution, then please share it.


 I don't deny it isn't very nice. I was merely pointing out that fact because the person I was quoting seemed to think otherwise.

Just to go over in brief though if anyone wants to see if they can improve it; set one corner as DBL and locate the corner that should be in DFL.
Separate the remaining corners into permutation pairs with the pieces consisting of (DFR-DBR), (UBR-UFL), (UFR-UBL)- essentially opposite colour U layer and remaining d-layer.
identify the 3-cycle that will solve the DFL corner and shift the other pieces into one of 3 patterns (XI, :I:, %- look at jaap's CP page). You can learn the 3-cycles if you wish.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 12, 2016)

I've found usually 2-3 moves is sufficient to place the remaining corner and reduce CP, so if a decent recognition system can be found RouxCP becomes very promising

I would propose something like

FB+CP

SB

EO+DFDB

2GLL


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 12, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I've found usually 2-3 moves is sufficient to place the remaining corner and reduce CP, so if a decent recognition system can be found RouxCP becomes very promising
> 
> I would propose something like
> 
> ...


Again, we can apply my idea to this...
I think we should work on a way of intuitively solving CP in beginning like EO... this would validate so many methods...
also, for your redux method, EO+CP can be performed like this for noobs:
1. CP, solve like Noah's CP blocks method 2
2. EO, similar to Roux (I have algs/cycles, its very easy) maybe while placing FD?
works great with very few algs.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 12, 2016)

The beginner variant i was using when testing out the method was just to use Old Pochmann algorithms to perform the requisite swap and <R,r,U> to orient things and place FD

Yes of course we can your idea is CP into free blockbuilding
What is important is how the blocks are built and how CP is reduced


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 12, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> The beginner variant i was using when testing out the method was just to use Old Pochmann algorithms to perform the requisite swap and <R,r,U> to orient things and place FD
> 
> Yes of course we can your idea is CP into free blockbuilding
> What is important is how the blocks are built and how CP is reduced


after CP, blockbuilding is actually pretty nice and very high tps...
I think the best place to start with CP is finding patterns after 2 adjacent corners are permuted.


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 16, 2016)

so, we need some ZZ-D missing link here...
I suggest we all focus our efforts on figuring out the missing link...


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 16, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> so, we need some ZZ-D missing link here...
> I suggest we all focus our efforts on figuring out the missing link...


porky v2


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 16, 2016)

I meaeant pure ZZ-D, but Ill check it out.


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 16, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I meaeant pure ZZ-D, but Ill check it out.


Is there a difference?

zz-d: Solve cp during left block
porky v2: Solve cp during left block

Looks the same to me.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 16, 2016)

I guess he might want to develop a way to recog which swap is needed without having to push right block corners to a specific location?

Either way, I'm not convinced ZZ-d is the way to go. RUD algs can be very fast (basically just 2gen with pretty ergonomic D push/pulls inbetween) and forcing left block -> right block kills efficiency and lucky cases pretty hard.


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 17, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I guess he might want to develop a way to recog which swap is needed without having to push right block corners to a specific location?
> 
> Either way, I'm not convinced ZZ-d is the way to go. RUD algs can be very fast (basically just 2gen with pretty ergonomic D push/pulls inbetween) and forcing left block -> right block kills efficiency and lucky cases pretty hard.


I heard somewhere that porky v2 was like usually only one or two moves from optimal cp so I think it would be the best option. Else you would be making it hard on you.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 17, 2016)

Yeah, it would be 2 max with the setup moves.

Have people looked into a sort of free EO-blockbuilding variant of ZZ?


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 17, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, it would be 2 max with the setup moves.
> 
> Have people looked into a sort of free EO-blockbuilding variant of ZZ?


It's kind of hard to block build (not like zz's f2l) and preserve eo at the same time.

It's like the equivalent of a xcross which you would see in cfop though when people do use it.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 17, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Is there a difference?
> 
> zz-d: Solve cp during left block
> porky v2: Solve cp during left block
> ...


Not quite. ZZ-d was a proposal to solve CP during the first block. This was thought to be impractical to recognise in a speedsolve. The search for the so called "missing link" was a way of recognising CP that is practical for use in speedsolves. You said we should search for this missing link.

Porky v2 is a system for recognising and solving CP for ZZ-d that is practical for use in a speedsolve. Therefore Porky v2 fills the gap and there is no more missing link.


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 17, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> Not quite. ZZ-d was a proposal to solve CP during the first block. This was thought to be impractical to recognise in a speedsolve. The search for the so called "missing link" was a way of recognising CP that is practical for use in speedsolves. You said we should search for this missing link.
> 
> Porky v2 is a system for recognising and solving CP for ZZ-d that is practical for use in a speedsolve. Therefore Porky v2 fills the gap and there is no more missing link.


Check the username.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 17, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Check the username.


Oops. Haha... Thought I was replying to @Shiv3r


----------



## SaCuber22 (Aug 19, 2016)

I have created a new 2x2 method and my friend has created a new 3x3 method. How do I confirm that it is indeed a new method and how do I patent it or something?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 19, 2016)

what are the methods?
check the speedsolving wiki to see if they're new
I don't think you can patent them lol


----------



## SaCuber22 (Aug 19, 2016)

So then won't anyone else steal the method and pass it of as their own?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 19, 2016)

lol, what are the steps? No one's going to pass it off as their own if it hasn't been invented before.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 19, 2016)

Try the new method/substep thread and also the speedsolving wiki. I'd say 99% of the time it's either a slight alteration of a previously established method or it's a previously established method, I thought I "invented" the belt method and PCMS (like a lot of people) until I realized it's already been created. 

Anyway, what's the general outline of the method? I can tell you if it's been created before.


----------



## SaCuber22 (Aug 19, 2016)

Solve the first layer on a 2x2 and the fit the corners in using algs from 3x3 beginners method.


----------



## Me (Aug 19, 2016)

No need for a patent, cubing methods aren't high proprietary technologies like volume rendering algorithms or swinging on a swing.


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 19, 2016)

SaCuber22 said:


> I have created a new 2x2 method and my friend has created a new 3x3 method. How do I confirm that it is indeed a new method and how do I patent it or something?





SaCuber22 said:


> Solve the first layer on a 2x2 and the fit the corners in using algs from 3x3 beginners method.



You mean this?
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/LBL
Whats your friend 3x3 method like? Have you checked the wiki to make sure it really is new?


----------



## Rcuber123 (Aug 19, 2016)

Or u could just use LBL


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 19, 2016)

Yeah, this is basically LBL.



Me said:


> No need for a patent, cubing methods aren't high proprietary technologies like volume rendering algorithms or swinging on a swing.



Hoooly damn it's thrawst
Your channel got me into cubing, nice to see you're still active somewhat


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 19, 2016)

SaCuber22 said:


> So then won't anyone else steal the method and pass it of as their own?



If you made an actual method that hasn't been used before, you can name it after yourself and people will credit you for it. Misnamed methods happened more in the past (e.g. Ortega/Varasano, Fridrich/CFOP), but most new noteworthy methods are accurately named (e.g. ZZ-CT, SSC, etc.). As far as I'm aware though, you can't patent a cubing method.

That being said, what is the 3x3 method your friend came up with?


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 19, 2016)

SaCuber22 said:


> I have created a new 2x2 method and my friend has created a new 3x3 method. How do I confirm that it is indeed a new method and how do I patent it or something?


1. It most probably isnt new
2. Nobody really patents methods  we just usually share our inventions with the community
3. If you want some feedback on the method, feel free to post your method here


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 19, 2016)

tseitsei said:


> 2. Nobody really patents methods  we just usually share our inventions with the community


Well, unless your name if Chris Mowla, Tony Snyder or Unsovled and they seem really popular.

All joking aside though OP, if it really is new, you will get recognition and it won't get "stolen". And if it is good people may start to use it though they will not claim to be the creators. However, if you don't publish, there is a real possibilty that someone else may propose it and you will not get the credit.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 19, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Well, unless your name if Chris Mowla, Tony Snyder or Unsovled and they seem really popular.


Yeah those guys are quite amusing really 

Them: "I have created a really groundbraking method for solving rubiks cube!"
Community: "thats awesome. Show us how it works please gj!"
Them: "nah I dont wanna. Unless I get money or someyhing. You'll just have to believe me"
Community:"....yeah well....."
End of story


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2016)

I'm currently creating a substep for PCMS, where if you permute two edges incorrectly to save time, you can use an algorithm to still solve the cube. I might work on a CFOP variation so if you could create a cross yet some of your edges are incorrect, you can fix them later. 

In this algorithm set, each case is named after the pattern it represents, going L F U B with the cube orientation with yellow on top and green in front.

O- all colors on the face are matching
A- the D edge color isn't matching the rest of the colors on the face.
α- the U edge color isn't matching the rest of the colors on the face.
H- Both the U and D edge colors don't match the rest of the colors on the face.

I call them SLE (Sion Last Edges).

Here is one example algorithm: OAHα: R2 U (R2 F2)3 U' R2 

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=z2_R2_U_(R2_F2)3_U-_R2&alg=R2_U_(R2_F2)3_U-_R2


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2016)

And here is another cool tip:

some cases are actually EPLLs on both sides if structured in a certain way. I will work on the cases that can't be solved with dual EPLL first.


----------



## Sion (Aug 20, 2016)

Here are a few extra algs for demonstration of concept:

OOOO- The cube is solved in the SLE-OOOO state.

αααα/AAAA: this is either an H or Z perm.

Oααα/OAAA: this is a U perm.

OAHα: R2 U (R2 F2)3 U’ R2

HHαα: U (R2 F2) R2 U R2 U (F2 R2) B2 D B2

OHHO: R2 U (R2 F2 R2) U2 (F2 R2 F2) U R2

HHHO: U2 R2 B2 D' F2, B2 U (F2 R2) U2

HAαO: L2 U2 (F2 R2) B2 D' L2 B2 R2 U L2

HHαH: R2 U2 (R2 F2) U B2 (R2 F2) D B2 D2 L2

HHHH: R2 L2 U2 R2 B2 U' F2 B2 D F2 L2 D2

AOHα: F2 U F2 R2 B2 D' L2 B2 R2 U2 F2


----------



## gyroninja (Aug 20, 2016)

Sion said:


> Here are a few extra algs for demonstration of concept:
> -Snip-



Someone has already created this if I understand what you are doing (EPLL on U and D at the same time). The algs for this are usually pretty bad.


----------



## Cryoo (Aug 22, 2016)

I recently thought about a hybrid method that involves blockbuilding so it is move-efficient, not that high algcount and very ergonomic because of no rotations and mostly roux gen <R, U, M, r, F>. 

As said before, it's a hybrid method of two awesome methods that are M-CELL and ZZ-CT.

For me, it balances the pros and cons of the two methods, the algs are already gen and the movecount is lower than ZZF2L. It also uses the ZZ-CT "LL".

Here are the steps : 

1. Roux FB 
2. 2x2x2 pair in BDR using mainly U, R, Rw and M turns as previously said.
3. Pseudo CE pair with the last E-edge
4. TSLE/OCLL
5. EO L5E.
6. TTLL

Pros : 

1. Ergonomic (mostly R, Rw, M and U turns)
2. Quickly eliminates hidden pieces
3. Low movecount compared to ZZF2L
4. No abstract concepts like the EOLine (so is direct solving)
5. Good lookahead 
6. Not too high an alg count (<100- around the same as CFOP, but TTLL is mostly just conjugated PLL and really really easy algs)
7. Fast turning is definately possible with the method
8. No rotations
9. There are many options for the various ways the F2L can be constructed as it is a relatively easy shape that does not have too many pieces getting in the way of others (such as in a full F2L)
10. Algs are already generated so not much work to do
11. Can be faster than ZZ-CT because of movecount
12. L5E is easy af

Cons :

1. Nubs p) may find it difficult to blockbuild (but this is the same with many intuitive things such as cross, F2L etc).
2. 100 algs may still be more than some people may want to learn (but it's not much for a 1LLL if your lookahead gets good enough and definately less than the other 1LLL such as ZBLL
3. Lack of cubers experienced at using the method (unavoidable with any new method really, hopefully this will change)
4. Lots of steps

Example solves (Don't notice my inefficiency in blocks)

U L2 D2 R' B2 L2 U2 F2 R2 U2 R' B D F' D2 B' L R2 F' R'

z2
U l' R U2 r' U2 r' F u' M' u // Roux FB
R U M U2 R' U R M U2 M' U2 M2 // BDR 2x2x2
R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U R' // Pseudo CE Pair 
R U2 R' U' R U' R' // OCLL
U' M' U M U M' U M U2 M' U2 M // EO L5E
U2 D R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R2 D' r U2 r' D R2 D' U2 // TTLL

bad 72stm

alg.cubing.net


----------



## Rnewms (Aug 22, 2016)

Cryoo said:


> [U2] D R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R2 D' r U2 r' D R2 D' [U2] // TTLL


[U'] F2 (R U' l) D2' (l' U l') U D f2 U' D [f2]


----------



## Cryoo (Aug 22, 2016)

Rnewms said:


> [U'] F2 (R U' l) D2' (l' U l') U D f2 U' D [f2]



prefer my alg


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 22, 2016)

Cryoo said:


> I recently thought about a hybrid method that involves blockbuilding so it is move-efficient, not that high algcount and very ergonomic because of no rotations and mostly roux gen <R, U, M, r, F>.
> 
> As said before, it's a hybrid method of two awesome methods that are M-CELL and ZZ-CT.
> 
> ...


1. F2L-2x2x1 at FDR
2. TSLE
3. 3FCE style EO (I have algs)
4. TTLL
ZZ-CT is better, step 3 just ruins it and places ZZ on top.


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 22, 2016)

I just realized that there are literally only 2 methods for square-1. I am not inclined to learn either, does anyone want to help me brainstorm a new square-1 method?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I just realized that there are literally only 2 methods for square-1. I am not inclined to learn either, does anyone want to help me brainstorm a new square-1 method?


Actually there are more but the are very hypothetical. There's Vandenberg, Roux 'n' screw, Cubeshape last, Cubeshape parity, Cp parity, an EGish thing and a hypothetical method which is pretty similar to ZZ-CT or maybe MGLS


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 23, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Actually there are more but the are very hypothetical. There's Vandenberg, Roux 'n' screw, Cubeshape last, Cubeshape parity, Cp parity, an EGish thing and a hypothetical method which is pretty similar to ZZ-CT or maybe MGLS


Cubeshape last? that seems interesting... would you please describe?
I had an idea similar to petrus where you blockbuilded and then did cubeshape. so like a direct solving method would be interesting... maybe like this:
1.blockbuild D layer(this can be splie up into any number of simpler steps)
2.cubeshape last layer(like OLL)
3.square-1 PLL


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Aug 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Cubeshape last? that seems interesting... would you please describe?
> I had an idea similar to petrus where you blockbuilded and then did cubeshape. so like a direct solving method would be interesting... maybe like this:
> 1.blockbuild D layer(this can be splie up into any number of simpler steps)
> 2.cubeshape last layer(like OLL)
> 3.square-1 PLL


And, of course, do parity. I know next to nothing about Squan so don't quote me on anything I'm about to say.
Seems great. I'd use it. Algs seem like they'd be alright. *thumbs up*
Idk what else to say tbh. Last step recog may not be too good.


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 23, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> And, of course, do parity. I know next to nothing about Squan so don't quote me on anything I'm about to say.
> Seems great. I'd use it. Algs seem like they'd be alright. *thumbs up*
> Idk what else to say tbh. Last step recog may not be too good.


It would be just as good as PLL recognition. cubeshape last layer's recognition would be even more insanely easy to recognize than OLL. 
I need someone to generate the algs though, because I have no computers that run windows and can therefore run jaapsch's square-1 solver.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> It would be just as good as PLL recognition. cubeshape last layer's recognition would be even more insanely easy to recognize than OLL.
> I need someone to generate the algs though, because I have no computers that run windows and can therefore run jaapsch's square-1 solver.



Just use WINE to gen the algs


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 23, 2016)

I dont know of any wine for a chromebook, but Ill look into it.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Cubeshape last? that seems interesting... would you please describe?


This is the thread that was posted a couple of months ago


> I had an idea similar to petrus where you blockbuilded and then did cubeshape. so like a direct solving method would be interesting... maybe like this:
> 1.blockbuild D layer(this can be splie up into any number of simpler steps)
> 2.cubeshape last layer(like OLL)
> 3.square-1 PLL


What does the "OLL" look like? I don't think the algs will be very nice...


----------



## Miika T (Aug 24, 2016)

I'm trying to compile an alternate to the standard 2 Look OLL (for CFOP).

Instead of having three algorithms for orienting edges and then seven different ones for the corners, I wanted to investigate if allowing other possible states after the first algorithm could lead to reusing some of the same moves. For example, some of the dot OLLs can be solved by applying a P-OLL algorithm twice. (The downside is that you must remember exactly from which orientation to start.) My reasons for this where to possibly cut down the number of algorithms needed, trying to shorten the average moves needed to reach the PLL step without actually doing a full OLL, and to have fun attempting to explore this approach. 

Has something like this been proposed somewhere? I don't know if it will end up being a useful method for anyone, but at least I'm discovering my own order of learning the OLLs. Also, on the theoretical side, it would be interesting to know if the number of algorithms could be minimized from the standard 2L OLL.


----------



## Shiv3r (Aug 24, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> This is the thread that was posted a couple of months ago
> 
> What does the "OLL" look like? I don't think the algs will be very nice...


I need someone to help me with the case number for OLL. how many cases are there for CSLL? and what about S1PLL (21 without parity, maybe more with parity?)


----------



## genericcuber666 (Aug 24, 2016)

anyone else think that cryoos method has potential im not good at roux but im learning zzct and i think i could get sub 20s with it


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 24, 2016)

I have an idea for Roux that is kinda similar to Pinky Pie but different

If all your edges are oriented when you get to CMLL, put your LR edges on DF and DB. Then do a ZBLL alg to change the edge permutation on the top so that when you place your LR edges in you get a 4c "skip".
i'll include an example later


----------



## Berd (Aug 24, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> I have an idea for Roux that is kinda similar to Pinky Pie but different
> 
> If all your edges are oriented when you get to CMLL, put your LR edges on DF and DB. Then do a ZBLL alg to change the edge permutation on the top so that when you place your LR edges in you get a 4c "skip".
> i'll include an example later


Isn't a eo skip quite rare, rarer than to justify learning full zbll?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 24, 2016)

Berd said:


> Isn't a eo skip quite rare, rarer than to justify learning full zbll?


oh yeah true. It's 1/10 (i think)
maybe with tricks you can make the chance higher?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 24, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> oh yeah true. It's 1/10 (i think)
> maybe with tricks you can make the chance higher?


Well, the thing is, you can already force a 4c skip maybe 10-15% of the time if you really try or keep the 3 movers about 50-60%, likely more if you really wanted to so I don't think the extra moves warrented by ZBLL (not to mention the alg increase) would also not help. The extra recog time isn't great either. The only practical ways to increase the EO skip is either ZBLS (or VHLS but less so as it is much more inefficient) or Eo before FB (which increases movecount for FB and SB as well as reducing lookahead).


----------



## obelisk477 (Aug 24, 2016)

Miika T said:


> I'm trying to compile an alternate to the standard 2 Look OLL (for CFOP).
> 
> Instead of having three algorithms for orienting edges and then seven different ones for the corners, I wanted to investigate if allowing other possible states after the first algorithm could lead to reusing some of the same moves. For example, some of the dot OLLs can be solved by applying a P-OLL algorithm twice. (The downside is that you must remember exactly from which orientation to start.) My reasons for this where to possibly cut down the number of algorithms needed, trying to shorten the average moves needed to reach the PLL step without actually doing a full OLL, and to have fun attempting to explore this approach.
> 
> Has something like this been proposed somewhere? I don't know if it will end up being a useful method for anyone, but at least I'm discovering my own order of learning the OLLs. Also, on the theoretical side, it would be interesting to know if the number of algorithms could be minimized from the standard 2L OLL.



There's this:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/suneoll.23222/


----------



## TDM (Aug 25, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> oh yeah true. It's 1/10 (i think)
> maybe with tricks you can make the chance higher?


1/32. I was trying to think of tricks to make the chances higher, but then it turned into Pinkie Pie. I think you might as well just use that.


----------



## Miika T (Aug 27, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> There's this:
> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/suneoll.23222/



Thanks! That's pretty much what I was looking for  My alternate 2 look OLL approach starts from some different algorithms and the objective is a bit more aimed for a beginner, but the basic idea is similar.

I found that using basically three algorithms and their reverses (and some mirrors too, but would have to go through again to check which ones were required) were enough to handle every OLL case. Remembering which one to use is the hard part, but this is helped by 46 cases starting with either the P-case algorithm or its reverse (T), and then just reacting to what comes up afterwards. The other algorithms I chose were the sune and couch algorithm, so they are all pretty simple and a combination of two will never be very long.

If I write this up for others, is this the right place to post it or would some other place be better? Also, what are the chances that this is actually interesting to anyone else besides myself?


----------



## jjone fiffier (Sep 5, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Looks cool, how many cases would it be if you did CP+ bottom 2 edges in one go instead of doing CP+M2 setup?


It's 26 I think.
But 1. I have no idea how to generate sq1 algs and 2. I'm fine with averaging high16.
Bump btw.

Gesendet von meinem LG-D331 mit Tapatalk


----------



## GenTheThief (Sep 13, 2016)

ZZ Megaminx

1. F2L done with block building and "normal" cfop pairs.
2. Two adjacent balint blocks in the front + the pair in between
3. A balint block in the U-layer that is over the pair
3a. x' so the U-layer balint block is the the front
5. EO of the last three sides
5. Blockbuild the two R/L sides
6. 3LL

I did a couple solves with this, and EO recog isn't that hard, though it might be overly time consuming to be worth using.
Thoughts?

[yes, I saw that shadowslice proposed an EO mega method a year ago, but it didn't sound anything like this]


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 13, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> ZZ Megaminx
> 
> 1. F2L done with block building and "normal" cfop pairs.
> 2. Two adjacent balint blocks in the front + the pair in between
> ...


It seems similar to one of the variants I proposed but after some laying around I don't think Eo skip in LL is worth the extra time especially with partial edge control.


----------



## GenTheThief (Sep 13, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> It seems similar to one of the variants I proposed but after some [p]laying around I don't think Eo skip in LL is worth the extra time especially with partial edge control.


Hmm, that makes sense.

1. F2L done with block building and "normal" cfop pairs
2. One balint block in the front + the "Spike" edge that connects it to the U layer
3. x' so the U-layer balint block is the the front
4. EO of the last 4 sides [When doing eo, you can't use the spike face, because that 5th side can change eo too]
5. Blockbuild half of one of the bottom R/L sides
5a. z(') so there is a top layer
6. blockbuild R/L sides
7. 3LL

With this variation, you get more out of EO, but recognition is so much weirder.
When I figure out the rules, I'll post them here.

EDIT:
So they seem to be basic EO laws, but just slightly more confusing to recognize.
Faces are labeled 1, 2, 3, 4 from left to right.

If an odd numbered colour is touching an odd numbered face, it is good. If it is touching an even numbered face, it is bad.

If an even numbered colour is touching an even numbered face, it is good. If it is touching an odd numbered face, it is bad.

That's it.

E4: Well, a little bit more,

If an odd numbered colour is on an even numbered face, but they are _not_ touching, it is good.

If an even numbered colour is on an odd numbered face, but they are _not_ touching, it is good.

If an even numbered colour is on an even numbered face, and they are not touching, it is bad

If an odd numbered colour is on an odd numbered face, and they are not touching, it is bad

EDIT2: I did some solves with the first method and my best was like 2:20. I average just at ~2:10 with pure balint.
I'll try out the v2 method and see if I can get a sub-2 after I get used to EO. I think it would be cool If I could actually compete with it at dixon.

E3: I'm calling this ZZ-Spike


----------



## Shiv3r (Sep 13, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Hmm, that makes sense.
> 
> 1. F2L done with block building and "normal" cfop pairs
> 2. One balint block in the front + the edge that conects it to the U layer
> ...


If I had any reason to learn 3LLL, I would totally learn this.


----------



## GenTheThief (Sep 13, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Hmm, that makes sense.
> 
> 1. F2L done with block building and "normal" cfop pairs
> 2. One balint block in the front + the "Spike" edge that connects it to the U layer
> ...



So I've done a couple solves with this method, and kinda timed them. I realized that if the ZZ part wasn't faster, or at least not considerably slower, than balint S2L then this would be pretty pointless.
So the first five solves are with ZZ-Spike, and I timed the splits.
First split is Blockbuilt F2L + the spike (which I always do as green).
Second split I didn't care about going fast on was EO, I just wanted to see how S2L compared to balint. I went really slowly and made sure all edges were oriented.
Last split is the Last 4 Layers L4F. I realized that (I) should always do the left bottom side and then do a z', which will leave me with cream as LL, but for more colour neutral solvers, they could end up with any of the sides as their LL.

49.14--2:33.82--1:15.80
53.36--1:05.47--1:38.08
54.56--1:47.03--1:15.35
48.15----36.38--1:15.77
47.44----52.33--1:11.83

------------------1:07.62
------------------1:23.12
------------------1:10.97
------------------1:09.76
------------------1:25.33
These last stats are just some pure S2L balint solves + one pre-made balint block to make it fair.

EDIT: I did an ao12 and timed the splits.
Also, I got a sub-2!


Spoiler: Ao12+Splits



Generated By csTimer on 2016-9-14
solves/total: 12/12

single
best: 1:59.46
worst: 2:35.70

mean of 3
current: 2:14.64 (σ = 12.88)
best: 2:07.18 (σ = 7.31)

avg of 5
current: 2:14.01 (σ = 6.24)
best: 2:12.94 (σ = 5.39)

avg of 12
current: 2:14.17 (σ = 7.23)
best: 2:14.17 (σ = 7.23)

Average: 2:14.17 (σ = 7.23)
Mean: 2:14.74

Time List:
---Time---F2L+Spike--EO-----LFL----LL---
1. 1:59.46 - 39.97 / 20.35 / 45.04 / 14.08
2. 2:13.99 - 39.05 / 21.53 / 58.61 / 14.78
3. 2:08.08 - 46.09 / 12.21 / 51.23 / 18.54
4. 2:17.41 - 43.23 / 16.93 / 1:02.65 / 14.58
5. 2:19.49 - 47.80 / 26.04 / 38.84 / 26.79
6. 2:35.70 - 43.14 / 15.92 / 1:19.55 / 17.08
7. 2:14.96 - 48.56 / 25.50 / 46.41 / 14.47
8. 2:17.02 - 49.91 / 29.25 / 44.29 / 13.55
9. 2:06.82 - 46.97 / 19.58 / 46.22 / 14.04
10. 2:00.36 - 40.66 / 24.26 / 35.68 / 19.74
11. 2:25.38 - 49.89 / 23.95 / 55.59 / 15.94
12. 2:18.17 - 50.06 / 16.46 / 56.30 / 15.33

Mean. 2:14.74 - 45.44 / 21.00 / 51.71 / 16.58
Best possible time. 1:40.49 - 39.05 / 12.21 / 35.68 / 13.55



Do you guys think this is a viable method?
Do you want me to make a walk through solve video?


----------



## weatherman223 (Sep 18, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> So I've done a couple solves with this method, and kinda timed them. I realized that if the ZZ part wasn't faster, or at least not considerably slower, than balint S2L then this would be pretty pointless.
> So the first five solves are with ZZ-Spike, and I timed the splits.
> First split is Blockbuilt F2L + the spike (which I always do as green).
> Second split I didn't care about going fast on was EO, I just wanted to see how S2L compared to balint. I went really slowly and made sure all edges were oriented.
> ...


Yes! Please make a walkthrough! This is very interesting and I would like to see the actual steps being done since I'm not a ZZ solver.


----------



## Sion (Sep 21, 2016)

I was dabbling with my Square one, and I thought of the inneficciency of common methods, so I came up with my own solution. My method idea tries to put a balance between using cubeshape first and cubeshape last. I call it OCP2.

1: Orient corners and edges in cubeshape (all white on one side, all yellow on the other)

2: Solve cubeshape while preserving the orientation.

3: Do two plls in stead of CP/ EP. Algorithms already exist for this.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 23, 2016)

This doesn't seem advantageous over that one thing where you do cubeshape then intuitive separation then permutation


----------



## Shiv3r (Sep 25, 2016)

I think that with some pre-edgepairing magic like in Yau/Meyer/Hoya, Z4 can be a big competitor to the other 4x4 methods.
Here's my proposal(just a rough idea, if you have suggestions please contribute them):
1.2 opposite centers on L/R
2.orient 4 edges, put 3 on the L side(FR, DR, BR, and DL)
3.solve last 4 centers
4.pair the line edges
5.rest of Z4 edgepairing and solving

pros:
-no rotations after 2 opposite centers
-only RUL moves for ZZF2L after edgepairing
-with parity-included EPLL, permutation parity is directly solved, therefore no extra parity step
cons:
-step 2 can be hard to wrap your head around
-See Z4 for Lookahead and other problems

how do you like it?


----------



## genericcuber666 (Sep 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I think that with some pre-edgepairing magic like in Yau/Meyer/Hoya, Z4 can be a big competitor to the other 4x4 methods.
> Here's my proposal(just a rough idea, if you have suggestions please contribute them):
> 1.2 opposite centers on L/R
> 2.orient 4 edges, put 3 on the L side(FR, DR, BR, and DL)
> ...



seems really nice but could you also do something like yau then for l8e do z4 or is that inefficeint i dont know much about z4 though so feel free to just ignore that . also all these new advances in zz are so cool.


----------



## Shiv3r (Sep 28, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> seems really nice but could you also do something like yau then for l8e do z4 or is that inefficeint i dont know much about z4 though so feel free to just ignore that . also all these new advances in zz are so cool.


EOline is much more efficient to do, and the blockbuilding is much freer and smoother feeling when the rest of the cross is isn't place already.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 28, 2016)

Don't think there's a good way to EOPair as efficiently as 3-2-3


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 29, 2016)

Based off of CubeRoll's method but modified.
Step 1: 1x2x3 block
Intuitive mostly, hold it on the bottom left like Roux.
Step 2: CURL (Corners of the U and R Layers)
Solve the rest of the corners and the 2 remaining E-layer edges at FR and BR. Also mostly intuitive.
Step 3: L7EM: Last 7 edges, M layer. 1st part of 2-look L7E. Once this step is complete, the M layer will be completely solved.
Step 4: L7ES: Last 7 edges, S layer. 2nd part of 2-look L7E. Same algs as step 3, except not all can occur.

Step 3 and 4 can be combined once I generate all the algs (72).

Algs: 
FD>FU>BU>FD: R F R U R F R U
FD>BU>FU>FD: R U R F R U R F
FU>BU>BU, FD>BD>FD: M U M U
FU>BD>FU, BU>FD>BU: U M U x' U M U
Parity fix for M slice*: R F R F R F

*There're probably better ways to solve the M slice when there is parity, which I'll generate soon. Parity is just when there is a 4-cycle or a 2-swap instead of a 3-cycle or two 2-swaps.


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 29, 2016)

i feel like trying to solve f2b with only double turns => cmll skip => LSE(4b4c), seems better.
i think you can easily average sub 20 moves, probably with more practice sub 15 moves.
in terms of time, sub 5 shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Sep 29, 2016)

The reason I really don't like Z4 is that you only do chain pairing 50% of the time. Otherwise its just beginner edge pairing with EO added in. Because of that, its about 50% more moves than 3-2-3. That's a lot of extra moves. If you just do normal 3-2-3, EO takes only around 6 moves. If you can push good edges to the back, then EO after pairing can typically be done in 4 moves, and recognition is almost instant since all the bad edges are on U and F. That's why I like a Hoya-like approach, because pushing good edges to the back can be done without interrupting the flow of the solve.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 29, 2016)

Is this for speed or fun? Because I'm pretty sure recog and ergonomics are going to suck.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 29, 2016)

GuRoux said:


> i feel like trying to solve f2b with only double turns => cmll skip => LSE(4b4c), seems better.
> i think you can easily average sub 20 moves, probably with more practice sub 15 moves.
> in terms of time, sub 5 shouldn't be too hard.


when you get to the second block, you can get all but the DF edge intuitively, that's why the CURL step is so easy. Then, it's a matter of 2 algs, first solving the M slice, then rotating and solving the E slice.


shadowslice e said:


> Is this for speed or fun? Because I'm pretty sure recog and ergonomics are going to suck.


Ideally there would be more algorithms, but with more algorithms the recognition might be tricky, but I don't think it would be that much of a problem, although I wouldn't know because I haven't tried. Anyway, here's an example solve:

R U R D R B F D B L U F L F D L B F D B R U D B L //scramble 
y' x' R U B //FB 
R U R U R U //CURL 
r F R F R F x2 R F R U R F R U //L7EM 
y x R F R U R F R U //L7ES


----------



## sqAree (Sep 29, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Anyway, here's an example solve:
> 
> R U R D R B F D B L U F L F D L B F D B R U D B L //scramble
> y' x' R U B //FB
> ...



It's not working for me.

Also, in CURL step we have to solve not only all the remaining corners but also SB?

EDIT: Nvm, it does work. Everything clear now.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 29, 2016)

sqAree said:


> It's not working for me.
> 
> Also, in CURL step we have to solve not only all the remaining corners but also SB?
> 
> EDIT: Nvm, it does work. Everything clear now.


CURL is solving all the remaining corners and the RF and RB edges, the DR edge is probably not solved. (1/3 chance that it is solved, but it doesn't matter


----------



## GuRoux (Sep 29, 2016)

the example solve has so many moves, i think sub 15 is possible with what i said. using tricks like psuedo blocks is also often helpful.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 29, 2016)

I made a kewl random-state scrambler
https://repl.it/DkkQ/0
Most scrambles are around 10 moves, but there's a 6 move minimum


----------



## efattah (Oct 7, 2016)

Normally I believe CFOP-ZBLL is the fastest method (even though I don't use it), and I still think it is a tad better than ZZ-CT... but I have recently imagined a Roux variant which could possibly take the crown. I call it the Roux-M variant. I got the idea from Marc Waterman's long forgotten trick.

When Waterman would solve the last four corners with CLL, he created CLL algorithm variants where he injected M or M' moves in the middle of the CLL algorithm. This allowed him to solve at least 1 edge piece during the CLL algorithm (as injecting M/M' into a corners algorithms has no effect on the corners themselves).

Here is the Roux-M variant:
1. Build two blocks as normal
2. Ready for CLL
3. Instead of doing CLL, adjust the M slice to fix the centers so you can identify L6E orientation (must use the color of the center only, to ID edge orientation, since corners are still unsolved)
4. Execute one of (approximately) 336 MCLL algorithms to simultaneously solve the 4 corners and orient the last 6 edges
5. Finish permuting the last 6 edges as normal

Of the 336 MCLL algorithms, OLLCP is a subset. So if you already know OLLCP, then you already know 216 of the 336 MCLL algorithms, although technically you might find *slightly* faster algs if you fully generate the MCLL set since OLLCP keeps the first two layers untouched while MCLL can swap the lower edges on the M slice.

Advantages:
- Significantly fewer moves than Roux. You won't save much on the cases where edge orientation required a 3-move algorithm, but in the 'bad' cases like the 6-flip you save tons of moves, as the MCLL algorithm will never be more than about 3 moves longer than the associated CLL algorithm, and in some cases it is 0 moves longer since you can replace R/R' with r/r', or L/L' with l/l' which moves the M slice without adding any extra moves.
- Eliminates a look. Normally CLL is one look, then edge orientation is another look. By combining them together, with practice, you can identify them together.
- Greater chance for fast singles. With Roux the chance of L6E skip is essentially zero. With Roux-M you add a small but possible chance of an L6E skip after the MCLL algorithm, allowing for the occasional extremely fast single (like ZZ-CT also gives a good chance of lucky singles)



Eric Fattah
BC, Canada


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 8, 2016)

This is essentially Pinky Pie, but with more algorithms and (arguably) slightly less efficient.

With pinky pie, you build the two blocks, then force UL UR on D or UF UB on D. You don't care about where the centers are. You then detect EO for the centers based on whatever center sticker ended up on U, then use OLLCP to orient L4E and solve the corners. This leaves an ~8 move LSE.


----------



## efattah (Oct 8, 2016)

I'm not sure I agree. How can Pinky Pie be more efficient if you have to use several moves to put UL/UR into D, especially when you have to make sure that they are placed in an oriented position? That whole step is skipped in Roux-M.

Eric Fattah
BC, Canada


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 8, 2016)

It is usually quite easy to place either UL UR or UF UB. This would take like 4 moves max by itself, and oftentimes you can cancel 1-2 of these moves into the end of your SB solution.

I wouldn't think of it as solely a setup for OLLCP as it serves another purpose of already placing ULUR or UFUB in an advantageous position for the next step. This saves more than I think you take into consideration.

If you're not convinced, we can look at movecount breakdowns after F2B like this:
Pinkie Pie:
Force ULUR/UFUB (0-3 STM)
OLLCP (~11 STM)
LSE - solve ULUR or UFUB (2-3 STM)
LSE - 4c (0-6 STM)
= ~13-23 STM

Your proposal:
MCLL (~11 STM, will assume since OLLCP is a pretty big subset of it)
LSE - ULUR or UFUB (0-6 STM)
LSE - 4c - (0-6 STM)
= ~11-23 STM

So I'd say you get a little bit more variance with MCLL but I wouldn't call it any more or less efficient. (This makes Pinkie Pie the better choice, since you've got less algs)

Another issue with solving EO like you suggest (and also with Pinkie Pie really) is that it's actually less efficient sometimes to go for the EO skip than to go for, say, a 4flip that you can solve EO + ULUR in 3-4 moves.

If you just look at standard Roux with a streamlined EOLR step (which is not amazingly difficult):
CMLL (~9 STM)
LSE - EOLR (~0-9 STM)
LSE - 4c (~0-5 STM)
= ~9-25 STM

You're obviously almost never going to get that 9 STM L10P, but notice how the movecounts are relatively similar. This is because EO is ultimately just not the best step to force skips out of--influencing it is great, but a large alg set is better spent on other things. A sufficiently advanced LSE will often generate near-optimal <M,U> solutions.

As far as improving on Roux goes, I think blocks are a better place to start. Often speedsolve solutions are nowhere near as efficient as they can be; an alg set/approach that regularly generates sub-20 STM block solutions would be very nice to have.


----------



## cornercutproductions (Oct 10, 2016)

My new method (Roux ZZ style variant)

Step 1 basically eo line but you hold the two solved edges on the right and left rather than front and back then make sure that only top and bottom layer edges are in the front and back positions.

Step 2 solve f2l using only R,U,L

Step 3 do cmll but mainly use colls to keep the orientation of the edges

Step 4 solve the remaining 6 edges using m,u keep in mind that the six edges will be oriented


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 10, 2016)

cornercutproductions said:


> My new method (Roux ZZ style variant)
> 
> Step 1 basically eo line but you hold the two solved edges on the right and left rather than front and back then make sure that only top and bottom layer edges are in the front and back positions.
> 
> ...


you can try it, but this tends to be significantly less efficient than regular roux.


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 21, 2016)

ZZ has R/L regrips, Roux has R,r regrips. To avoid that, reduces to <R,U,D> and then <R,U> and then <M,U>. Nice and ergonomic and less algs than CMLL for LS CO, though CP recog still sucks

EOLine on Left (6-8 STM)

FB + CP (~7 STM)

SB + LS (~15 STM)

4b + 4c (5-11 STM)

33-41 STM


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> ZZ has R/L regrips, Roux has R,r regrips. To avoid that, reduces to <R,U,D> and then <R,U> and then <M,U>. Nice and ergonomic and less algs than CMLL for LS CO, though CP recog still sucks
> 
> EOLine on Left (6-8 STM)
> 
> ...


looks interesting. what does LS stand for? can you write an example solve?


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> ZZ has R/L regrips, Roux has R,r regrips. To avoid that, reduces to <R,U,D> and then <R,U> and then <M,U>. Nice and ergonomic and less algs than CMLL for LS CO, though CP recog still sucks
> 
> EOLine on Left (6-8 STM)
> 
> ...


I would be very interested if you could find a way to do this but when i tried it (basically combining SSC and B2), I couldn't find a nice way to do step 1 followed by step 2 or vice versa and just decided that CO would be better than CP. I think the problem is that CP is best done when ignoring EO but doing EO interferes with CP so either way around is not very nice. It also doesn't help that CP is not exactly easy to recognise.

Also, if you're doing SB unless you influence the three edge pieces needed in it (which is hell all on its own), you'll most likely be using {R,U,M2,r2} which still means quite a few regrips and possibly more than with the other methods because you are doing more moves so I think that the method in the current form would actually have more regrips than quite a few existing methods.

Incidentally, due to my looking into it, I have a set of algs for step 3 around somewhere if you want them.

Good luck with the method though! I hope that you find a way around all these issues!


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 21, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I would be very interested if you could find a way to do this but when i tried it (basically combining SSC and B2), I couldn't find a nice way to do step 1 followed by step 2 or vice versa and just decided that CO would be better than CP. I think the problem is that CP is best done when ignoring EO but doing EO interferes with CP so either way around is not very nice. It also doesn't help that CP is not exactly easy to recognise.
> 
> Also, if you're doing SB unless you influence the three edge pieces needed in it (which is hell all on its own), you'll most likely be using {R,U,M2,r2} which still means quite a few regrips and possibly more than with the other methods because you are doing more moves so I think that the method in the current form would actually have more regrips than quite a few existing methods.
> 
> ...



Good to know algs are generated already for step 3  I'm not the most enthusiastic about alg generation

I agree that CP recog just seems very annoying (and is what'll probably end up making me toss this idea). However I noticed that all zz-porky LS inserts are <R,U,L>, which means that the FB+CP+EO could be done essentially like the last pair of the left block in zz-porky. Instead of trying to solve a CE pair + CP with <R,U,L> you would solve last FB corner + CP with <R,U,D>. This gives me hope somewhat (as I hear that porky recog isn't as terrible after some while) so I'm looking into old porky docs to see if I can find something good.

Though also, influencing of SB edges should be fine, since just have to force them out of DF and DB in order to ensure <R,U> SB. Can be done in <= 2 STM (worst case being edges at DF+UB or UF+DB). This would make the whole solve essentially: whole cube group EOLine, <R,U,D> FB+CP, at most 1 M or R move, <R,U> SB+CLL, <M,U> 4b+4c.

What did you end up thinking of your CP recognition system for Briggs? Maybe I could use that (though seems like it was meant to be used during inspection when you have time to think)



GuRoux said:


> looks interesting. what does LS stand for? can you write an example solve?


Last Slot - the idea being the last pair of SB would be solved along with the CLL, leaving 4b+4c.

I'll try and get an example solve up soon


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 21, 2016)

Little example solve with the first scramble I got from cstimer:

y // red front master-race
r' U r B' r' F2 r // LOL (7/7)
U2 R U'D2 // 2x1 on D (4/11)
D' R U' R' D R2 D' // last corner + CP (7/18)
// reduce SB to <R,U> (0/18)
U R' U' R2 U2' R2' U R U2 R' U' R // SB (12/30)
U2 R U R' U R U2 R' // CLL, don't know algs yet (8/38)
U' M2' U M' U2 M' U M2 U2 // LSE (9/47)

I have no idea if that CP approach is optimal yet, (I'm basically finding them via trial and error right now) and I just went ahead and solved the CLL with a Sune since I don't have the algs yet. Already 47 STM though, so that's nice. I'll do one more


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 22, 2016)

Okay, second example solve:

y
r' U R' D' x' U2D2 L' // LOL (7/7)
// 2x1 on D (0/7)
D R U' R' U R2 D // FB corner + CP (7/14)
r2 // Force <R,U> SB (1/15)
U R U R2 U2' R2' U R // SB (8/23)
U' M2 // force UL in nice position (2/25)
R U R' U R U2 R' // CMLL (7/32)
M2 U M2 U' M2 U2 M2 // LSE (7/39)

Once again, don't know if FB+CP or SB+CO are optimal (though SB was so nice here that SB+CLL might have been).
If we just wave away the CP recognition for now, the rest of the method looks promising.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 22, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Stuff


Yeah the recognition system was designed for inspection and is completely unsuitable for using while actually solving (at least in my experience) so I would just start from scratch instead of trying to adapt it (though using 6 corners instead of 8 as that was one of the reasons why mine had to be complicated due to dealing with all 8 simultaneously)


----------



## 2180161 (Oct 27, 2016)

Alright, someplace I haven't posted in forever!
I took a look at the method L2LK, and thought it was a cool idea. However, the amount of algs needed was extremely high (220?) So I have come with an approach to lessen the number, while still having the nice 2-gen L5E. It is kind of strange, has a few drawbacks, but I have been getting around 20 consistently, with little practice. It may also be considered more of a variant or LS method, but it is fairly move efficient.

1. F2L-1. Solve however you like. Place the empty slot at FR
2. EO+C Solving edge orientation while solving your FR slot corner (33 algs)
3. COLL Corners of last layer. Preserves EO. (42 algs) OR OCLL then CP (10 algs-but 2 look)
4. L5E (16 algs, 4 of which are EPLL. When solved 2 gen, avg moves is about 11)
Example solve:
Scramble: D2 U2 R' D2 L R2 B2 F2 U2 L' D2 F U2 B2 L2 R2 B' U' L2 U2
x y2 L F' R' D L' D2 L D'// cross
U L R' U R L2 U' L R U' R' L' U L U' L' U L// F2L-1
y2 U' F' U2 F R U2 R'// EO+C
U' L' U2 L' D' L U2 L' D L2 // COLL
R U' R' U' R U2 R' U R U R'//L5E
54 HTM, about the same as average CFOP, and I'm extremely inefficient (I mean, just look at my cross )


Spoiler: Pros



Same lookahead as CFOP
Last 3 steps are algs allowing for fast turning
2-gen "LL"





Spoiler: Cons



Large amount of algs (91)
Not the most efficient, kind of in the middle
Recognition for L5E isn't the greatest


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 27, 2016)

2180161 said:


> Alright, someplace I haven't posted in forever!
> 1. F2L-1. Solve however you like. Place the empty slot at FR
> 2. EO+C Solving edge orientation while solving your FR slot corner (33 algs)
> 3. COLL Corners of last layer. Preserves EO. (42 algs) OR OCLL then CP (10 algs-but 2 look)
> 4. L5E (16 algs, 4 of which are EPLL. When solved 2 gen, avg moves is about 11)



So the tradeoff EO+C/COLL/EPLL vs Last Pair/OLL/PLL
Same number of looks
Alg count 86 vs CFOP 78
Move count likely slightly lower
Ergonomics probably better (COLL -> 2gen finish)
Chance of accidental ZBLL is 1/5 vs 1/8 (no edge control)


----------



## Cale S (Oct 27, 2016)

2180161 said:


> Alright, someplace I haven't posted in forever!
> I took a look at the method L2LK, and thought it was a cool idea. However, the amount of algs needed was extremely high (220?) So I have come with an approach to lessen the number, while still having the nice 2-gen L5E. It is kind of strange, has a few drawbacks, but I have been getting around 20 consistently, with little practice. It may also be considered more of a variant or LS method, but it is fairly move efficient.
> 
> 1. F2L-1. Solve however you like. Place the empty slot at FR
> ...



I've thought of this before, I think it's only useful when you have the corner already placed or if you use ZZ

I made an alg list for the last step: http://bit.do/FRL5E

edit: ok I need to fix the algs again


----------



## Jack T (Oct 31, 2016)

I've got a subset of sorts in mind which consists of completing a PLL which is on both the top and bottom faces of the cube (this would be accomplished by doing F2L but with wrong corners). I used a program called Cube Explorer (here's a link for download: http://kociemba.org/cube.htm) to generate 'scrambles' which would solve these. For example, having a J-Perm on the U face and an A-Perm on the D face (refer to image below, named the J + A Perm) COULD be solved in two different algorithms, but that would be 23 moves with an awkward rotation between. It could also be solved in one, relatively easy, 11 move algorithm; U R2 B2 U B2 U' R2 U' B2 U B2. Anyway, this "subset" of mine thus uses 63 unique algorithms (PLL on top layer and CPLL on bottom combined, being 21x3 algorithms). Combined with COLL too, you're left with 12 unique algs - 4 EPLL x 3 CPLL (while this is not taking into consideration the orientation of the permutations, you can easily adjust them using D and U moves, as you would do with normal PLL).
The images below show three examples of this "subset" (not using COLL), I hope you lot think this is worth more than a few short examples. If so, I'd like to elaborate on how this subset could/would be used.

J + A Perm: [U R2 B2 U B2 U' R2 U' B2 U B2]

(As mentioned, this would have been solved in 23 moves without this Alg. Now it's less than half at 11 moves.)

Double T Perm: [U R2 U2 B2 D' B2 R2 F2 L2 D' L2 U2 F2 D]

(I found that, alternatively, for the Double T, you could do [(x U2 M2 U2 x' l' R') (E-Perm) l2], which - despite having rotations - is still pretty fast, but also has a tonne of moves to it. This alg uses the same number of moves as the normal T Perm surprisingly, too, at 14 moves.)

Ga + E Perm: [U F2 R2 B2 L2 U' R2 D2 R2 U R2 U R2 B2 D R2]

(I added this one to show that even the most convoluted of permutations have short algorithms - the two seperate algorithms would total to 26 moves, and have some really awkward and confusing rotations to get that E Perm right. This uses nearly half that count at 16 (the same as the E Perm itself!), and uses no rotation at all. On the diagram, it might seem like recognition would be hell, but you can easily force certain CPLLs on the D face, and the U face PLLs would be exactly the same as usual.)


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 31, 2016)

Jack T said:


> I've got a subset of sorts in mind which consists of completing a PLL which is on both the top and bottom faces of the cube (this would be accomplished by doing F2L but with wrong corners).



Interesting idea here (and welcome to the forum!). The algs for T+T and G+E you posted aren't _very_ long, but they're still on the long side, and they involve loads of half turns and awkward regrips. All PBLs can be done with <R,U,D>, so maybe you can try generating algs restricted to those moves and see how good/bad/short/long/fingertricky/awkward the new algs are. Those cases with only CPLL on D can also be done <L,U,R>.

Don't forget about the parity cases either, like if you have a corner 2-cycle or 4-cycle on the D layer (e.g. this), which doubles the case count. You could avoid the parity cases while doing F2L, but that would severely limit the freedom in choosing which corner to pair with which edge, which kind of defeats the purpose. (You already have a decent amount of freedom in the first two pairs, where you don't have to care about parity, but for the third and fourth pairs, which are more restricted, you get two ways to form c/e pairs if you don't care about parity and only one if you do.)

On the flip side, if you can freely swap DFR and DBR during COLL, all the diagonal-swap COLL cases can now be done <R,U> 2-gen, which may or may not be useful.

Edit: It might also be useful to look at which PLL variants are in use nowadays:

PLL itself is used by most serious cubers (except Roux users).
COALL (PLL without oriented edges) has been proposed a few times and the alg count isn't too large, but most algs suck.

ZZ-HW (PLL with FR unsolved) was proposed a few months ago, and then seemingly abandoned because the diagonal CP algs suck.

TTLL/ZZ-CT was proposed soon after (PLL with DFR unsolved but oriented), and quite a few people are learning it or have already finished learning it.
Full PBL hasn't really been considered because there're a lot of algs, and some of them suck.
Edge PBL mostly sucks too (compared to doing EPLL twice), unless you're good at executing lots of S2 moves.

There's a "parity" PLL too, where the D layer is a DF-DB swap and the U layer is oriented. A few nice algs like the parity EPLLs, but the rest are meh and it's usually better to just do the cross properly.

Edit #2: Some 2-gen diag/adj COLLs:


Spoiler



I took one of the first few 2-gen algs Cube Explorer generated, so these might not be the best for smooth execution. They're also all kinda long, but 2-gen!!!!

CO skip: R U R2 U R' U R2 U' R U' R2 U' R' = [R U R2 U R' U: R2]
T: R U2 R' U R' U' R2 U R U2 R U' R U' R2
U: R U2 R U' R' U R' U' R U' R U R2
L: R U2 R2 U2 R U' R2 U R U2 R' U R' U R'
S: R U R2 U R' U R2 U' R U' R U R U2 R' = alg for CO skip case cancelled into Sune
A: inverse/mirror of S
pi: R U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R U' R U2 R U' R2 (doesn't use R' or U)
H: R2 U' R2 U' R U R U2 R U' R U R2 U R'


----------



## Jack T (Oct 31, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> Interesting idea here (and welcome to the forum!). The algs for T+T and G+E you posted aren't _very_ long, but they're still on the long side, and they involve loads of half turns and awkward regrips. All PBLs can be done with <R,U,D>, so maybe you can try generating algs restricted to those moves and see how good/bad/short/long/fingertricky/awkward the new algs are. Those cases with only CPLL on D can also be done <L,U,R>.



Yes, I actually realised the awkwardness with those two cases later that day, and was about to make an edit or a repost stating a way to make forcing an A-Perm on the D face a lot easier. Plus, I found that most (since I haven't actually gotten ALL of the algs finished yet) algs which have an A-perm on the D face, while still using moves which would be considered awkward, are actually more fingertrickable than expected. For example, a T-E case I have uses [U F2 D F2 L2 F2 L2 D2 L2 D R2 D B2 D’ R2 F2]. With some getting used to, this is actually kinda comfortable to perform, or at least that's what I've found. I've also found that with some cases, particularly those with B and R moves, a cube rotation DOES makes them easier to do (which is partly what I hoped to avoid). Also, with some algs, using wide moves helps ergonomics too (e.g, Aa-Aa - [U M2 U M2 F2 r2 U’ F2 U2 R2 U’ F2 r2].



xyzzy said:


> Don't forget about the parity cases either, like if you have a corner 2-cycle or 4-cycle on the D layer (e.g. this), which doubles the case count. You could avoid the parity cases while doing F2L, but that would severely limit the freedom in choosing which corner to pair with which edge, which kind of defeats the purpose. (You already have a decent amount of freedom in the first two pairs, where you don't have to care about parity, but for the third and fourth pairs, which are more restricted, you get two ways to form c/e pairs if you don't care about parity and only one if you do.)



As for how to prevent parity-like cases, during F2L, you could look for corners which simply have the cross colour and one of the corresponding edge colours (e.g, rather than looking for a white-green-orange corner to match with the green-orange edge, you could find any corner which has either white and green OR white and orange, and it would be usable), and you would makes sure at least one pair (maybe the third, after the pairs with the most freedom) is wholly correct.



xyzzy said:


> On the flip side, if you can freely swap DFR and DBR during COLL, all the diagonal-swap COLL cases can now be done <R,U> 2-gen, which may or may not be useful.



I am going to be honest, I don't know exactly what that means - I stated about COLL more hypothetically, since I don't actually know many cases at all for it.
From what I can guess though, that would certainly make COLL faster and easier, yes.

Thanks for taking a look at the concept, it's highly appreciated!

Edit: Algorithms could also be made on top for the parity-like cases, perhaps like altered versions of U face PLLs.


----------



## DXPower (Nov 5, 2016)

What do you guys think of this?

It's a 5x5 edge pairing method I came up with a few weeks ago. 
After posting here I've modified the method a bit. Instead of doing the 4th edge as a freeslice edge, you do it right after you complete the first edge pair. So you look at the bottom edge (bedge) in the FL slot, and put the corresponding center edge (cedge) into the FR slot, replacing the newly completed edge pair. If you do a d, you make a "bottom hat". You can then either use the newly created empty slot in BR to put in the top edge (tedge) and complete the full edge there, or take out the bottom hat by putting in the bedge for the next top hat in FL. If you do the former, you have to fix the top hats by undoing the slice move. 

I'm still trying to reduce the number of bad cases when you first start out (bad cycles, basically). The entire method works off of forcing a 3 (4, with the new thing I came up with?) cycle with the edges.

There's a full thread here


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 17, 2016)

okay, so a decent Idea for a vandenbergh method spin-off for squan:
instead of simultaneously solving u and D corners and then solving U and D edges with waaay too many algorithms, perhaps solving the bottom corners while solving the top edges and then solving the top corners and bottom edges may make for better algs. 
lemme check the alg count quick: 9 EPLL's*3 corner cases = 27 algs.
That is much less than normal CBL+EBL, I'm just not sure if the algs will be very move-efficient.
Also, orientation+cubeshape both layers may be a better Idea tbh


----------



## Sion (Nov 17, 2016)

Here is a dumb corners first method I used to help me get familliar with the M slice. it is almost entirely intuitive, and a big beginners variant of roux:

1: Solve D corners and DL and DR edges
2: CLL
After this point the whole solve is 4 gen
Using L, R, U, and M, solve the equator edges.
After this, do a lse variant and done.

I'm hoping this could help people get used to usage of the M layer as a vital tool in speedsolving and intuitive solving.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 17, 2016)

Sion said:


> Here is a dumb corners first method I used to help me get familliar with the M slice. it is almost entirely intuitive, and a big beginners variant of roux:
> 
> 1: Solve D corners and DL and DR edges
> 2: CLL
> ...


This may be the thing we need to attract peope to Roux. A lot of people are trying to figure out how to get more newer people into Roux, this may be very useful.


----------



## Sion (Nov 17, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> This may be the thing we need to attract peope to Roux. A lot of people are trying to figure out how to get more newer people into Roux, this may be very useful.



Not sure how... can you explain a bit?


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 17, 2016)

Sion said:


> Not sure how... can you explain a bit?


I have been telling that the roux community needs to come up with a way to have more beginners learn roux. I have believed that a corners-first style beginners method may be the answer, such as the one at rubikscube.info. This is also a good runner-up,your method, and I see how it would make a good beginner's corners first method.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 17, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I have been telling that the roux community needs to come up with a way to have more beginners learn roux. I have believed that a corners-first style beginners method may be the answer, such as the one at rubikscube.info. This is also a good runner-up,your method, and I see how it would make a good beginner's corners first method.


I think the reason there are less roux solver than CFOP solvers is more down to the fact that when you type in "how to solve a rubik's cube" into youtube, the first hundred results are all CFOP related (I say this because i know (of) a fair few people (myself included) who actually learned roux reasonably easily without ever learning things such as F2L and stuff like that (I know of at leas one who still can't do F2L CFOP style even though his blockbuilding is actually pretty good))


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 17, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I think the reason there are less roux solver than CFOP solvers is more down to the fact that when you type in "how to solve a rubik's cube" into youtube, the first hundred results are all CFOP related (I say this because i know (of) a fair few people (myself included) who actually learned roux reasonably easily without ever learning things such as F2L and stuff like that (I know of at leas one who still can't do F2L CFOP style even though his blockbuilding is actually pretty good))


That's why creating a roux-style beginners method and making it something like that is important to create bigger diversity in the cubing world, which is a thing I think should happen. I want the percentage of people using CFOP to drop to around 60% from what it is not(95-98%)


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 17, 2016)

I'm not sure there's an easy silver bullet to attract peopel to roux. There's just too much CFOP content


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 17, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I'm not sure there's an easy silver bullet to attract peopel to roux. There's just too much CFOP content


Then just get more roux content out there to match it. Same with ZZ.


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 17, 2016)

It's not that easy. Lots of CFOP content generates more CFOP solvers that make more CFOP content.

I'm fairly convinced that method popularity is mostly determined by whether or not there's someone sub-8 or 9 with it. Having someone to worship always seems to work better than content


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 17, 2016)

perhaps a superior alternative to speed-heise (to force a commutator case for LL):

consider EOF2L-1 with last slot at FR (24 moves)
place FR edge while phasing LL edges (opposite swap or solved) and ensure final F2L corner in LL (~5 moves based off a small sample) (if ur corner is stuck and u a novice u can just conjugate with [R y])
AUF F2L corner to URF (.75 moves)
apply alg to solve edges, F2L corner, and corner at DFR (72 cases, 48 without mirrors [30 algs, 18 commutators] ~10 moves based off a small sample)
L3C (~10 moves)
AUF (.75 moves)
=26 moves LS & LL

notes
-same movecount as speed-heise

pros
-same case count, but less algs than speed-heise (many comms)
-easier setup than speed-heise
-*can actually put in wrong corner-edge pair during blockbuilding (during 2x2x2, 3x2x2, etc) like EJF2L, to vastly improve blockbuilding efficiency and capitalize on lucky situations - also can help push inspection look ahead much further into solve



Spoiler: *



* this is an extremely strong advantage and is likely the main strongpoint of this variant. if u do this the only constraint on the rest of your solve is you will need to insert your last F2L pair with phasing (1.2 move penalty on the insert according to our old friend pyjam)

last slot = 6.7
phasing penalty = 1.2 
auf = .75
this variant = ~10
l3c = ~10
auf = .75
=29.5 moves

meaning that if you can save >=4 moves incorporating a U-layer corner during blockbuilding like EJF2L (not unreasonable) then this variant is more efficient than speed-heise with the same amount of looks and less than half the algs (30 vs 72).


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 18, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> instead of simultaneously solving u and D corners and then solving U and D edges with waaay too many algorithms, perhaps solving the bottom corners while solving the top edges and then solving the top corners and bottom edges may make for better algs.
> lemme check the alg count quick: 9 EPLL's*3 corner cases = 27 algs.



If you interchange the roles of U corners with the U edges, then it should be clear why this has the same number of cases as CP/EP (or EP/CP, for that matter): 9 cases for the first look, 100 cases for the second. (Or 6 for the first and 55 for the second if you allow flipping the whole cube over.)

Semirelatedly, there's this for a squan PBL method with relatively low case count.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 18, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> If you interchange the roles of U corners with the U edges, then it should be clear why this has the same number of cases as CP/EP (or EP/CP, for that matter): 9 cases for the first look, 100 cases for the second. (Or 6 for the first and 55 for the second if you allow flipping the whole cube over.)
> 
> Semirelatedly, there's this for a squan PBL method with relatively low case count.


Ah, I wasn't factoring relative permutation of edges/corners to the other pieces on the same layer. thanks for checking that.
still, maybe an orientation then cubeshape method may be in order...


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 21, 2016)

minor Bump.
Hey guys, for you ZZ solvers that are stuck doing methods like Yau or Hoya on 4x4, here is a new ZZ 4x4 method I proposed. It is pretty much the same Idea as Yau or Meyer, but for ZZ, and instead of 3-2-3, EOpairing is used. And as a byproduct of extending EPLL, There is no seperate PLL parity and(with some manipulation) no seperate OLL parity. I call it ZZ-4(not to be confused with Z4). So ZZ solvers, what do you think?


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 22, 2016)

Just like people said on Reddit the only thing missing here is viable eopairing until that happens the 5 seconds I lose from doing cfop f2l+ll won't matter to me


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 22, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> Just like people said on Reddit the only thing missing here is viable eopairing until that happens the 5 seconds I lose from doing cfop f2l+ll won't matter to me


This was made for ZZ solvers, and one thing I like about this method is that with a few tricks, you can skip OLL parity about 3/4 of the time and PLL parity 100% of the time. two extra steps for parity really messed me up. And if you don't like EOpairing as much just pairing edges and them placing them oriented can work as a substitute. Thanks for your input though!


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> minor Bump.
> Hey guys, for you ZZ solvers that are stuck doing methods like Yau or Hoya on 4x4, here is a new ZZ 4x4 method I proposed. It is pretty much the same Idea as Yau or Meyer, but for ZZ, and instead of 3-2-3, EOpairing is used. And as a byproduct of extending EPLL, There is no seperate PLL parity and(with some manipulation) no seperate OLL parity. I call it ZZ-4(not to be confused with Z4). So ZZ solvers, what do you think?



The method itself looks quite decent and is actually very similar to something I have played around with before. One thing I didn't like was the heavy reliance on inner slice moves during centres and edge pairing. This may not be a big issue for some, but for me it's a deal breaker.



Shiv3r said:


> This was made for ZZ solvers, and one thing I like about this method is that with a few tricks, you can skip OLL parity about 3/4 of the time and PLL parity 100% of the time. two extra steps for parity really messed me up. And if you don't like EOpairing as much just pairing edges and them placing them oriented can work as a substitute. Thanks for your input though!



You will not skip OLL parity. EOPairing doesn't change the parity state - whether or not you have OLL parity is determined as soon as you finish pairing centres, and there is a 50% chance, just like in Yau. All EOPairing will do is let you spot it earlier, but you will still need to do an OLL parity alg to fix it.

Also, you don't really skip PLL parity. Of the parity EPLLs, only the O perms have algs that are worth learning. The fastest way to solve the W perm is opposite swap cancelled into a U perm, and the adjacent swap is just a setup to the opposite swap.

Regarding EOPairing, it sucks seriously. Pairing then orienting is actually fewer moves. Just like when solving EO in normal ZZ, it's most efficient to orient edges in groups of four, it's the same with 4x4. With EOPairing, you are spending extra moves on 50% of your pairs to orient one edge pair at a time, and sacrificing the ability to do chain pairing (and the easy look ahead it brings) , which is the biggest strength of Yau and Hoya.

Also, you're a Roux user so don't ignore the power of M' U M for EO after pairing.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 23, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> You will not skip OLL parity. EOPairing doesn't change the parity state - whether or not you have OLL parity is determined as soon as you finish pairing centres, and there is a 50% chance, just like in Yau. All EOPairing will do is let you spot it earlier, but you will still need to do an OLL parity alg to fix it.



One of the things with the EOpairing is that when you have the 2 edges swap left, you can fix OLL parity with these 2 algs:

Final 4 edges - oriented (dedge in UL flipped)

r' F R2 U' R' F' U r

r' F U' R' F' R2 U r

Final 4 edges - flipped (dedge in UL flipped)

r' U' F R' U F' r F U2 R' F'

r' F U' R F' U r R' B L' U2 B'

I use these a lot and its great.

And if you don't like using inner slice moves you can solve the 2 opposite centers on U/D place the EOline edges correctly instad of a D move off and place the 2 oriented paired edges where the other 2 cross pieces go and then do E slice pairing. This is just a basic Idea for a Yau/Meyer-style ZZ method. I am open to Ideas. I just think that ZZ needs to be expanded to more puzzles than 3x3/OH. For example, I main ZZ-spike on megaminx.
Thanks for your help, I was mostly just finding a way to make Z4 more competitive


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 23, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> One of the things with the EOpairing is that when you have the 2 edges swap left, you can fix OLL parity with these 2 algs:
> 
> Final 4 edges - oriented (dedge in UL flipped)
> 
> ...


None of these cases are actually OLL parity cases. But I'll get to that. This is a very long post, but hopefully you'll be able to make sense of it.

In summary

Before pairing is finished, recognising OLL parity is not as simple as counting flipped edges.
Edge orientation on 4x4 is weirder than you think.

First, it is absolutely essential to realise that there is no such thing as edge orientation on a 4x4. To prove it, take a single edge piece (physically pop it out of the cube) and try put it back in the wrong orientation. You'll see it only goes in one way. Only dedges have "orientation", which can be changed by swapping the two edges that make up that dedge. Once you understand that, it's obvious that OLL parity has to be connected to the swapping of individual edge pieces.

And that's exactly how OLL parity is defined. OLL parity is where an odd number of edges need to be swapped to solve the edges. If an even number of edge swaps occur, then it's by definition not OLL parity. It therefore follows that OLL parity cannot be solved by an even number of slice moves (count them here - every single OLL parity alg has an odd number of slice moves), since slice moves cycle 4 edges (An odd number of swaps: 1&2, 2&3, 3&4).

Before edge pairing is finished, it can be really hard to recognise OLL parity without actually tracing the cycles (have a look at how parity avoidance works - it's a really cool technique if you can handle it - but even if you can't use it in speed solves (I definitely can't), it will help you understand parity a lot better).

Let's look a the first case you give as an example - the one solved by r' F R2 U' R' F' U r





I this case, you can pair and orient the edges with two swaps: swap both orange-blue edges, and swap the back yellow-blue edge with the front yellow-green edge. Because it's an even number of swaps, it's not an OLL parity case. That means any edge pairing alg involving slice, do something, slice back (ie - the natural and most move efficient way) won't change parity.

Here's another case that demonstrates what I'm talking about - it's just a three cycle of edges. Do it three times, and you should get back to the solved cube.
r' R U' R U F R2' F' R' r F R2' F' U' R' U
Do the alg once on a solved cube and you should get this case:




Again, this is not an OLL parity case, even though it looks like it is. If you look at the yellow-blue edge on the front face, it looks flipped. Perform the alg again, and you should get this case




You can see that the two blue-yellow edges look flipped. Do the alg a third time, and you get back to the solved cube.

If the alg actually did change the OLL parity state, then doing it three times would be - solved (no parity) - parity - no parity - solved (parity), and since there's obviously no parity on a solved cube, there's an obvious contradiction here. The alg does not affect OLL parity.

So, none of the cases you gave are parity cases, and the algs do not avoid OLL parity. OLL parity will still occur in 50% of your solves.


Anyway, on to the most important implication - if individual edge pieces don't have orientation, then how does EOpairing work for Z4? Good question. You're recognising the EO of the dedges that will be produced by the pairing, not the orientation of the individual edge pieces. The key to EOpairing is knowing how your EO algs affect EO of dedges. For that to be useful, you also have to look not only at the edges you're pairing, but also at the edges in the places that will be flipped. I find that's a pain and really interferes with lookahead. I can do it early on in the edge pairing, when I don't really care about edges I haven't paired yet, but later on, when I've got to worry about making sure I don't accidentally flip an edge that's already paired and oriented, it's just more hassle than it's worth.

I think a far far better strategy is to prioritise chain pairing (preferably 3-2-3 like in Yau) over EO. It is so simple to fix edge orientation after pairing - almost always 5 moves or less - whereas if you break the chain pairing just once, it's a guaranteed 5 extra moves at least. OLL parity doesn't count here, because as you've hopefully realised from earlier, you can't recognise OLL parity using standard ZZ EO recognition on individual edges until edge pairing is almost complete.


Anyway, I think you're on the right track. I love ZZ - it's why I've also spent so much time trying to get it working. Of the 4x4 ZZ variants I've seen I'm convinced Hoya+ZZ has the most potential. Keep thinking out of the box


----------



## GenTheThief (Nov 23, 2016)

Megaminx LL, complementary too ZZ-Spike.
This is a very rough idea so it still needs work.
Also, I haven't checked to see if someone already came up with it.
Possibly influenced by @bobthegiraffemonkey . I wasn't thinking of that LL method when I came up with this, but I had read the post.

Steps:
0. Get to LS + EO
1. Build a 1x2x2 in the LL (1 corner and 2 surrounding edges)
2. Create your last pair and insert it
3. OCLL on the last 4 corners and the last 3 edges (112 algs I think)
4. CPLL

Pros:
Recognition for Step 3 is arguably better than PLL (recognition/alg count)
Lower alg count than plain OCLL -> PLL
CPLL doesn't have 5-cycles

Cons:
Requires EO
Still a fairly large number of algs
Step 2 can be really inefficient and hard to get used to
Recognition for Step 3 is sorta weird


If you use ZZ-Spike, then you end up with the same face each time. The block I build is always in the back, so EPLL recognition is really fast, as you are only looking at one edge to determine the cycle direction.
Also, you could just do OCLL (without breaking the block) and wind up with (I think) Mushroom PLL. I'm pretty sure that would be less algs too, and it would only need a few different OCLLs.

Did this make sense, and do you have any constructive thoughts?


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 23, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> Anyway, on to the most important implication - if individual edge pieces don't have orientation, then how does EOpairing work for Z4? Good question. You're recognising the EO of the dedges that will be produced by the pairing, not the orientation of the individual edge pieces.



Actually, you _can_ define EO on wing pieces like this, though it's kind of weird and it's "orientation" in the same way squan CO/EO steps are "orientation"; it's more like separating the wings into two subsets.

I did a few solves where I did parity avoidance and oriented all the wings after the centres were done, then did edge pairing. The solves were very inefficient because this is so different from normal edge pairing and I had no idea what I was doing, but maybe this can be done quickly if people generate algs and develop the idea.

For what it's worth, this is very similar to how the 4x4x4 random state scrambler in csTimer/TNoodle/etc. works, and I used this in my move count upper bound for the 5x5x5 (see sig).


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 24, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Possibly influenced by @bobthegiraffemonkey . I wasn't thinking of that LL method when I came up with this, but I had read the post.


I'm actually confused lol. Can't remember what mega ideas I've posted and which one you would be talking about. I think the last one I posted (and used) was:

0) Get to LS with EO done (I oriented during last 2 faces because I think ZZ on mega is bad)
1) LS + 2 adjacent LL edges
2) OCLL while preserving step 1
3) PLL (EPLL or mushroom)

Is that what you're referring to? They have some stuff in common, but they're definitely different.

I'm not sure how good building a 2x2 block is though, it's something I've considered and never used. I think my method above has some nice ideas but can be improved too, I was going try to do it recently but I've not had the time, and that won't change any time soon. Maybe someone else will come up with something better and cool in the meantime? I'm really starting to think that EO before LL isn't worth it, no matter how fun it might seem.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 24, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> The solves were very inefficient because this is so different from normal edge pairing and I had no idea what I was doing, but maybe this can be done quickly if people generate algs and develop the idea.



Follow-up: I just did 12 solves with this "method", and it's not very nice.



Spoiler: times



Generated By csTimer on 2016-11-24
avg of 12: 4:20.01

Time List:
1. (7:23.90) R2 D2 U L2 B2 U L2 F2 D B' L D R' U2 F' U L2 D' B2 Uw2 B' Uw2 Fw2 D' B2 R2 U2 R2 D' F' Uw2 Rw' F U F' B' Uw Rw2 Fw U' F' D2 Fw' D
2. 5:18.81 L' B' L' U B' U2 R2 F L' U2 L2 D' B2 U' L2 U F2 R2 Uw2 F2 L' F2 Rw2 D' Fw2 Uw2 R' D' L2 U2 R Fw B2 R' L' Uw2 F Uw L' Fw' R' U L2
3. 4:52.34 B R' L2 F' B2 L U' R' F' B' L2 B D2 F L2 B D2 B D2 Fw2 D2 L' Fw2 U R' Uw2 Fw2 R U2 B2 F' R' Uw2 Fw' Uw2 Fw B D2 B' Rw F2 Rw2 Uw' L2
4. 4:24.16 L2 B2 U2 R2 F' L2 B' R2 B' U2 R2 D U2 F' D F' D2 L' U R Fw2 Rw2 L' U2 Rw2 D R2 D' F2 Rw2 B2 U Fw Rw2 B L' Fw F Rw D' F U2 Fw F Uw'
5. 3:17.01 B2 R2 F2 D R2 U' B2 L2 R2 U R' U L' F' R2 B' D2 L F2 U' R2 Rw2 Fw2 D' L2 B Uw2 D B' U R2 U2 R' D' Rw Uw2 Fw F' D R' Fw' Uw' Rw2 B2
6. 3:45.02 U B2 L2 F2 D' L2 U2 L2 U' F2 U' R' D' B' L R' U' R D' L' B Uw2 L U2 Fw2 F L' Fw2 B R2 Fw2 Rw2 L2 Uw F' Rw2 Uw2 B2 Fw' Uw Rw2 Fw2 U' F' Rw
7. 4:07.05 F2 B2 R F L U2 D' B R' F2 L2 U F2 B2 U R2 U2 B2 L2 F2 Rw2 Uw2 L2 Uw2 D Fw2 F D B D U' Rw Fw2 F2 D2 L' Fw' U2 D L Fw' Uw Fw B2
8. 3:37.97 F' R' U2 L' F2 R U2 B2 R' B2 D2 R2 D L' F' D L2 R2 U' B R Rw2 Fw2 D' F' D' U' Fw2 F' Uw2 Rw2 F' U' B' R D2 Rw' R2 D2 R Fw Uw' Rw' Uw' R Uw2 Rw2
9. 3:25.90 D L2 F2 R2 B2 D2 F2 R2 F2 L' F' R' U' F2 U' B F' L B2 Uw2 Fw2 R' B F' L Fw2 R U2 Rw2 B D2 Fw2 Uw' U' R2 B' R2 U' Rw B' U' Rw Uw2 Fw Uw2 R
10. 4:34.43 L B2 U2 L' D2 F2 L2 D2 R' F2 R2 D' B2 F' R' F' U' R U' B' U Rw2 F' Uw2 F' D' Rw2 L2 B2 F D F' Rw' U' B' R Uw2 L2 U2 Fw' Uw' Fw2 Rw Uw2 U'
11. (3:07.73) B2 F2 D2 L2 F2 U L2 U' B2 U2 L2 R B L F2 R2 D2 B2 U' F2 R' Rw2 F Uw2 B' D' Fw2 D' Rw2 Uw2 U F Rw2 B2 Rw' R2 B' F R Fw Uw F Uw D2 Rw L'
12. 5:57.33 R' L2 D2 U' B2 U L2 D' B2 R2 U' R2 F' L2 B F2 D' U' F' L' B Uw2 B' Uw2 Rw2 Fw2 U' B U D2 Fw2 U B' Rw B' D' L' U2 Rw2 Fw' Uw' R2 F R B2


Spoiler



I cheated and counted the number of wide turns in the scrambles rather than tracing cycles, because it takes me way too long to trace cycles. Coincidentally, none of these 12 solves ended with PLL parity, though it does show up with 50% probability as usual.






The move count is high but not ridiculously so, _but_ doing EO is ridiculously difficult because there's no inspection and unlike 3x3x3 ZZ, there are now 24 edge pieces moving around and you have to keep track of all their orientations. The general strategy I tried was to orient as many as possible using only F and B moves, then take care of whatever's left using something like F 2U2 2R2 2U2 F', but there must be a better way to do this.

I mostly did edge pairing 4-at-a-time by setting up two pieces and doing a Rw2, which would be pretty efficient if only I didn't suck at lookahead. You could also use Uw2 if you prefer E-slice pairing over M-slice pairing, of course. Note that edge pairing can be done with <U,L,R,Uw2/Rw2> (D moves are also occasionally useful), so it's quite ergonomic too.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 24, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> Follow-up: I just did 12 solves with this "method", and it's not very nice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A fairly simple way to do EOpairing is by doing 2-at-a-time and placing them oriented, and then also using the EOpairing algs. you end up with almost all edges oriented, and the rest are easy(if any). One thing I found was that even though EOpairing took slightly longer the 3x3 stage was faster even than my main Meyer 3x3 stage (I actually timed them). EOpairing just needs a slight getting used to, and it really is just deciding which way to slice so you get the most oriented edges, and orienting the misoriented ones by placing them oriented. With a little practice, you can even do 3-2-3 edge pairing in an eopairing style.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 24, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Megaminx LL, complementary too ZZ-Spike.
> This is a very rough idea so it still needs work.
> Also, I haven't checked to see if someone already came up with it.
> Possibly influenced by @bobthegiraffemonkey . I wasn't thinking of that LL method when I came up with this, but I had read the post.
> ...


so it's like Tripod on Megaminx? The one problem I have with it is the high alg count. Alg counts alone are the reason I never learned full OLL, ZZ-CT, or even mega 4LLL


----------



## JTWong71 (Nov 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> A fairly simple way to do EOpairing is by doing 2-at-a-time and placing them oriented, and then also using the EOpairing algs. you end up with almost all edges oriented, and the rest are easy(if any). One thing I found was that even though EOpairing took slightly longer the 3x3 stage was faster even than my main Meyer 3x3 stage (I actually timed them). EOpairing just needs a slight getting used to, and it really is just deciding which way to slice so you get the most oriented edges, and orienting the misoriented ones by placing them oriented. With a little practice, you can even do 3-2-3 edge pairing in an eopairing style.


The main thing when comparing ZZ-4 with Yao is the amount of regripping and rotations used in line with movecount and recognition during the reduction phase of a solve. Right now methods that do not require much thinking are the fastest, as recognition is quick, but in this case, rotations on cubes bigger than 3x3's will typically require more time than desired. I think that ZZ-4 should be experimented with more to understand its pros and cons more thoroughly, as things like recognition can be improved upon, and so can movecount, if algorithms and steps are optimized.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> A fairly simple way to do EOpairing is by doing 2-at-a-time and placing them oriented, and then also using the EOpairing algs.



Oh, no, I didn't mean EOpairing as in Z4, I meant you actually orient everything first, then do edge pairing, like this. EOpairing is probably better for speedsolving than this, though.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 29, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> Oh, no, I didn't mean EOpairing as in Z4, I meant you actually orient everything first, then do edge pairing, like this. EOpairing is probably better for speedsolving than this, though.


Which one is better for speedsolving, the one you were talking about, or the Z4 EOpairing? ZZ-4 is an attempt to optimize Z4 kinda like Yau optimized redux/roux, so of course I kept the EOpairing concepts from it.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 29, 2016)

Hey, just a bump. I was wondering if anyone used Vandenbergh-harris? Because I know COLL(ish) I end up using it when I try to do CFOP example solves. It seems easier than vanilla CFOP to me, but that may just be because I still don't know full OLL, only full PLL.


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 29, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey, just a bump. I was wondering if anyone used Vandenbergh-harris? Because I know COLL(ish) I end up using it when I try to do CFOP example solves. It seems easier than vanilla CFOP to me, but that may just be because I still don't know full OLL, only full PLL.



pretty sure @Bindedsa uses many of the VHLS cases since he uses full ZBLL, and almost certainly full VHLS for OH. Not useful IMO unless you know and can use full ZBLL


----------



## sqAree (Nov 29, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> pretty sure @Bindedsa uses many of the VHLS cases since he uses full ZBLL, and almost certainly full VHLS for OH. Not useful IMO unless you know and can use full ZBLL



Someone that knows ZBLL has a high chance to use VHLS, granted, but bindedsa uses so many other LL cases that it might not be worth it for him.


----------



## Shiv3r (Nov 29, 2016)

The original VH was COLL/EPLL, and it was to ZB as s ZZ-a is to ZZ-b. Its pretty nice just doing VHLS->COLL->EPLL, and the total alg count is still less than full Vanilla CFOP, around 20 algs less or so.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 30, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Which one is better for speedsolving, the one you were talking about, or the Z4 EOpairing? ZZ-4 is an attempt to optimize Z4 kinda like Yau optimized redux/roux, so of course I kept the EOpairing concepts from it.



I haven't come up with a good way to do EO alone, so I'm guessing EOpairing has more potential. I tried EOpairing-style orientation (EOpairing but without actually pairing edges) to orient two/four edges at once, which is much less reliant on pausing to inspect and also more fingertrickable, but this feels like defeating the purpose. (Imagine if you did ZZ by orienting edges two at a time using F U F' instead of four at a time using F!)

I'm a bit slower with Yau and Hoya than plain reduction, so I can't really give useful comments on whether ZZ-4 is a better or worse version of Z4. (That aside, the naming is also pretty confusing, to be honest.)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 30, 2016)

Would it be possible to have a two look, or two slot VLS? Sorry if there is already a post on this subject; I'm really not willing to read all 2000 something previous posts. The steps would be as follows:

1) F2L-2
2) VHLS- at this point, I understand that there could be a misoriented edge in the last F2L slot. This would only, I believe, add 6 algorithms. Also, I think that this would be better done from any slot, not a fixed slot such as always from FL, and that some (modified) ZBLS cases could be learned to increase efficiency.
3) Winter variation- unlike at the previous stage, I believe that there should be a fixed slot (FR) for this, owing to the greater amount of complexity. Summer variation, as well as possibly parts of ZZ-c, similarly to ZBLS in the last step, may be a valuable asset.

Let me know what you guys think!


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 30, 2016)

Sue Doenim said:


> Would it be possible to have a two look, or two slot VLS? Sorry if there is already a post on this subject; I'm really not willing to read all 2000 something previous posts. The steps would be as follows:
> 
> 1) F2L-2
> 2) VHLS- at this point, I understand that there could be a misoriented edge in the last F2L slot. This would only, I believe, add 6 algorithms. Also, I think that this would be better done from any slot, not a fixed slot such as always from FL, and that some (modified) ZBLS cases could be learned to increase efficiency.
> ...



For step two, you're not considering the cases where the F2L-3 corner is caught in the F2L-4 slot. That adds alot of algorithms


----------



## AlphaSheep (Nov 30, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> For step two, you're not considering the cases where the F2L-3 corner is caught in the F2L-4 slot. That adds alot of algorithms


You use VHLS for F2L-3, so the first step would be to bring that piece into LL and setup the VHLS case anyway. It wouldn't need extra algs. The only extra algs needed would be to flip the edge in the last slot (which i think would actually double the alg count).


----------



## Smiles (Nov 30, 2016)

i've thought of similar ideas before, and here are my thoughts after many years.

in my experience, about 1/3 of WV is good, and the rest is either hard to recognize or its a slow alg.
SV has like a few good cases and the rest are both hard to recognize and bad algs.
and imo VHLS algs are mostly pretty slow for the goal that VHLS accomplishes. like they're not slow algs themselves, but they're pretty slow for just doing eo.

MGLS a 2-look substep that does F2L-1 + OLL, maybe you'd be interested in that.

anyway, if you want to do OLL before OLL then my opinion is that the best practical option is OLS but only the decent cases. of course you can learn them all, but that's hard. for bad cases, you can either do regular OLL or memorize what OLL you'll get and insert + OLL will be almost as fast as knowing the OLS alg.

plus, if you get a terrible VHLS case + terrible WV/SV case, then i assure you that it would have been faster to just do OLL.


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 30, 2016)

I think treating VHLS as an algorithm set is the wrong mentality. It's just orienting the edges while inserting a pair. Just do it intuitively. 0 algs - no matter when you do it.

Once you understand how edge control works, you can do it naturally and fluently throughout the solve, not just during the 3rd/4th pair.

However, one interesting idea would be to form the last F2L pair (R U R' or R U' R' inserts) while orienting the LL edges. That would leave you open to LS variants like you suggested.

Or, if all the edges are already oriented, form the last F2L pair (R U R' or R U' R' inserts) while setting up an easy WV/SV case. What characteristic of WV/SV cases makes them easy? 1 misoriented corner? oriented corners adjacent to the pair?


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 30, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> What characteristic of WV/SV cases makes them easy? 1 misoriented corner? oriented corners adjacent to the pair?



1 or 2 misoriented corners, which are not the UBL corner. Those are the only cases I use anyhow


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 1, 2016)

Thanks for all the answers; however I wasn't really looking into learning it for myself. I was thinking it could be used as possibly an alternative to or gateway into VLS. I think, personally, that LS methods or substeps are the future of cubing. The concept of VHLS applied to when there is one more slot left could however be useful. It could open up users of CFOP and similar methods to the possibility of methods like ZZ-CT, phazing, or as previously mentioned, winter variation. I am in the process of learning ZZ-CT, and I think that many CFOP users would benefit greatly from this style of LL or technically, LL skip, without having to learn EOLine or ZZF2L.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 1, 2016)

Sue Doenim said:


> Thanks for all the answers; however I wasn't really looking into learning it for myself. I was thinking it could be used as possibly an alternative to or gateway into VLS. I think, personally, that LS methods or substeps are the future of cubing. The concept of VHLS applied to when there is one more slot left could however be useful. It could open up users of CFOP and similar methods to the possibility of methods like ZZ-CT, phazing, or as previously mentioned, winter variation. I am in the process of learning ZZ-CT, and I think that many CFOP users would benefit greatly from this style of LL or technically, LL skip, without having to learn EOLine or ZZF2L.


I sometimes use it so that i can get a mostly 2 gen LS or last 2 slots when i bother using CFOP though i would say that it is still more useful to just use straight multislotting most of the time (hence why feliks-probably the best multislotter- is faster than Mats- one of the few people who uses VLS most of the time- 90% of the time).


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 1, 2016)

While we are talking about LS methods, would it be possible to do an L2S/LS method after roux F2B? assume the centers are placed correctly. Inserting the last 2 D edges could be made into a ls-influencing method.

anyway, I was working on a different strategy for columns-first, after building the columns, and I think I came up with a good Idea(completely intuitive for me, because Im rouxer) that is fairly efficient and doesn't require S moves. It is fairly rotationlessness, the only rotations ae during the column-building step. here is an example solve. anyone still interested?
The last steps could be optimized with algorithms, which I Have yet to generate.(one example alg set would be solving UL/UR and DL/DR simultaneously, alg count could be shortened by placing them all in the U layer i think.)
EDIT: in the example solve, the DL/DR edges could also be solved by placing them at UF/UB and then doing D/D' M2 D/D', which would be a better solve ergonomically.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 1, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> anyway, I was working on a different strategy for columns-first, after building the columns, and I think I came up with a good Idea(completely intuitive for me, because Im rouxer) that is fairly efficient and doesn't require S moves. It is fairly rotationlessness, the only rotations ae during the column-building step. here is an example solve. anyone still interested?
> The last steps could be optimized with algorithms, which I Have yet to generate.(one example alg set would be solving UL/UR and DL/DR simultaneously, alg count could be shortened by placing them all in the U layer i think.)
> EDIT: in the example solve, the DL/DR edges could also be solved by placing them at UF/UB and then doing D/D' M2 D/D', which would be a better solve ergonomically.


I could follow the pairs, CMLL and EO, but after that I was completely lost. It seems you do a lot of moves and accomplish very little. Solving DR+DL straight away is very easy in this case, then you can do Roux style LSE. My ending to your example solve would be
R2 S' R2 S// DR+DL
M U2 M' U' M2 U' // UR+UL
M U2 M' U2 M2 // L3E
It's 8 STM (11 HTM) shorter. Yes, the R2 S isn't great to execute, but it's no worse than yours. You could do it as z' y U2 M' U2 M y' z, but the R2 S can be done with one regrip whereas rotating needs two.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 1, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> I could follow the pairs, CMLL and EO, but after that I was completely lost. It seems you do a lot of moves and accomplish very little. Solving DR+DL straight away is very easy in this case, then you can do Roux style LSE. My ending to your example solve would be
> R2 S' R2 S// DR+DL
> M U2 M' U' M2 U' // UR+UL
> M U2 M' U2 M2 // L3E
> It's 8 STM (11 HTM) shorter. Yes, the R2 S isn't great to execute, but it's no worse than yours. You could do it as z' y U2 M' U2 M y' z, but the R2 S can be done with one regrip whereas rotating needs two.


so here is what my general strategy is:
-EO on both sides, <U,M,D>-gen
-get UL/UR and DL/DR on U layer
-execute an EPLL to solve UL/UR and get DL/DR opposite each other, then do D/D' M2 D'/D to solve UL/UR and DL/DR simultaneously(note to self: make an algset to do this in one step later)
-roux step 4c.

The problem with solving DR/DL and then LSE is that it ie pretty much a shittier roux. This method, however, the last steps are Completely <UMD>-gen so its much easier. This method, if fully color neutral, means that most of the time you already have one pair completed, and pair building is much more efficient there. My method tries to solve UL/UR and DL/DR Simultaneously, so you can just do a simple 4c <M,U> algorithm afterwards. The basis of this Idea was to prevent columns-first from being a redux down to Roux like it is at the moment.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 2, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> The problem with solving DR/DL and then LSE is that it ie pretty much a shittier roux


Yes, I agree. 



Shiv3r said:


> The basis of this Idea was to prevent columns-first from being a redux down to Roux like it is at the moment.


Many early methods were corners first, but all the slice moves and rotations were awkward. It is pretty easy to see that solving a few edges while solving the corners is far more efficient. More advanced corner first methods did that. PCMS is one where you solve the 4 E slice edges while solving the bottom corners. Roux is another which solves 6 edges while solving the bottom corners. Roux seems to be what all corner first derivatives tend towards as you try optimise them. I think to do something just to be different to Roux is a mistake. You should do it because it's more efficient or easier. In this case, I think your method is neither.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 2, 2016)

I have two things for roux solvers: one, when you are trting to teach friends, use a sandwich-style corners first method like this because it transitions so nicely to roux(you can switch steps over slowly, and it isnt too bad)
and second, for trying to learn blockbuilding, I think that this is absolutely awesome and totally useful.


----------



## Attila (Dec 2, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> R2 S' R2 S// DR+DL
> M U2 M' U' M2 U' // UR+UL
> M U2 M' U2 M2 // L3E
> It's 8 STM (11 HTM) shorter.



It’s even shorter: 

F2 L2 U S2 U’

B2 R’ r’ F2 R r


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 2, 2016)

anyway, what are the general thoughts on ZZ-4? It seems that with a little toying with it could be a nice method. Even if people don't use the method, I still think that Ideas such as fixing parity while pairing last 2 edges and EPLL+parity algs are very useful and should be implemented in other solving methods soon. Anyone have suggestions to improve ZZ-4?


----------



## Sion (Dec 4, 2016)

I've been paying attention to my method for solving, which is Columns first. I've started to realize my solving habits are different than the method I proclaim to be using, which is PCMS. I've been able to write down the steps I use to solve, including steps I want to add to fit my solving style:

1: Solve Corner-edge pairs. When permuting one pair, I want to start working at simultaneously orienting the next. PCMS works at finding good and bad pairs, and reorienting bad pairs after finishing the pair, I work on solving one pair, but set up the next after. This helps keep my movecount lower while getting rid of all the pesky cube rotations in PCMS.

2: permute corners. this shouldnt be too much of a step, but I'm going to learn a cll set soon.

3: orient DB, DR, AND DL edges. they need to have the Color of the D layer center facing correctly, but they don't need to be solved necessarily. 

4:L5EO

5: PUDLE (Permute U and D layer edges, using a single alg)


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 5, 2016)

Not too bad but still not great efficiency wise:

Pairs 18 STM + CLL 9 STM + EO-1 8 STM + L5EO 8 STM + PUDLE 12 STM = ~55 STM


----------



## Sion (Dec 5, 2016)

Sorry for the double post, but I was playing with my 4x4, which is a puzzle I have yet to learn how to completely solve. However, I have been playing around with some intuitive blockbuilding and I think I created a new method. It's really intuitive for f3l, and the LL is something I need go work on more, but I'm hoping go collab.

1: Solve a 3x3x4 block on the back. To me, this was the longest step, but probably more because I am not too familliar with how Cubies move around it.

2: at front, solve two 1x1x3 pillars. This should leave f3l in a state of the FD edges unsolved and it's center.

3: Solve the remaining centers and FD edges. 

4: 3 look last layer
4a: DLL, Dedges last layer. You set up the Last Layer dedges so the last steps are like LL on 3x3.
4b: OLL
4c: PLL 
I was able to do everything except solving the dedges, which I doubt there is an algorithm set for, since most method's set the 4x4 into a 3x3 set before finally solving.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 5, 2016)

Sion said:


> Sorry for the double post, but I was playing with my 4x4, which is a puzzle I have yet to learn how to completely solve. However, I have been playing around with some intuitive blockbuilding and I think I created a new method. It's really intuitive for f3l, and the LL is something I need go work on more, but I'm hoping go collab.
> 
> 1: Solve a 3x3x4 block on the back. To me, this was the longest step, but probably more because I am not too familliar with how Cubies move around it.
> 
> ...


This is somewhere between K4, OBLBL and Hoya. It's interesting but i think you would have a fair bit of work for the comms used by K4 for LL


----------



## Sion (Dec 5, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> This is somewhere between K4, OBLBL and Hoya. It's interesting but i think you would have a fair bit of work for the comms used by K4 for LL



Do you think it's efficient at least?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 5, 2016)

Sion said:


> Do you think it's efficient at least?


Not more than the methods unmixed.


----------



## Sion (Dec 5, 2016)

Can someone do some example solves comparing this to other methods? I can't fully do last layer yet.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 5, 2016)

I need some algs for DLL, then yes.
and instead of OLL/PLL, I would suggest doing some EO magic and then doing COLL->EPLL+parity because you skip PLL Parity


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 5, 2016)

And Anyone have any thoughts about ZZ-4? after we polish it, I'm considering making a video tutorial...


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 6, 2016)

Sion said:


> Can someone do some example solves comparing this to other methods? I can't fully do last layer yet.


The nice thing about example solves is that you can take your time on them and think carefully about each step. As long as you think about factors that could play a role in a speedsolve (for example, if a case would be difficult to see, or whether a sequence of moves needs a lot of regrips or is hard to execute fast), then you can get a reasonable example solve without being that fast at speed solving. It's also OK to look up algorithms for steps you don't know in an example solve.

Algorithms exist for every step in your method. The tricky part is 4a. I'd solve this step with commutators to pair the edges two at a time. Have a look a the algorithms for the K4 method and find some that are suitable. You'd only need a handful of them.


----------



## Sion (Dec 6, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> The nice thing about example solves is that you can take your time on them and think carefully about each step. As long as you think about factors that could play a role in a speedsolve (for example, if a case would be difficult to see, or whether a sequence of moves needs a lot of regrips or is hard to execute fast), then you can get a reasonable example solve without being that fast at speed solving. It's also OK to look up algorithms for steps you don't know in an example solve.
> 
> Algorithms exist for every step in your method. The tricky part is 4a. I'd solve this step with commutators to pair the edges two at a time. Have a look a the algorithms for the K4 method and find some that are suitable. You'd only need a handful of them.



Yeah. I'm probably calling my method BDOP (Blocks, DLL, OLL, PLL.) 

DLL is just an alg to move the individual edges to properly pair them up to lower the alg count in OLL t9 only 3x3 cases.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 6, 2016)

A quite possible Idea is to pair them up early, like do all the block except like one edge...
See, All you need for M-slice edge pairing is pretty much the pieces on the U layer...
The algs I would need to do this: A last 2 edges alg that keeps the blocks solved, and maybe a last 4 edges(pairing last 2 edges and flipping either UL/UR edge) case like EOpairing, then after I get those two/three algs I would be good. Maybe even solving edges and orienting them is a good Idea... so we can just dp COLL/EPLL+parity(9 algs total)


----------



## Sion (Dec 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> A quite possible Idea is to pair them up early, like do all the block except like one edge...
> See, All you need for M-slice edge pairing is pretty much the pieces on the U layer...
> The algs I would need to do this: A last 2 edges alg that keeps the blocks solved, and maybe a last 4 edges(pairing last 2 edges and flipping either UL/UR edge) case like EOpairing, then after I get those two/three algs I would be good. Maybe even solving edges and orienting them is a good Idea... so we can just dp COLL/EPLL+parity(9 algs total)



While this would be more efficient, there wold probably be an extremely high algorithm count, including being (probably) long. I mean, maybe we could try an L5DO to throw the puzzle into a 3X3 state prior, but once again, it would be a bit excessive on the algorithm count.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 6, 2016)

b


Sion said:


> While this would be more efficient, there wold probably be an extremely high algorithm count, including being (probably) long. I mean, maybe we could try an L5DO to throw the puzzle into a 3X3 state prior, but once again, it would be a bit excessive on the algorithm count.


but for the second Idea, I just need those two algs. I could do the rest intuitively. 
While I do lile this Idea, I am still rooting for ZZ-4,(Im calling it Lewis Method) because that is pretty much Yau/Meyer for ZZ, which really needs a bigcube application.


----------



## Sion (Dec 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> b
> 
> but for the second Idea, I just need those two algs. I could do the rest intuitively.
> While I do lile this Idea, I am still rooting for ZZ-4,(Im calling it Lewis Method) because that is pretty much Yau/Meyer for ZZ, which really needs a bigcube application.



ZZ-4/Lewis and BDOP/Sion methods are very different.

BDOP is focused on directly solving blocks for the f3l, strait on In the pattern of 3x3 extended to 3x3x4, and two 1x3x3 pillars to filling in the FD edges and last centers. The whole purpose is to avoid reduction pairing by solving blocks instead to directly contribute to finishing instead of reduction to a 3x3 state and then solving.

BDOP doesn't really focus on how to solve the centers, although I say adjacent are better since it gives more wigglw room to solve. So if you were building your major block based off of the Red, white, and blue corner, you would solve those centers first. Then, you would focus on adding a 1x3x3 extension to that, including the fourth center. Then, after solving the 1x1x3 pillars, you would focus on the FD edges and solving the last two centers, which in my experience is insanely easy and intuitive because they are adjacent. 

Then DLL, OLL, PLL, which is the only reduction part of the method.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 6, 2016)

Sion said:


> ZZ-4/Lewis and BDOP/Sion methods are very different.
> 
> BDOP is focused on directly solving blocks for the f3l, strait on In the pattern of 3x3 extended to 3x3x4, and two 1x3x3 pillars to filling in the FD edges and last centers. The whole purpose is to avoid reduction pairing by solving blocks instead to directly contribute to finishing instead of reduction to a 3x3 state and then solving.
> 
> ...


I know, but I have gotten Lewis mostly polished, and I'm advocating for it. Not that I'm against this method, however, I am helping to develop it because I like developing methods.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 6, 2016)

what are average movecounts for ZZ-4?


----------



## Sion (Dec 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I know, but I have gotten Lewis mostly polished, and I'm advocating for it. Not that I'm against this method, however, I am helping to develop it because I like developing methods.



I got it!

DOLL (Dedge orient last layer, so just simply flipping the edge instead of moving them around) COLL, EEPLL (Extended Edge Permutation last layer)

So BDCE


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 6, 2016)

Sion said:


> I got it!
> 
> DOLL (Dedge orient last layer, so just simply flipping the edge instead of moving them around) COLL, EEPLL (Extended Edge Permutation last layer)
> 
> So BDCE


I think that Dedge pairing is simpler, and then EO+ COLL-EPLL+parity is better, mostly because EPLL+parity is so amazing.


Teoidus said:


> what are average movecounts for ZZ-4?


except for the 3x3 stage, slightly more than Yau/Meyer because of the EOpairing. The 3x3 stage, however, is fairly low movecount since it is ZZ and not CFOP.


----------



## Sion (Dec 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I think that Dedge pairing is simpler, and then EO+ COLL-EPLL+parity is better, mostly because EPLL+parity is so amazing.
> 
> except for the 3x3 stage, slightly more than Yau/Meyer because of the EOpairing. The 3x3 stage, however, is fairly low movecount since it is ZZ and not CFOP.



Actually, it's harder, since they would need to both flip and commute, and the algs would be far more confusing.

Edit: not to mention the EPLLs are more roux-like (most likely) and MU algorithms are much more easy to remember and are also quick to execute.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 6, 2016)

If dedge pairing takes more moves, then it'll pretty much be inferior to Yau/Meyer  ZZ does not save that many moves compared to CFOP, and I think that still holds, even with EPLL+parity


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 7, 2016)

No, I saisd wrong. It's not too inefficient, It just is how you place edges, sometimes an extra move is needed to orient an edge, and there are some nice algs you can do to skip parity at the same time as pairing the last two edges. The algs are generally nicer than Yau, and it skips parity completely, so it is actually a little more efficient than Yau/Meyer


----------



## Sion (Dec 7, 2016)

On my method for 4x4, I might just learn K4 LL, making my method BCFK (Block, Columns, Final two centers and FD Dedge, K4 Last Layer (CLL, Commutator ELL)


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 7, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> No, I saisd wrong. It's not too inefficient, It just is how you place edges, sometimes an extra move is needed to orient an edge, and there are some nice algs you can do to skip parity at the same time as pairing the last two edges. The algs are generally nicer than Yau, and it skips parity completely, so it is actually a little more efficient than Yau/Meyer


No, as I pointed out before, you don't skip parity. Try generating algs for all of the cases. Half of them will be nice short algs that can be reduced to some variation on slice, swap edges, slice back (and the algs are _exactly_ the same as Yau), and the other half will be really nasty algs that are as bad as or worse than the standard OLL parity algs.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 7, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> No, as I pointed out before, you don't skip parity. Try generating algs for all of the cases. Half of them will be nice short algs that can be reduced to some variation on slice, swap edges, slice back (and the algs are _exactly_ the same as Yau), and the other half will be really nasty algs that are as bad as or worse than the standard OLL parity algs.



r U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' U2 l U2 r2 is pretty nice actually. (Or its mirror, which seems to be more popular.) You can also use a conjugate [F': r U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' U2 l U2 r2] to get an alg for another L2E+parity case.

It's a bit like whether you choose to do L2E algs on 5x5x5; people generally agree that L2E is good for 5x5x5, so provided that EO inspection is easy, this should be preferred over a separate OLL parity step. In Z4 and Z4-like methods most of the edge pairs are already oriented by the time you get to pairing the last two, so this shouldn't be too hard.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 7, 2016)

I feel like if you're going to go for this, it's much better to just keep track of which dedges end up flipped while chain pairing as normal, then doing EO the traditional ZZ way. Otherwise you can't chain pair and you have probability of getting a very long pairing case

Another idea would be to place all wings in their proper orbits at the beginning of the solve. idk how you'd do this but that'd be perrty damn cool


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 7, 2016)

The problem I have with sion's method is that its pretty much K4 but he does an OBLBL blockbuilding approach to get f3l.


----------



## Sion (Dec 7, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> The problem I have with sion's method is that its pretty much K4 but he does an OBLBL blockbuilding approach to get f3l.



I looked at OBLBL, It develops a 3x3 block from a 2x2 block, and then doing the final extension. Sion Does 1x3x3, 2x3x3, 3x3x3, 4x3x3.

As for last layer, it is still up in the air; I'm definitely thinking in terms of some form of a unique LNE (Last nine edges) of three steps, after solving COLL.

L5EO: do a general L5EO to flip most of the edges as if it were on a 3x3.

LNEA: Last Nine Edges Augment, flip remaining edges while inserting Last FD edge. this would also be the prime step to solve Parity cases.

EEPLL: extended EPLL, or just permute the already oriented edges, but unsolved edges in a single algorithm.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 8, 2016)

Movecount?


----------



## Sion (Dec 8, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Movecount?



Not sure. I need to find software to help me gather algs. this method is still im very early development.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 9, 2016)

I think I have come up with a nice 1look last layer with very few algs for ZZ-d. in a 2-gen solve, you can either do 2-gen OCLL and then EPLL, which isn't that nice, or full 2GLL, which has about 85 algorithms. I have come up with an algorithm set for solving the last layer in 1 look when the edges are oriented phased and the corners are permuted. The alg count? 28. It is just the ZZLL algorithms for the 2-gen COLL's. It may be similar to ZZ-orbit or things like that, but if this hasn't been come up with yet, Im calling it ZZ-dab, because Its ZZ-d with a ZZ-a/ZZ-b style 1LLL.


----------



## TDM (Dec 9, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I think I have come up with a nice 1look last layer with very few algs for ZZ-d. in a 2-gen solve, you can either do 2-gen OCLL and then EPLL, which isn't that nice, or full 2GLL, which has about 85 algorithms. I have come up with an algorithm set for solving the last layer in 1 look when the edges are oriented phased and the corners are permuted. The alg count? 28. It is just the ZZLL algorithms for the 2-gen COLL's. It may be similar to ZZ-orbit or things like that, but if this hasn't been come up with yet, Im calling it ZZ-dab, because Its ZZ-d with a ZZ-a/ZZ-b style 1LLL.


This has been thought of lots of times before; the earliest I know of it being suggested was here. Most people who've discussed this have come to the conclusion that forcing the edges to be unphased would actually be better, since not only would LS be shorter, but the LL algs would also be better. Though obviously you'd want to not _always_ for unphased edges, e.g. if there's a 3 move WV/SV (which could lead to a LL skip).


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 9, 2016)

TDM said:


> This has been thought of lots of times before; the earliest I know of it being suggested was here. Most people who've discussed this have come to the conclusion that forcing the edges to be unphased would actually be better, since not only would LS be shorter, but the LL algs would also be better. Though obviously you'd want to not _always_ for unphased edges, e.g. if there's a 3 move WV/SV (which could lead to a LL skip).


That would double the alg count, I believe. If that isn't nice, what about 2-gen Winter variation into EPLL? I have a 2gWV alg sheet if you want me to share it with you guys


----------



## TDM (Dec 9, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> That would double the alg count, I believe. If that isn't nice, what about 2-gen Winter variation into EPLL? I have a 2gWV alg sheet if you want me to share it with you guys


It would - there are 54 algs for LL - but it's still far lower than most other 1-look LL methods.

I'd be interested in seeing a 2-gen WV alg sheet - surely the algs aren't that good? I generated algs for 2-gen WV _ignoring the edge_ a few days ago and some of the algs for that were already 11+ moves. But maybe the algs for normal WV aren't actually that much longer, in which case it might actually be good. I've never tried generating algs for this before so I honestly don't know much about this!


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 10, 2016)

TDM said:


> It would - there are 54 algs for LL - but it's still far lower than most other 1-look LL methods.
> 
> I'd be interested in seeing a 2-gen WV alg sheet - surely the algs aren't that good? I generated algs for 2-gen WV _ignoring the edge_ a few days ago and some of the algs for that were already 11+ moves. But maybe the algs for normal WV aren't actually that much longer, in which case it might actually be good. I've never tried generating algs for this before so I honestly don't know much about this!


here. Not all the algs are nice, but still... Its possibly the best way to solve a cube 2gen, I think...


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 10, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Not all the algs are nice, but still... Its possibly the best way to solve a cube 2gen, I think...



Is it possible to get nicer non-2-gen algs that still preserve the 2-gen corner permutation? For example, F2 L' U' L U F2 and its inverse are 1-2 moves shorter than the 2-gen version (U' R U R' U2 R U' R') and still preserve CP, though in this case the last two pieces aren't already paired up and this isn't a lot nicer than the <R,U> one to begin with.

Or, just learn full 2GLL!!!!!111! Around half of the cases can be done with two Sunes (for most of these cases there aren't any better 2-gen algs), and some of the remaining cases are a combination of algs (Sune + Bruno = R U R' U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R) or a conjugate ([R U R' U: Sune U2]); in effect you really only need to learn about 15 algs and their mirrors/inverses.


----------



## TDM (Dec 10, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> here. Not all the algs are nice, but still... Its possibly the best way to solve a cube 2gen, I think...


Wow, nowhere near as long as I was expecting. The high chance of H/Z is still a problem if you want to stay fully 2-gen though (but isn't such a problem if you don't mind doing <M, U>).


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 10, 2016)

I think the best way to solve the 2gen group wouldprobably either be something intuitive like LSE or some 2phase algorithm set


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 11, 2016)

I think that it would be useful to have "partial Winter Variation" algs, more than partial corner control but less than WV, that would orient 2 corners, adjacently if if possible. This would be helpful for Roux, drastically reducing the number of OLLCP algs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 11, 2016)

Sue Doenim said:


> I think that it would be useful to have "partial Winter Variation" algs, more than partial corner control but less than WV, that would orient 2 corners, adjacently if if possible. This would be helpful for Roux, drastically reducing the number of OLLCP algs.


This can be done intuitively by varying the final insert.

But Roux doesn't use OLLCP...


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 11, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> But Roux doesn't use OLLCP...


You can use OLLCP to fuse CMLL and EO in one step, but its not used very often due to the immense number of algs. I also just realized that it would be better to misorient all corners, like in ZZ-Blah, giving only Pi and H cases, instead of headlights, chameleon eyes, L, and solved. Only 60 algorithms would be needed, only 18 more than CMLL and 300 less than full OLLCP.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 11, 2016)

Sue Doenim said:


> You can use OLLCP to fuse CMLL and EO in one step, but its not used very often due to the immense number of algs. I also just realized that it would be better to misorient all corners, like in ZZ-Blah, giving only Pi and H cases, instead of headlights, chameleon eyes, L, and solved. Only 60 algorithms would be needed, only 18 more than CMLL and 300 less than full OLLCP.


I am well aware of Pinky pie and CMLLEO though I really don't think that either of them are better than straight CMLL with a tiny bit of edge control thrown in. Also, If you misorient all corners, you give an extra step to impede lookahead and you still have to implement 2 edges in the d-layer which means that you may really as well just build a full F2L


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 12, 2016)

TDM said:


> Wow, nowhere near as long as I was expecting. The high chance of H/Z is still a problem if you want to stay fully 2-gen though (but isn't such a problem if you don't mind doing <M, U>).


Yeah, I'm learning ZZ-d(porky2 style) and also I'm learning these algs for OH. Its a really nice way to do 2-gen solving, because It's less algs than 2GLL(easier to recognize as well) and faster than 2gOCLL-EPLL.
One thing I noticed is that when I do this, I get a LL skip very often(about 1 in 4/5 solves or so). Isn't the chance of an EPLL skip more like 1/12 or something like that?

One of the inspirations for coming up with a faster thing than 2gen OCLL-EPLL was me trying to compete in the 2-gen category in the Reddit weekly competition and too lazy/Not liking recognition for 2gll algorithms.

Maybe 2-sided (E)PLL recognition may be a good Idea as well.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 12, 2016)

L/R centers
Dedge correction (place in proper orbits) + 2color separation on L4C
EO-COL+L4C (Like in Yau)
z' 
Pair 4 edges at once with u2, (aka 4-4 pairing)
ZZF2L with EOCross

4x4 method?


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 12, 2016)

Hm chainpairing is still a problem.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 12, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Hm chainpairing is still a problem.


yeah... This is pretty much ZZ-Hoya/Z4-Hoya, which has been created already, and EOCross pairing is less efficient than normal EOline edgepairing.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yeah... This is pretty much ZZ-Hoya/Z4-Hoya, which has been created already, and EOCross pairing is less efficient than normal EOline edgepairing.



I don't know where you're getting these.. definitely not a hoya variant, I don't think there's a 4x4 method that performs 2-color reduction + orbit correction, and EOCross dedge pairing wont' be any less efficient than EOLine edgepairing. Unless you mean blockbuilding, in which case I think the inefficiency is compensated for by the fact that EOCross is QTM optimized (there is even data from gyroninja that says that EOCross is optimal QTM if you don't openslot)

My issue is that I dont' think there is a way to chain pair with u2s. One thing I can think to do is to place 2 "buffer" pairs and then pair 2 dedges at a time with u2s (so it'd be 2-2-2-2). I dont' think 4-4 is always possible.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 12, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I don't know where you're getting these.. definitely not a hoya variant, I don't think there's a 4x4 method that performs 2-color reduction + orbit correction, and EOCross dedge pairing wont' be any less efficient than EOLine edgepairing. Unless you mean blockbuilding, in which case I think the inefficiency is compensated for by the fact that EOCross is QTM optimized (there is even data from gyroninja that says that EOCross is optimal QTM if you don't openslot)
> 
> My issue is that I dont' think there is a way to chain pair with u2s. One thing I can think to do is to place 2 "buffer" pairs and then pair 2 dedges at a time with u2s (so it'd be 2-2-2-2). I dont' think 4-4 is always possible.


I misread, I didn't see the orbit part. May be a nice Idea, but if Orbit means what I think it means it won't be pretty. How many algs for orienting edges? cuz it seems like Orienting dedges then pairing dedges seems a lot like doing dedgepairing twice... and yeah, the u2's would both be hard to chainpair and kill lookahead. EOpairing is probably a better Idea instead of almost edgepairing twice.


----------



## TDM (Dec 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Yeah, I'm learning ZZ-d(porky2 style) and also I'm learning these algs for OH. Its a really nice way to do 2-gen solving, because It's less algs than 2GLL(easier to recognize as well) and faster than 2gOCLL-EPLL.
> One thing I noticed is that when I do this, I get a LL skip very often(about 1 in 4/5 solves or so). Isn't the chance of an EPLL skip more like 1/12 or something like that?
> 
> One of the inspirations for coming up with a faster thing than 2gen OCLL-EPLL was me trying to compete in the 2-gen category in the Reddit weekly competition and too lazy/Not liking recognition for 2gll algorithms.
> ...


Yep, it's 1/12. I'm sure you're not _actually_ getting one in 1/4 or 1/5 solves - it's just a really noticeable thing to happen so you're more likely to remember it. Try leaving a comment after every solve with an EPLL skip and take a look at how many there are after 50-100 solves. You'll find it's not as many as you'd think.

I thought 2-sided PLL recognition was something you'd do anyway, it's easier when corners are already permuted


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 12, 2016)

@Shiv3r, it looks like you are doing 2 relatively low-cost, low-impact substeps during your solve (CP during first block, phasing during last insert). why not just combine them into a LS variant? the movecount will be comparable and it will give you more freedom during your blockbuilding.

sure, it's not true zz-d. but does that really matter?


----------



## Y2k1 (Dec 12, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> @Shiv3r, it looks like you are doing 2 relatively low-cost, low-impact substeps during your solve (CP during first block, phasing during last insert). why not just combine them into a LS variant? the movecount will be comparable and it will give you more freedom during your blockbuilding.
> 
> sure, it's not true zz-d. but does that really matter?


So an extension to zz-orbit?


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 12, 2016)

Y2k1 said:


> So an extension to zz-orbit?



i heard u like cases so i gave u 3 cases for each case, so now you can solve cases while you solve cases

3*6=18, and many of them would just be the ZZ-orbit algs with sexy move somewhere inside


----------



## Y2k1 (Dec 13, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> i heard u like cases so i gave u 3 cases for each case, so now you can solve cases while you solve cases



Im sorry to say i do not understand what you mean. Can you ex0lain please? Thanks


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 13, 2016)

Y2k1 said:


> Im sorry to say i do not understand what you mean. Can you ex0lain please? Thanks



i think you would only need 18 algs so phase while solving CP. 3 phasing cases per ZZ-orbit case (6 total).



Spoiler: meme


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 13, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> i think you would only need 18 algs so phase while solving CP. 3 phasing cases per ZZ-orbit case (6 total).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: meme


The actual method I am working on has been changed I am now working on a ZZ-D(recog is much better than CPLS recognition, if you use the porky2 method) LL variant where it is 2gWV+EPLL, which is less algs than 2gLL(31 vs, 85) and gives very nice OH cases due to 2gen-ness(the entire reason for me learning ZZ-D is because the OH potential)


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 13, 2016)

assuming last pair is made in U layer

if you use [RU] wv+epll
=.75+10.26+.75+12=23.76

if you just insert pair and use 2gll
=3+.75+13+.75=17.5

plus, setting up the pair in the U layer costs moves

I would say this approach is ~8 moves worse than just using 2gll


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 13, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> assuming last pair is made in U layer
> 
> if you use [RU] wv+epll
> =.75+10.26+.75+12=23.76
> ...


I Think that 2gLL is hard to recognize(yes, I have tried). Same reason why people don't learn ZBLL(or even full ZZLL) because recognition is worse than COLL/EPLL or something similar. recog is worse enough, even, that you can count the people who know full ZBLL on your fingers. 2gWV+EPLL recog is comparable to a simpler OLL/PLL recog based on what you need to look at.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 13, 2016)

wut 2gll is not hard, you just recognize CO and look at 2 edges


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 13, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I Think that 2gLL is hard to recognize(yes, I have tried). Same reason why people don't learn ZBLL(or even full ZZLL) because recognition is worse than COLL/EPLL or something similar. recog is worse enough, even, that you can count the people who know full ZBLL on your fingers. 2gWV+EPLL recog is comparable to a simpler OLL/PLL recog based on what you need to look at.



yeah, i also dont think the main problem with 2gll is that it's hard to recognize. i think the main problem is that every alg is pretty much exactly the same thing (there is a huge learning curve, hard to remember which case is which). also, the 2gen state is usually deeper than the 3gen state, and you actively invest moves to get there.


----------



## Y2k1 (Dec 13, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> i think you would only need 18 algs so phase while solving CP. 3 phasing cases per ZZ-orbit case (6 total).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: meme


Lol thanks


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 13, 2016)

anyway, I like ZZ-D but I don't want to learn 2GLL just to make it usable.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 13, 2016)

..well, I think the only reason zz-d would be viable is that it ends with 2gll...

the issue with 2g that is that it's very ergonomic but can tend to be inefficient. solving the entire last layer with 1 algorithm is one of few ways in which you can efficiently take advantage of 2g

the other option is to solve all of the remaining f2l+ll with new algsets, like maybe some 3phase orient-separate-permute type thing. those algs will likely be R2-heavy though


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 13, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> ..well, I think the only reason zz-d would be viable is that it ends with 2gll...
> 
> the issue with 2g that is that it's very ergonomic but can tend to be inefficient. solving the entire last layer with 1 algorithm is one of few ways in which you can efficiently take advantage of 2g
> 
> the other option is to solve all of the remaining f2l+ll with new algsets, like maybe some 3phase orient-separate-permute type thing. those algs will likely be R2-heavy though


Its a king OH method anyway, even without 2gLL, even with 2gOCLL-EPLL


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 13, 2016)

zz-d w/o 2gll is certainly not a king OH method, and i'm not sure zz is even a king OH method


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 13, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> zz-d w/o 2gll is certainly not a king OH method, and i'm not sure zz is even a king OH method


ZZ = Roux and both >CFOP in terms of both ergonomics and efficiency


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 13, 2016)

ZZ and CFOP are usually comparable in efficiency, so I don't know where you're getting that

Roux is more efficient but has a lower tps esp. in OH


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 13, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> ZZ and CFOP are usually comparable in efficiency, so I don't know where you're getting that
> 
> Roux is more efficient but has a lower tps esp. in OH


but CFOP is not comparable to ZZ in terms of ergonomics, which I think is a lot more important for OH.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 13, 2016)

I think ZZ ergonomics is a bit overhyped for OH. Sure, you only have to do z rotations, but there are still double turns that CFOP doesn't have and awkward D moves.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 14, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I think ZZ ergonomics is a bit overhyped for OH. Sure, you only have to do z rotations, but there are still double turns that CFOP doesn't have and awkward D moves.


I do say that the beginning of ZZ is a little hard. But I still like the ergonomics of COLL-EPLL over OLL/PLL. You know how hard it is to do G perms OH? In fact, I specifically don't use CFOP for OH because of how much I hate OH-ing the last layer.


----------



## CxCxC (Dec 15, 2016)

Hey everyone,

I had an idea that can be useful for total beginners if they want to start out with the ZZ method.
As everyone knows, LL edges in ZZ are already oriented and so there are only 7 OLL cases that a beginner will have to remember. But if the solver also applies phasing and then solves the OLL, out of the 7 OLL cases, 5 of them will preserve the solved edge permutation and the solver will only have to memorize 9 PLL cases!!!
A-a, A-b, E, F, H, Z, N-a, N-b, T 
and the two OLLs that don't preserve the edge permutation : they are the ones that have all the 4 corners un-oriented.
and instead of using sune/antisune, the solver will have to use Alan/Inverse Alan so that the permutation of the edges is preserved and then he'll get a PLL case only out of the 9 ones that I stated above.

I guess that this can help a beginner solve a cube with moderate speed without having to learn too many algs right from the start 

For the rest of the 2 OLL cases, the edges, if they are not permuted correctly and after applying the OLL, there is a 50% chance that a PLL out of the above 9 will occur, as after applying the OLL, the edges will get permuted correctly 

What do you guys think about this? Can this help a beginner cuber only slightly or can it help him/her to a large extent?


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 15, 2016)

So… ZZ-reduction? It's okay for the reduced alg count, but using OCLL and two-look PLL might be better anyway.

Pros: fewer algs than OCLL + PLL; phasing is very intuitive; lower move count than OCLL + two-look PLL.
Cons: more algs than OCLL + two-look PLL; OCLL preserving phasing has slightly worse algs; you can't always phase while inserting the last pair.

("Frequent skips" as mentioned on the wiki is super-misleading. The skip rates are comparable to OCLL with 2-look PLL.)


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 16, 2016)

I feel like genning a algset: <R2 U D> PLL's, just because I can (mostly for squan lolz)


----------



## Sion (Dec 17, 2016)

I decided to get my 4x4 method and optimize it into a 3x3 method, and actually, it seems quite good, so i'll place the format here. I found it to be a hybrid of Petrus and PCMS, which are two methods highly acclaimed for their low movecount and ergonomics. Since none of the steps are really unique to this method, I'm inclined to call it LMBC, or Low Movecount Block Conglomerate.

- Make a 2x2x3 block at the back of the cube. The sky is the limit. I usually do A 2x2x2 block and add a 1x2x2 extension. However, you could also make a 1x2x3 and extend that into a 2x2x3, or make a 3cross and add the two f2l pairs.

- Make two columns on the F face. you could also do a psuedo WV here if you wanted to.

-COLL/CLL

-L5EOP

Edit:
Can someone do an example solve?


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 17, 2016)

Sion said:


> I decided to get my 4x4 method and optimize it into a 3x3 method, and actually, it seems quite good, so i'll place the format here. I found it to be a hybrid of Petrus and PCMS, which are two methods highly acclaimed for their low movecount and ergonomics. Since none of the steps are really unique to this method, I'm inclined to call it LMBC, or Low Movecount Block Conglomerate.
> 
> - Make a 2x2x3 block at the back of the cube. The sky is the limit. I usually do A 2x2x2 block and add a 1x2x2 extension. However, you could also make a 1x2x3 and extend that into a 2x2x3, or make a 3cross and add the two f2l pairs.
> 
> ...



Hilarious, this is literally hawaiian kociemba + a y rotation

It just makes my day that two people have come up with this method independently.


----------



## Sion (Dec 17, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Hilarious, this is literally hawaiian kociemba + a y rotation
> 
> It just makes my day that two people have come up with this method independently.



So I created Hawaiian Kociemba for 4x4? AWESOME. I CALL IT Hawaii 4-O!

Heres the overview of Hawwii 4-O

1: Solve a 3x3x4 block on the back. To me, this was the longest step, but probably more because I am not too familliar with how Cubies move around it.

2: at front, solve two 1x1x3 pillars. This should leave f3l in a state of the FD edges unsolved and it's center.

3: L5EO- do a general L5EO to flip most of the edges as if it were on a 3x3.

4: LNEA- Last Nine Edges Augment, flip remaining edges while inserting Last FD edge. this would also be the prime step to solve Parity cases.

5: EEPLL- extended EPLL, or just permute the already oriented edges, but unsolved edges in a single algorithm.


----------



## AreRouxAmused (Dec 17, 2016)

Has there been any subsets created for roux because I want to do CO and maybe CP with a last slot f2l style insertion?


----------



## Đỗ Viên (Dec 18, 2016)

I created a new method for 3x3. I call it Perry !
The step:
S1: Make b-block + last edge in E-slice ( seems like 3x2x1 block in LD+ 2x2x2 block in BR) (intuitive)
S2: Orient
a) Orient corner (23 cases)
b) Orient edge (intuitive)
S3: Make 2x2x1 block on UBL (intuitive)
S4: Permute last 4 corner and last 3 edge (about 20 cases + symmetry).
What do you think about this method ?


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 18, 2016)

If you have FB + 2x2x2 on DBR solved, then CO and EO solved, it will be hard to make a square in UBL without breaking your 2x2x2 on DBR

Or maybe I'm not reading this correctly. Example solve?


----------



## Đỗ Viên (Dec 18, 2016)

You can use M,U2 to make a square on UBL without breaking your 2x2x2 in DBR.
Here is example solve:
SCR: F' D R' F B2 L' U' F U2 R D2 R2 B2 L D2 R' U2 L2 F2
S1: F2 R U' B r2/FB
+ U R2 U' R U' M U' r U2 R' U' R2 U2 R'/2x2x2 in DBR
S2
a) skip
b) M' U2 M U2 M' U M
S3: U2 M' U2 M U M' U2 M U2
S4: B2 U L2 F2 U' B2 D2 R2 D' F2 D'
sorry for my English


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 19, 2016)

*Recognizing and Solving CP in Inspection*

_Motivation_
To solve FB + EO + CP within the first 13 moves of the solve and without any need for a complex recognition system. This is a big cornerstone of a method that I'm working on (which begins with EO -> CPLine -> FB), and I figured I'd put this up here in the meantime since it could help develop other CP-first methods. I don't know nearly enough group theory to formalize a lot of the things below (and if someone does, please offer suggestions as I'd like to look into group theory/algebra at some point), but I'll try and explain as concretely as I can.

_CP basics_
If we assume DLB and DLF are solved, the remaining 6 corner pieces can be in 6! = 720 distinct permutations. However, only 120 of these permutations are reachable by <R,U> (there is a proof of this at Jaap's puzzles page).
For each of the 720-120 = 600 permutations not in <R,U>, there exists at least 1 single swap that will place the corners into <R,U> (you can prove this yourself by solving up to 2x2x3+EO, then solving the F2L and OLL with only <R,U>, leaving either an adjacent or diagonal swap. Had this swap been performed before you solved F2L+OLL <R,U>, you would have been left only with an EPLL, showing that one need only a single swap to place any permutation into the 2-gen group). Since we can perform pure corner twists with sune combinations, we also know that corner orientation is completely solvable <R,U>, so we can now extend this statement and say that this one swap is all that is necessary to make the corners completely solvable <R,U>. I'll call this swap the "key swap".

_Only 5 distinct key swaps are necessary to reduce any of 720 permutations to the <R,U> group_
For any of the 720 permutations, we can use <R,U> to solve ULB and ULF, leaving the remaining 4 pieces on R unsolved. We can now use a single R move to fix one corner on the R layer, leaving at most 3 on R unsolved. These 3 corners can be permuted in any of 3! = 6 ways. Since one of these permutations results in the 4 corners on R being permuted correctly relative to each other, we only need 5 distinct swaps to reduce any 6-corner permutation to one solvable <R,U>.

_By extension, any permutation on 6 corners can be reduced to a functionally equivalent key swap that restores the corners to <R,U> group_
Examples: If I perform an E permutation, which performs a double 2-cycle on U, I can put corners back into <R,U> group by performing a Y perm (single diagonal swap on U) or [R2: T perm] (single adjacent swap on D).

_With DLB solved, DLF piece insertions can be encoded as a composition of an "auxiliary" swap and some permutation on the remaining 6 corners_
So basically we can express the insertion of the last FB corner piece as a composition of the single swap between the actual yet unsolved DLF piece & whatever piece is currently incorrectly permuted at DLF (= auxiliary swap) and some arbitrary permutation on the remaining 6 corners. Since we know that such an arbitrary permutation can be reduced to a functionally equivalent key swap, we can identify different ways of inserting DLF by the key swaps that their respective 6-corner permutations reduce to.

_Thus any arbitrary permutation of the 8 corners can be expressed by a key swap!_
Since we can express any permutation of 7 corners as a DLF insertion + some leftover permutation of 6 corners, and since we can reduce any DLF insertion to an auxiliary swap + some arbitrary permutation that reduces to a key swap, we can express any permutation of 7 corners in terms of the key swap that will be needed if we simply insert DLF with a pure auxiliary swap. In other words, any permutation of 7 corners can be expressed in terms of a soon-to-be key swap that will be necessary after a pure auxiliary swap is performed to solve DLF. And of course it's sufficient to show that we can do this for 7 corners, since any permutation of the 8 corners can be reached by a permutation of 7 + some rotation. Thus this soon-to-be key swap must be present in any arbitrary 3x3x3 scramble, and so a means of identifying it would allow us to determine what CP fix we need in inspection!

For reasons explained later on tracking CP, I've chosen these key swaps to be defined as the 5 possible swaps between DLF piece and the other 5 pieces if DLF is unsolved, and the 5 possible unique swaps on R if DLF is solved.

_BLD memorization methods encode inverse permutations as a composition of multiple single swaps_
I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, but I figured I'd put this here for completeness' sake. Given some buffer position A, the memo "BCD" essentially can be expanded to: swap positions A&B, then A&C, then A&D. So basically when you BLD trace, you're constructing a way to invert the corner permutation through a series of single swaps.

_The permutation given by any successive series of swaps between positions A B1, A B2, ... A Bn can be inverted by performing the successive series of swaps between positions A B1, B1 B2, ... Bn-1 Bn_
Each new swap in the permutation A B1, A B2, ... A Bn places the piece at A into position B1, B2, ... Bn, resulting in a cyclic right-shift of the string (A B1 B2 ... Bn). Each new swap in A B1, B1 B2, ... Bn-1 Bn places the piece at B1, B2, ... Bn into position A, B1, ... Bn-1, resulting in a cyclic left-shift of the string (A B1 B2 ... Bn). Thus these two permutations are inverses of each other. (lol, someone help formalize this for me pls, i get it intuitively but i don't know group theory or cycle notation)

_Thus modified BLD tracing techniques can be used to determine key swap of any 3x3x3 scramble during inspection_
Rotate the cube so that DLB is solved. We can trace the permutation out as we would in BLD (if we hit the DLF piece, we pretend it's the piece that's actually currently at DLF, essentially imagining the auxiliary swap has already been done). However, instead of keeping track of the swaps A B1, A B2, etc. (which solve the corner permutation being traced), we keep track of the swaps A B1, B1 B2, etc. (which generate the corner permutation being traced), and instead of memorizing the swaps, we memorize a single key swap that we update with each new swap that we trace out. Since we know that any arbitrary permutation of 6 can be reduced to a key swap, we can reduce the composition of the stored key swap + the new swap being traced out to a new, updated key swap. An outline of this algorithm:

1. Let key swap be the identity
2. For each new target in BLD trace:
2a. Update key swap based on the swap between new target and previous target

and of course we don't have to handle cycle breaks the way BLD solvers do as we don't actually have to execute the swaps on a fixed buffer, so we can simply move the buffer to the location of the new cycle and continue updating the key swap from there.

For each of the 30 key swaps, there are 30 possible new swaps... however, don't fear the 900 cases you might have to memorize in order to do this (they're not even real algs, just facts about swaps. Like memorizing your multiplication tables, or eating vegetables. It'll be healthy for you.). I believe you can reduce by symmetry along S and along UL edge, leaving ~225 cases. Either way, if people can memorize hundreds of 3style commutators or ZBLL algorithms I'm sure one can remember these permutations. In the end with AUFs there are only 2 permutations * 3 orientations * 6 swaps = 36 actual algorithms to insert the DLF corner and fix CP.

So now we have a way to figure out the key swap in inspection ("CP Tracing"). Now to discuss how to keep track of this key swap as we solve other things like EO, FB square, etc. ("CP Tracking").

_One need only know the unique effects of F and B moves on key swaps + some simple equivalency rules in order to fully track CP_
Let "generators" mean the 2 faces that we intend to reduce the corners to (for example, if the scramble begins with DLB in ULF position with yellow sticker on L, the two generators that we reduce to will not be <R,U> but <B,R>. This isn't a worry as by the time we solve DLB to its proper place our generators have necessarily shifted back to <R,U>). Now for simplicity's sake we will speak of moves and faces with respect to our generators (so if our generators are <B,R>, we'll call a U move a B move, because that's what it functions as if we imagine <B,R> are actually <R,U>). Now we just have to show that, given some key swap + any face turn wrt our generators, we can easily know what the updated key swap will be.

For U and R moves, tracking CP is pretty trivial. This will be basically identical to tracking pieces on the cube normally.

For L and D moves, tracking CP is essentially the same as for U and R moves, but we also have to make use of the identities L = Rw x' and D = Uw y'. First, the swap is affected by the R or U move respectively (which we have covered above); then, the rotation changes the identity of our generators. For example, if we have an adjacent URB-DRB swap on R with respect to <R,U>, and then we do a D move, we can simply track the effect of the D move on our swap like we do with U moves (so now we have URB-DLB swap, or diagonal swap, since the DRB piece gets moved to DLB from the D move) and then change our generators from <R,U> to <B,U> to account for the y' rotation in the identity D = Uw y'. Notice now though that our definitions in terms of absolute face turns change if we do this: before, an R move wouldn't do much to CP, but after the D move, an R move is essentially an F move with respect to the <B,U> group, and so will have a very different effect. This is why I'm choosing to refer to faces and such wrt generators, so we don't run into these errors.

F and B moves are where things get a bit complicated. First we can just consider F moves, since B moves will be basically the same thing + a rotation (like how we dealt with L and D moves). Because F moves involve moving stuff into and out of the 7th DLF corner position, we get all sorts of strange behavior. I don't see much of a pattern here (though admittedly I haven't looked into it much), so I think the only way to do this is to memorize the effect of an F move on any possible key swap you might have. There will probably be ~105 cases without symmetry (35 possible swaps * 3 possible F moves) so I can't imagine it'd be that bad.
And as said above B moves will essentially behave the same way but with an additional rotation.

_Thus corner permutation can be detected in inspection, tracked or predicted during whatever first setup moves are necessary, and reduced to <R,U> soon after_
So there it is. BLD tracing techniques + some memorization to figure out what swap you need, then some tracking while or before you solve FBsq/EO/whatever crazy first step you want your CP method to have, and then one of 36 DLF insertions that simultaneously reduces the remaining corners to <R,U>. Not quite the missing link of ZZ, but still pretty cool imo.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 19, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> stuff


This seems somewhat similar to what I had in mind when doing B2 though your idea to use BLD memo is something new and could well be a better way to do it than the "triplet of pairs" method I currently use. I also would like to commend you as you explain it much better than I do and in much more detail so very well done!


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 19, 2016)

Sup everyone.

I came up with two 2x2 methods and I will try to help you understand them.

Number one: Fortega 



 Is like ortega, but you can have the opposite side's color for part of the first side. (Note: this is not a good method to use by itself, but you can use it with ortega if you have a good fortega side.)

Example solve with fortega: R U2 R F2 U2 F R2 F U'

Fortega side: Z U R U R'

OLL: U F' R U R' U' R' F R

Solidsides (SS): Y R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R2

and do PBL 

This method is ment for those people who are lazy and use ortega.

The next method, is not developed yet.

The use two algs to solve the whole cube (without bulding a layer/side)

First you use one to orient the corners, then solve the rest.

But I still need to come out with the algs for method no. two, if you could help that would be great!


----------



## 1973486 (Dec 19, 2016)

Sounds like Guimond


----------



## tacgnol (Dec 19, 2016)

that method sounds pretty much like Guimond


----------



## Cale S (Dec 19, 2016)

Orientation in 1 step has been generated, but permuting everything has a lot of cases and not good recognition


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 19, 2016)

1) guimond
2) I came up with this a while ago but abandoned it due to the stupidly high numbers of algs needed


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 19, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Orientation in 1 step has been generated, but permuting everything has a lot of cases and not good recognition



Well how about this. You do step one, then you make a 1x1x2. Do you think that would be too much?


----------



## TDM (Dec 19, 2016)

Sortega
you were one letter off 

Also SS is the name of another 2x2 method so I'd avoid calling a step that.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 19, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> 2) I came up with this a while ago but abandoned it due to the stupidly high numbers of algs needed


More then EG?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 19, 2016)

MASTERMIND2368 said:


> More then EG?


Yes. And with worse recognition.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 19, 2016)

Yes these sound like guimond variants.

Actually speaking of 2x2, is the general consensus that EG is just objectively the best way to go for speedsolving?


----------



## TDM (Dec 19, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Actually speaking of 2x2, is the general consensus that EG is just objectively the best way to go for speedsolving?


I'm no expert, but I believe that, like Pyraminx (which I also don't know much about), it's probably best to be method neutral. Imo it could be good to use a combination of EG, TCLL, RoFL, non-matching layers/faces etc. The more you know, the more likely you'll have a first step skip and will be able to solve the cube in one alg with maybe a one or two move setup.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 20, 2016)

How developed are 5x5 methods? I know there are things like Yau/Hoya5, but most people seem to just stick with freeslicing?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I do say that the beginning of ZZ is a little hard. But I still like the ergonomics of COLL-EPLL over OLL/PLL. You know how hard it is to do G perms OH? In fact, I specifically don't use CFOP for OH because of how much I hate OH-ing the last layer.


g perms can be avoided
(not saying CFOP is good tho)


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 20, 2016)

Every so often, one might get a solve that looks like this, where the third slot has a mismatched pair and the last pair is also formed. (And also edges are all oriented, because no method proposal is complete without assuming that you already use ZZ.)

You could fix the edges during insertion (example), during COLL (example), or during EPLL (example).

Fixing during insertion is the standard way of doing it and since it's the standard way, it's probably also the fastest and you should ignore the rest of this post. As for fixing during COLL, unfortunately it turns out that most of the algs are terrible; even the 2-gen ones are long or awkward (except maybe the pi case). And who's going to bother learning 42 bad algs for something that comes up only once in a few hundred solves?

I shelved the idea a long time ago, but then decided to generate the EPLL+fix algs on a whim and it looks like they're not too bad. There're also only five cases, which can all be done 2-gen, and 2-gen is awesome, right?


Spoiler: FR-BR swap EPLL algs



opposite:
R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 (5f)
R2 U2 R' U' R U R U2 R U R2 U2 R U' R U R U2 R (19f) lol

adjacent:
R2 D' M' U2 M D R2 U2 R2 (9s, 11f)
R U2 R U R U R2 U' R' U R2 U2 R2 (13f)
R' U R U' R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R U2 R2 (13f)

O, clockwise:
(R r) U2 r2 U2 (R r) U' M2 U' M2 (9a, 13f)
R2 U R2 U' R' U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R (15f)

O, anticlockwise:
M2 U M2 U (R r) U2 r2 U2 (R r) (9a, 13f)
R2 U' R2 U R U2 R U R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' (15f)

W:
r2 U M2 U R2 U' M2 U' r2 (9s, 11f)
R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R U R U R U' R (13f)
R2 U2 R2 U' R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' (13f)
R2 U2 (R U R U R) U2 (R' U' R' U' R') U2 R2 (15f)


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 20, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> Every so often, one might get a solve that looks like this, where the third slot has a mismatched pair and the last pair is also formed. (And also edges are all oriented, because no method proposal is complete without assuming that you already use ZZ.)
> 
> You could fix the edges during insertion (example), during COLL (example), or during EPLL (example).
> 
> ...


Interesting and clever idea.
I think you could force this case when blocks are stupid bad, but shouldn't be used much otherwise.

I like: Rw2 U2 R2 U2 Rw2 U2 (6f) [E: actually more like x Rw U2 R2 U2' Rw2' U2' Rw]
For opposite because it feels more tactile than (R2 U2)x3, if that makes sense.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 20, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Interesting and clever idea.
> I think you could force this case when blocks are stupid bad, but shouldn't be used much otherwise.
> 
> I like: Rw2 U2 R2 U2 Rw2 U2 (6f)
> For opposite because it feels more tactile than (R2 U2)x3, if that makes sense.


I already do this technique quite often during roux. It makes planning FB much easier. I usually do like D2 L2 D2 for first block and then R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 for SB. If you could find some algs to fix those sometime later in a roux solve, I would love it(maybe some, like, last SB pair thing)



Sion said:


> I decided to get my 4x4 method and optimize it into a 3x3 method, and actually, it seems quite good, so i'll place the format here. I found it to be a hybrid of Petrus and PCMS, which are two methods highly acclaimed for their low movecount and ergonomics. Since none of the steps are really unique to this method, I'm inclined to call it LMBC, or Low Movecount Block Conglomerate.
> 
> - Make a 2x2x3 block at the back of the cube. The sky is the limit. I usually do A 2x2x2 block and add a 1x2x2 extension. However, you could also make a 1x2x3 and extend that into a 2x2x3, or make a 3cross and add the two f2l pairs.
> 
> ...


I've done this before, usually as a 3cfce variant, and its okay. I can't get super good times on it, but I do know full CLL so I use that.

EDIT: I have tried using it as a method, I just recorded an Ao5 for this method.
Time List(Cstimer copypaste):
1. (23.34) U' R' B Fw2 R2 Uw' D U2 Fw' R Fw R2 Uw F' R' B Rw' F2 Rw' Uw U' L' F Rw Uw2 L' Fw2 B2 U' L2 D Uw2 B2 U2 R' Fw2 D R Fw2 L' 
2. 20.48 L' U' F L2 D' F' B2 U B R' U2 L' D2 L D2 R B2 U2 
3. 23.23 L2 F2 R2 F L2 F D2 F2 R2 D2 F L F' D' R2 D2 U' R' B2 D2 
4. (18.38) D2 U2 F2 L2 R B2 F2 U2 R' F2 D2 F' R' D U' R2 U L' B2 U R2 
5. 19.72 F B2 R D' L F2 B D2 L' F' U2 L2 F' B L2 F U2 F2 U2 R2


----------



## Sion (Dec 21, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I've done this before, usually as a 3cfce variant, and its okay. I can't get super good times on it, but I do know full CLL so I use that.
> 
> EDIT: I have tried using it as a method, I just recorded an Ao5 for this method.
> Time List(Cstimer copypaste):
> ...



all i'm wondering about is the Hawaii 4O method and how that works out once I find software that could generate LNEA algorithms.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 21, 2016)

Hey, so with all The CP+Roux talk, it got me thinking about maybe you could use ZZ-d-style (porky2 style)CP with roux. So the steps would be something like this(may be a really nice OH method, IDK)
1.first square + place DFR/DBR on D in inspection
2.setup DFL corner+ ZZ-d alg(pretty much porky2, which has relatively good recognition)
3.Finish F2B-1, and do something like BLS or some other subset to cancel as much of CMLL/LSE as possible
4.rest of LSE

pros:
-ZZ-porky2 recog simpler than most CP recognition subsets
-easier in inspection - all youre doing is solving first square and permuting the DR corners
-no EOline like the original ZZ variant
-Corner permutation allows for a massive amount of 2-gen solving(I call it 2.5 Gen - <R M U>) -- may be good for OH?

cons:
-Still not any nice algsets for canceling a lot after F2B besides BLS(maybe a pinkie-pie type thing would work -- how many algs would 2.5-gen OLLCP be?)
-Not as nice as CMLL
-the current ZZ-D missing link is not terribly efficient

EDIT: figured out how many algs 2-gen OLLCP would be. 7 CLL's * 8 EO cases = 56 algs. Not too much, given OLLCP usually is a ton of algs. Not sure about alg count with mirrors/inverses, but Definitely less than 2GLL still...


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 21, 2016)

This is B2 or Briggs, average movecount not too far from Roux. CP is surprisingly hard to make efficient


----------



## Attila (Dec 21, 2016)

MASTERMIND2368 said:


> Well how about this. You do step one, then you make a 1x1x2. Do you think that would be too much?


Here is an option, how to reduce the number of second step algs. While orientation step, you need to move 3 same and 1 opposite stickers to both faces (for example, 3 white and 1 yellow stickers on top). After this, you need permute all pieces, (about 15 cases) although it’s still hard for fast recognition.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> This is B2 or Briggs, average movecount not too far from Roux. CP is surprisingly hard to make efficient


Its 2gen pinkie pie, the version I made. I like ZZ-d's recog a lot more, mostly because 15 seconds is like about 60 times less than I need to trace corners... with ZZ-D style recog, I just need to plan first square+ D corners in inspection, and ZZ-D recog is pretty fast.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 21, 2016)

If you do this though, it's going to be as good or worse than roux... movecount is comparable, there are more algs, and there is a longer pause to recognize CP


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 21, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> If you do this though, it's going to be as good or worse than roux... movecount is comparable, there are more algs, and there is a longer pause to recognize CP


The pause isn't too bad(think recognizing first F2L pair), and if you learn the 2gen OLLCP subset(literally 57 algs same as 1look OLL, just 2.5-gen) the movecount is lower, and it is an actually viable pinkie pie variant.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 22, 2016)

It's not at all like recognizing the first F2L pair. You have to both set it up, which takes moves, and then recognize permutation of corners (which is fairly complex). I also don't believe the 2gen OLLCP claim. Let's take a look:

SBcancellations+forceULUR on D: ~4STM
2gen OLLCP: ~11 STM? probably?
7 STM LSE
= 22 STM

vs standard roux:
SB + CMLL: 8 STM
LSE: 14 STM
= 22 STM


----------



## Tony Fisher (Dec 22, 2016)

Not sure if this is the correct place to post this but I recently had the idea that removing stickers might be a good way to help learn a method. Take CFOP for example-

1. Remove all stickers unrelated to the cross.
2. Spend several weeks doing nothing else but the cross.
3. Return the other F2L stickers.
4. Spend several weeks doing nothing else but the cross.
5. Spend several weeks doing nothing else but F2L.
5. Return the remaining stickers. 
6. Spend several weeks doing nothing else but F2L.
7. Kind of breaks down a bit here. Just learn the final layer and practice the whole thing I guess.

The reason behind this is that colours should be easier to spot on a partially stickered cube. So the flow from recognition to execution should be smoother and faster. Hopefully once "perfected" adding stickers back shouldn't disrupt it too much since by then the person is doing the cross or whatever second nature. 
I suspect this is either nonsense or it was thought of like 20 years ago. Curious to know which?


----------



## Sion (Dec 22, 2016)

Tony Fisher said:


> Not sure if this is the correct place to post this but I recently had the idea that removing stickers might be a good way to help learn a method. Take CFOP for example-
> 
> 1. Remove all stickers unrelated to the cross.
> 2. Spend several weeks doing nothing else but the cross.
> ...



Actually, that would be cool. I would say a group of budiet cubes only partially stickered for different steps would be nice. However, it also goes to say that at times, some colors would just pop out much more than others. It's the theory behind my personal shades. Dark bit vibrant blue-green, medium yellow, and brighter red- orange. Great for recognition!


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 22, 2016)

Sion said:


> Actually, that would be cool. I would say a group of budiet cubes only partially stickered for different steps would be nice. However, it also goes to say that at times, some colors would just pop out much more than others. It's the theory behind my personal shades. Dark bit vibrant blue-green, medium yellow, and brighter red- orange. Great for recognition!


I actually took all the stickers except for the FB on my first cube(rubiks brand) and all the stickers except for F2B+CMLL on my Guanlong(what I used to learn full CMLL)


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 22, 2016)

So I've been thinking about CP tracking. Instead of tracking the generators + the two pieces to be swapped, I'm thinking that instead you can track the the location of the sticker that belongs at BDL + the two pieces to be swapped. That lone sticker tells you where the generators are and where the F face is with respect to the generators. So now, for any given move, if it's R U L D with respect to the generators you just track how the two swap pieces + the lone sticker move as normal (since the normal movement of the lone sticker due to L or D moves will account for a rotation of the generators), and then if it's an F or B move (which you can easily tell since those face turns will be the only ones parallel to the sticker, if you get what i mean) then you use a memorized table of transformations to figure out how the key swap changes.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 22, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> So I've been thinking about CP tracking. Instead of tracking the generators + the two pieces to be swapped, I'm thinking that instead you can track the the location of the sticker that belongs at BDL + the two pieces to be swapped. That lone sticker tells you where the generators are and where the F face is with respect to the generators. So now, for any given move, if it's R U L D with respect to the generators you just track how the two swap pieces + the lone sticker move as normal (since the normal movement of the lone sticker due to L or D moves will account for a rotation of the generators), and then if it's an F or B move (which you can easily tell since those face turns will be the only ones parallel to the sticker, if you get what i mean) then you use a memorized table of transformations to figure out how the key swap changes.


Hey this is what I was talking about when I proposed B2 and I've not properly been able to explain it to anyone properly so please please please find some good way to explain it.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 22, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Hey this is what I was talking about when I proposed B2 and I've not properly been able to explain it to anyone properly so please please please find some good way to explain it.



Hm I read through the B2 system. It looks like you're setting up to one of the configurations of pairs in http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm , right?

I can try to explain but CP seems to be a very annoying subject to explain in general. I dont' think it's any more complex than BLD but the idea is more abstract i guess.

At this rate honestly, I wonder if it'd be best to straight up memorize the 120 permutations in <R,U> and solve into them


----------



## James Snowden (Dec 22, 2016)

Hi, I have had an idea for a 2x2 method, which works as follows:
1)solve three corners of a layer;
2)insert the last corner and force an oll and pll skip.
Would this be a viable method? Also, how many algorithms would be necessary and would be move efficient? Thanks for any help.


----------



## Sion (Dec 22, 2016)

James Snowden said:


> Hi, I have had an idea for a 2x2 method, which works as follows:
> 1)solve three corners of a layer;
> 2)insert the last corner and force an oll and pll skip.
> Would this be a viable method? Also, how many algorithms would be necessary and would be move efficient? Thanks for any help.



I thought of something like that too but I think there are tons and tons of algs, well over 100 I thinkm


----------



## Cale S (Dec 22, 2016)

James Snowden said:


> Hi, I have had an idea for a 2x2 method, which works as follows:
> 1)solve three corners of a layer;
> 2)insert the last corner and force an oll and pll skip.
> Would this be a viable method? Also, how many algorithms would be necessary and would be move efficient? Thanks for any help.



over 80 TCLL cases and then an additional 486 algs


----------



## James Snowden (Dec 22, 2016)

Thanks, I suppose that it might be possible to learn at least most of the algs.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 22, 2016)

James Snowden said:


> Thanks, I suppose that it might be possible to learn at least most of the algs.


A better Idea is just CLL. If anyone here knows full CMLL, you already know a decent set of CLL algs. I am around 5 secs just casually 2x2-ing with full CLL(I dont ever intend to compete in 2x2, and I don't even do it that much)

I'm considering on making a video on how I recognize CLL algorithms, and explain it on a 2x2, since thats what I used to drill CMLL recog. The way I recog C(m)LL can actually be done with any colors, because it relies on the relationships between stickers and not any arbitrary colors or anything.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 22, 2016)

Attila said:


> Here is an option, how to reduce the number of second step algs. While orientation step, you need to move 3 same and 1 opposite stickers to both faces (for example, 3 white and 1 yellow stickers on top). After this, you need permute all pieces, (about 15 cases) although it’s still hard for fast recognition


Yeah those could both work, and the recognition would be like ZZ-CT is to PLL


----------



## James Snowden (Dec 23, 2016)

Actually, wouldn't a cube rotation followed by a commutator work for some cases. They tend to be efficient and can cycle pieces from one layer and another from the incomplete layer. As they are used in FMC, I am sure that they could be found fairly intuitively, using mirrors and inversions to reduce the number of distinct algorithms.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 23, 2016)

Tony Fisher said:


> Not sure if this is the correct place to post this but I recently had the idea that removing stickers might be a good way to help learn a method. Take CFOP for example-
> 
> 1. Remove all stickers unrelated to the cross.
> 2. Spend several weeks doing nothing else but the cross.
> ...


 Wouldn't work for me because I use ZZ .


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 23, 2016)

Wrote up some Python scripts for people who want to play with CP (lol, i feel like all these posts are basically just directed at shadowslice at this point).

CP Explorer: Shows you, given the current permutation of corners, the key swap + location of DLF piece in parentheses if DLF is solved relative to DLB.
You can enter in moves in standard notation, though no rotations/wide moves/slice turns, and it'll update the position accordingly. There's also a special move "T" that just stands for a T perm, so you can set up single swap positions easily. Screenshot of it in action attached.

CP.py: stuff that makes CP Explorer work.


----------



## Tony Fisher (Dec 23, 2016)

MASTERMIND2368 said:


> Wouldn't work for me because I use ZZ .


Actually it would work for you more than most since the idea is for learning a solution. It would be pointless for someone already using CFOP.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 23, 2016)

Theory meets practice. A random scramble from cstimer:

So it's reducing to <D,B>, with DLB piece at URF. RDF->RDB means that, if we first swap RDF with something to solve the DLF piece relative to the DLB piece, then we swap RDF with RDB, we'll get two-gen with respect to <D,B>. Let's try it!

The same position in alg.cubing.net (notice that i've circled the locations of DLF and DLB pieces, as predicted by the python script):


Now setting up the swaps as described. First an Old Pochmann alg to swap RDF with ULF to solve DLF piece relative to DLB, and then a Tperm conjugated by an R2 to swap DRF and DRB, as the script described.


And now here solving the remaining 6 corners entirely <D,B>-gen  (of course in real solves you'd rotate and solve them <R,U>). Here's the whole solve on alg.cubing.net.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 23, 2016)

Tony Fisher said:


> Actually it would work for you more than most since the idea is for learning a solution. It would be pointless for someone already using CFOP.



If I were to use it with CFOP, then that might work. But what I meant to say is I couldn't do it with the EO and all


----------



## Neuro (Dec 24, 2016)

New LS technique: GLS (Garza Last Slot)

So this is something I've been working on for a while now, and I think that this could be very useful for most major speedsolving/FMC methods. It is a LS variant that-by using CO-allows you to correctly orient and permute all LL corners (COLLLS basically.) It also preserves EO.

You get ready to solve your LS (R U' R') and orient the U corner located where the LS corner should be and orient it so the U color is facing right (algs will be provided so if you're confused you can just do the inverse.) From here, you identify your case (looking at top corner orientation, 9 cases) and identify which corner is in UBL. Then, recognize the swap/cycle needed to permute the corners. There are 6 possible variants which are listed below.
CC- Counterclockwise: UFR->UBR->UFL
CW- Clockwise: UBR->UFR->UFL
DS- Diagonal Swap: UBR->UFL
FS- Front Swap: UFR->UFL
LS- Left Swap: UFR<->UBR (direct)
NS- No Swap: Easy to recognize, already permuted

The technique uses 54 algs and uses an average of 9.9 moves (NOT OPTIMIZED FOR SPEED) Here are the sets and algs. Let me know your thoughts and if you'd be interested in creating new algs or a better recognition method!

NEW ZZ VARIANT: ZZ-K (Kevin)

ZZ-K is a new variant of ZZ that uses concepts from ZZ-CT, but applies it to an edge rather than to a corner. Here is a general outline:

EO line
F2L-1 (in place of RD edge, you can use any U layer edge)
COLL or GLS
HKPLL+C- Edges only HKPLL

First you start off with your standard EO line, but while blockbuilding you can insert any U edge to the DR slot or use your standard DR edge. THen you use COLL to solve all U layer corners (GLS can be used, but it is a bit hard to recognize ATM and has more algs.) Move the top so that the edge that should be in DR is in UR. Finally, HKPLL+C is a subset of HKPLL that only deals with edges and has only 12 algs.

GLS VARIANT

GLS has an average movecount of 9.91 HTM, and HKPLL+C has an average movecount of 8.5 HTM, giving you a "LL skip" with an average of only 20.4 HTM (20 instead of 18 bc you usually need to turn the top to position edges correctly and correctly position LL after HKPLL+C.) This is much shorter than ZZ-CT, and would be incredibly easy to optimize. I will be providing example solves in the future.

NEW ZZ VARIANT: ZZ-M (Max)

ZZ-M is a new ZZ variant with a unique approach to EO line and LL that draws inspiration from Roux. Here is a general outline:

EO line U- Same as traditional EO line, but instead of using DF and DB edges, you can use either the UR/UL edges or the UF/UB edges
F2L-1
COLL or GLS
LSE

EO line is now freed somewhat, as you have more options as to which edges you can put into DF/DB. F2L can be solved as normal, and use COLL (GLS can be used, but it would require more algs and ATM recognition is a bit difficult.) LSE is even more efficient than normal Roux, as inserting 2 edges can be done in a minimum of 2 STM, and you don't have to worry about EO. I haven't had much time to generate stats, but I believe that this can be extremely fast, as EO line and LL have a decreased movecount from most other ZZ variants. I will provide example solves in the future.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 24, 2016)

Neuro said:


> (GLS) orient it so the U color is facing right



You're not accounting for the extra moves needed to do this. I think the majority of the cases require only one extra R U* R' kind of trigger to set up the corner, but some may require more. Either way, it's +3 moves two-thirds of the time unless you learn how to set up the pair while orienting the DFR corner as needed, which would then require more F2L algs.



Neuro said:


> (ZZ-K) HKPLL+C- Edges only HKPLL



Aka oriented L5E. Might be quite situational, because you usually don't save a lot of moves from not having to solve DR. On the other hand, it looks like oriented L5E with optimal algs is slightly shorter than EPLL (!!) so this might have some use for linear FMC. (But if you use speed-optimised algs, it completely loses this advantage.)



Neuro said:


> EO line U- Same as traditional EO line, but instead of using DF and DB edges, you can use either the UR/UL edges or the UF/UB edges



Been proposed at least thrice in this thread before. (The first mention is even on the first page of the thread!) Could work, but general opinion is that you could also just use <M,U> EPLL algs. Using the "wrong" edges for EOline also prevents you from using ZBLL and you'll never get an LL skip.

Edit: also, why are you taking a photo of a printout of a plain text document instead of just uploading the text files…


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 24, 2016)

Hey, welcome to the forums!
On top of xyzzy's post I also suggest you look through shadowslice's post on method development. Don't be discouraged if your ideas have been invented before; methods are pretty well fleshed out currently.


----------



## Neuro (Dec 24, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> You're not accounting for the extra moves needed to do this. I think the majority of the cases require only one extra R U* R' kind of trigger to set up the corner, but some may require more. Either way, it's +3 moves two-thirds of the time unless you learn how to set up the pair while orienting the DFR corner as needed, which would then require more F2L algs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for all the feedback, helps a lot! TBH this was mostly to put out some ideas as well as get feedback/help me progress as a method designer. As for the pics of the algs, I will be replacing them with word/text docs, but I didn't generate the algs on my home computer and didn't think to make a copy in Google Drive or send them to myself. But I did have some printed versions, and I honestly couldn't be bothered to type it all out so I just made a copy of it lol. 

When I developed GLS, I didnt consider the extra moves required but I definitely see the issue. As for GLS optimization, I am considering generating cases not based on CO, but the alg count would skyrocket so I'll probably just scrap GLS. 

I may be wrong, but I believe that most/all of the HKPLL+C cases can be solved using 2 gen algs, so I think ZZ-K could still be useful in OH solves.

Completely understand the concerns with the EO wrong edges. I'll probably run some tests with the movecount but I'm not expecting any notable differences. May scrap this as well :/

But again, thank you for your reply and I'll definitely take this into consideration if/when I come up with other methods.


----------



## Will_McC (Dec 27, 2016)

I recently learned the Friedrich method and its pretty fast. But then I learned the Roux method and decided to learn it too just to see which is faster. In doing so I thought of this: what if I combined them. It would look like this...

Steps 1 and 2- These would be the same first 2 steps to the Roux method (make adjacent 1x2x3 blocks)

Step 3- Put the final 2 white edges on the top to finish the first 2 layers.

Step 4- Solve the bottom using PLL and OLL just like in the Friedrich method

This method would take out F2L, the longest part of the Friedrich method and allow you to use the middle layer to make pairings. But there has to be a reason this isn't used already so can someone tell me why this isn't used by anyone?


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 27, 2016)

Will_McC said:


> I recently learned the Friedrich method and its pretty fast. But then I learned the Roux method and decided to learn it too just to see which is faster. In doing so I thought of this: what if I combined them. It would look like this...
> 
> Steps 1 and 2- These would be the same first 2 steps to the Roux method (make adjacent 1x2x3 blocks)
> 
> ...


This variant has been proposed before as you suspected.
CMLL+LSE is faster/better than FD/BD+OLL+PLL, and with considerably less algorithms.


----------



## Will_McC (Dec 27, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> This variant has been proposed before as you suspected.
> CMLL+LSE is faster/better than FD/BD+OLL+PLL, and with considerably less algorithms.


Is this after or slower than the Friedrich method


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 27, 2016)

Will_McC said:


> Is this after


???



Will_McC said:


> Is this after or slower than the Friedrich method


It is basically bad roux, which is definitely slower than CFOP and Roux. Both methods are better in their pure state than when they are combined.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 27, 2016)

lol guys, originally I tried this out as a joke, but:

7 FB
5-6 <r,R,U> to solve 2x2x3 
5 EO
12-13 F2L + phasing
14 ZZLL
= 43-45 STM

Here's the reddit post where I first pitch this to oyoat because I assume he'd be most familiar with how fast Petrus-related things can go. I also link to data I've collected to get these movecount estimates that I've given above.

This fixes the bad fingertricks/lookahead in the 2x2x3 step of Petrus (since it's <r,R,U> now and you can easily track where the two edges are going in inspection). Given that PDF is able to one-look FB + SBsquare pretty often, I wouldn't be surprised if people could be able to one-look the entire 2x2x3.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 27, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> lol guys, originally I tried this out as a joke, but:
> 
> 7 FB
> 5-6 <r,R,U> to solve 2x2x3
> ...


I quite often use this when I do FreeFOP so I would say it's a perfectly viable alternative though EO may be better served as done in conjunction with the 2x2x3 (which is what I also sometimes do in FMC attempts at home(because I've never been to a comp))


----------



## Sion (Dec 28, 2016)

Sion said:


> Here is a dumb corners first method I used to help me get familliar with the M slice. it is almost entirely intuitive, and a big beginners variant of roux:
> 
> 1: Solve D corners and DL and DR edges
> 2: CLL
> ...



Any other thoughts on my beginners method? I'm trying to push it with people who want to learn how to solve a rubiks cube.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 28, 2016)

I think LSE might be confusing for people when they're just starting out


----------



## Sion (Dec 28, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I think LSE might be confusing for people when they're just starting out



Two look ELL is a simple solution.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 28, 2016)

So: corners + DLDR, <L,R,U,M> for belt, place DFDB, EOLL, EPLL?


----------



## Sion (Dec 28, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> So: corners + DLDR, <L,R,U,M> for belt, place DFDB, EOLL, EPLL?



Exactly


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 28, 2016)

Could be good. Main issue with beginners' methods is getting beginners to choose them over LBL


----------



## Sion (Dec 28, 2016)

Here's an example solve:

Scramble: D2 R2 F2 U2 F2 D' B2 D' F2 D' R2 B' F U' B2 L' U' L' F' R2 D

First Corners: F2 D2 L' y2 D2 (R' D R D')3

COLL: x2 U' L' U' L U' L' U2 L

CPLL: U R' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2

DLDR:U2 M U2 M' R' U M' U2 M U R y

First Belt Edge: U M U' R' U M' U'

Second Belt Edge: R2 U' M' U r'

Third Belt Edge: M' L' U' M2 U L

Fourth Belt Edge: M' L U M U' L'

DFDB: M U' M2 U M' U' M U

EOLL R U R' U' M' U R U' r'

(EPLL Skip)


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 30, 2016)

o wait guys zz-porky v2 is neat and all but like

all we need is a way to reduce corner permutation to the set solvable wholly <L,U> and then wholly <R,U> in inspection and we'll have an actual missing link filler

we know that a permutation of 8 corners can be expressed in terms of a key swap + position of BLD sticker. once forcing all the left block pieces into L and U, this key swap + BLD can be converted into a swap of two pieces both on <L,U>. The left block is solved <L,U> so the identity of the pieces that need to be swapped won't change (since permutation fix invariant under <L,U>)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 30, 2016)

I've been looking for a way to better the roux method, and I have tried doing corner permutation while finishing the second block, with an LS mindset. If this is done, OLLCP can be done with only 57 algorithms (as opposed to 331) and mostly R, r, U, and M moves. This also brings up a question: why is CPLS done like CLS, instead of with the full F2L pair? I've generated the full-pair cases, and they are not bad.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 30, 2016)

Hm, might be that it's more moves to make the pair and so on average you get better movecounts out of insert edge + CLS vs make pair + insert pair & CLS


----------



## Metallic Silver (Dec 31, 2016)

I thought about FreeRoux. FreeRoux is pretty intense. 0 _ 0


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 31, 2016)

Free roux also goes by simultaneous or non-linear blocks i think. can get you some really nice movecounts


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 31, 2016)

Like a pinky pie with psuedo2gen algs only:
CPFB (10)
SBsq (7)
LE + ULUR/UFUB on D (~6?)
LC + CO + EO (12?)
L6E (8)
= 43 STM avg

Thoughts? Better ways to finish L12P (LS + CO + L6E)?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 31, 2016)

I know Old Pochmann, and I was looking into learning M2/R2. However, I was kind of disappointed with so many x rotations. I then began thinking about possibly using M moves instead of M2, so you can put it in place oriented without requiring rotations. Is this possible? I haven't thought of a way to make it work, but maybe someone else could. If so, It could be a much faster method.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 31, 2016)

Unfortunately not, you'll still have cases where when setting up to the buffer, you either need to use F/B moves or an x rotation. What's more is that you'll actually have to alternate between using M and M' to solve pieces

What you could do is consider setting up pieces into UF instead of into UB. This would let you use F moves in your setups (for example things like F R F')


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 31, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> all we need is a way to reduce corner permutation to the set solvable wholly <L,U> and then wholly <R,U> in inspection and we'll have an actual missing link filler



Textbook group theory result says that there are 3600 (out of 8!=40320) corner permutations that can be solved like that, so setting up the corners to one of these ⟨R,U⟩ ⟨L,U⟩ states probably takes 1-3 moves on average. The hard parts are (i) how to recognise if we're in this set of states and (ii) how to get there. And once we're in this set, we no longer have to track anything! If we solve the left block using only L and U moves, we'll automatically be reduced to 2-gen.

Unfortunately this gets messier once we take the edges into account. We have to do EO and get the LD/LF/LB edges out of the R layer, which probably takes around 5 moves, and we have to track CP throughout that. (Or if we leave the M slice free, we don't have to do EO, which might be better?)



Teoidus said:


> The left block is solved <L,U> so the identity of the pieces that need to be swapped won't change (since permutation fix invariant under <L,U>)



I don't think this works. Just because it's invariant under ⟨R,U⟩ doesn't mean it has to be invariant under every 2-gen subgroup.

Let's say the scramble is just F2 M2 F M2 F2 M2 F M2 (for simplicity). Then the key swap is URF-UBR, and if we solve the left block using U L2 U' L2 U' L2 U2 L2, assuming invariance, the key swap becomes DLF-ULB. But how can the key swap involve a piece in the left block that's already solved?


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 31, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> Unfortunately this gets messier once we take the edges into account. We have to do EO and get the LD/LF/LB edges out of the R layer, which probably takes around 5 moves, and we have to track CP throughout that. (Or if we leave the M slice free, we don't have to do EO, which might be better?)


Yeah, this was one of my biggest issues with the idea. Forcing left block every time alone takes some extra moves (it's more like 2-3 on average but I don't like it since it means we'd have to track every left block edge during EOLine to fully plan CP in inspection). Perhaps the best way to go about it would be to force left block while placing the corners into one of those states, but then the current method I have of detecting CP breaks down.




xyzzy said:


> I don't think this works. Just because it's invariant under ⟨R,U⟩ doesn't mean it has to be invariant under every 2-gen subgroup.



This should work, though it's likely I'm not being very clear. Since any 6-corner permutation can be reduced by a single swap on U, and since any 2gen scrambling <L,U> won't change the permutation of the U layer corners wrt each other when DLF and DLB are once again solved <L,U>, any permutation of the 8 corners in which DLF and DLB are solvable <L,U> has a single swap that makes all 8 corners solvable by <L,U> and then <R,U>. This swap will be invariant under <L,U> in the sense that the same pieces (not necessarily the same positions) will need be swapped after <L,U> to solve DLF and DLB (since the only possible permutation the <L,U> business could've done given that DLF and DLB have been solved once more and that <L,U> is 2-gen group is something in <U> which of course doesn't do anything to CP wrt <R,U>)

So we take the key swap we get from tracking after we've forced left block <L,U>, and we convert it into a single swap on <L,U> that doesn't involve the DLF or DLB pieces. This swap doesn't change after solving the left block, so if we swap now then corners are solvable by <L,U> and then <R,U>, but if we solve left block <L,U> now and then swap the same pieces later (when they are on the U layer) the rest is still solvable <R,U>.

This isn't as good as the same positions need be swapped, but looking for identity of two pieces is still much better than looking at the relation between 4 i.e. Porky v2.


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 31, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Since any 6-corner permutation can be reduced by a single swap on U, and since any 2gen scrambling <L,U> won't change the permutation of the U layer corners wrt each other when DLF and DLB are once again solved <L,U>, any permutation of the 8 corners in which DLF and DLB are solvable <L,U> has a single swap that makes all 8 corners solvable by <L,U> and then <R,U>.



Oh! This makes a lot more sense than what I was thinking of. Yeah, this should work. I'm still not sure if there's a good way to determine the swap during inspection, though. I just tried doing a solve on an <L,U,R> scramble, and even with the EOline already done, it still took me minutes to determine the key swap. (But I'm also really bad at tracking pieces during inspection in general, bleh.)

// insp: key swap is white-red-green with yellow-red-blue
U' L' U R U2 L' U2 L2 U2 L U L' U' L // left block
L' U R2 U' L // diagonal swap
R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R' U' R U // F2L on left
U' R2 U R U' R U // antisune lol

Made one R move while forming the left block, but that doesn't affect the CP state since the yellow-orange corners were on the L face and permuted relative to each other at that point. What I did for the CP recognition was to mentally solve DLF and DBL (ignoring orientation), then trace cycles to determine the swap for <R,U>; it seems like this could be reasonably fast with loads of practice.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 31, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> What I did for the CP recognition was to mentally solve DLF and DBL (ignoring orientation), then trace cycles to determine the swap for <R,U>; it seems like this could be reasonably fast with loads of practice.



Hmm. I wonder if you could mentally "solve" DLF and DBL but do so with swaps, then begin tracing with a swap that's needed to "correct for" the swaps needed to solve DLF/DBL (essentially given two swaps to solve DLF and DBL, the third swap will make the resulting permutation reachable <L,U>). Would make things logistically a bit easier; basically whenever hit DLF or DBL just trace it as if it were the piece that's currently at DLF or DBL (which simulates the swap)

Overall though I'd agree with you that this looks very complex. It would, if practiced, essentially fulfill the "missing link" of ZZ, but I'm not sure if it's worth it because there are so many moves required to force <L,U> left block and then correct CP when time comes.

I think it's still worth looking into a more general way to find and track these sorts of swaps though. If there could be a way to easily keep track of the swap while solving ZZF2L as normal (i.e. alternating between RU and LU), then reducing CP to 2gen with the first pair to complete a 1x2x3 block (either left or right is fine). Would basically be like ZZ-d except you don't _have _to solve left block first and no recognition step disrupting the flow of the F2L.


----------



## Think It's Impossible? (Jan 2, 2017)

To reduce the algorithm count of pinky pie (full OLLCP), why not solve UL UR on bottom before you insert the last pair of SB, then orient the top layer edges while inserting the last pair of SB (ZBLS), solve the COLL then insert UL UR and do 4C? 

I see two possible ways of reaching the net result of EO plus UL UR on bottom. The first (and to me the most plausible) way to approach this is solving UL UR on bottom after building the back square, then solve the last pair like CFOP and do ZBLS.

You could also solve the last pair of SB then place UL UR although so far I have not found a consistent way of doing this. 

I don't see any big problem, of course there are some last pair EO cases that suck or you may get a bad CFOP pair (only a problem with the first way). 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 2, 2017)

Pinkie Pie really is only viable if you learn the full OLLCP sadly. The extra moves needed if you use EOLS + ULUR on bottom + COLL ends up being less efficient than normal Roux


----------



## TDM (Jan 2, 2017)

Think It's Impossible? said:


> To reduce the algorithm count of pinky pie (full OLLCP), why not solve UL UR on bottom before you insert the last pair of SB, then orient the top layer edges while inserting the last pair of SB (ZBLS), solve the COLL then insert UL UR and do 4C?
> 
> I see two possible ways of reaching the net result of EO plus UL UR on bottom. The first (and to me the most plausible) way to approach this is solving UL UR on bottom after building the back square, then solve the last pair like CFOP and do ZBLS.
> 
> ...


Not worth it. If you're doing that you might as well insert them at the start of the solve - and then do F2B like CFOP F2L. But of course this is then just a less efficient version of ZB.
Pinkie Pie isn't supposed to be used in _every _solve, only where it's convenient to do so.

Also ZBLS+COLL is more algs than OLLCP, so you're not reducing the required number of algorithms. I also think that, in general, COLLs are also slower than the average OLLCP.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 4, 2017)

I've been learning COLL in an attempt to convince myself I don't need to switch to CFOP/Fridrich (I use ZZ) and I decided to look into ELL... It turns out it's only 25 algs. So, consider a LL method with COLL/CLL first (42 algs) then ELL to finish up. It's a total of 67 algs for a 2LLL, compared to CFOP's 78. It isn't much of an improvement, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Is there an obvious flaw I'm missing?


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 4, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> I've been learning COLL in an attempt to convince myself I don't need to switch to CFOP/Fridrich (I use ZZ) and I decided to look into ELL... It turns out it's only 25 algs. So, consider a LL method with COLL/CLL first (42 algs) then ELL to finish up. It's a total of 67 algs for a 2LLL, compared to CFOP's 78. It isn't much of an improvement, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Is there an obvious flaw I'm missing?



What you're missing is that this has been a method almost since the dawn of speedcubing.

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CFCE

EDIT: Also, there's 29, not 25. Looks like you're not counting EPLL, which is another 4


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 4, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> Is there an obvious flaw I'm missing?


As obelisk kindly pointed out, yes, it has been invented before.

One reason that CLL/ELL it isn't a main-stream method is the recognition.
OLL/PLL recognition is fairly easy, and COLL recognition is also easy. However, ELL recognition, by our current systems, is not.



MethodNeutral said:


> It isn't much of an improvement, but I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.


I'm not sure where you have looked, but it is a very old method that would be practically anywhere.
Please check the wiki or use the search bar before posting, anything really. The forum is >10 years old, and lots of methods have been proposed.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 4, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> What you're missing is that this has been a method almost since the dawn of speedcubing.
> 
> https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CFCE
> 
> EDIT: Also, there's 29, not 25. Looks like you're not counting EPLL, which is another 4


Thank you very much, I've seen CFCE listed under methods but never taken the time to look into it. Also, I'm new to the forums, so if I have a question about a method (NMLL), where would I put it? I don't even know what it stands for because all of the entries I've found on it are very short.



GenTheThief said:


> One reason that CLL/ELL it isn't a main-stream method is the recognition.
> OLL/PLL recognition is fairly easy, and COLL recognition is also easy. However, ELL recognition, by our current systems, is not.
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for your insight into why it isn't popular.
I couldn't find it because I wasn't sure what to search for, but I'll make sure I check next time.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 4, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> Thank you very much, I've seen CFCE listed under methods but never taken the time to look into it. Also, I'm new to the forums, so if I have a question about a method (NMLL), where would I put it? I don't even know what it stands for because all of the entries I've found on it are very short.



You would post it here generally, or in the ZZ or Roux help for NMLL specifically. NMLL stands for non-matching last layer, and I recently answered a question about it here, posts 610 through 612 on that page


----------



## Sion (Jan 5, 2017)

I was thinking for Hawaii 4-O if it would be efficient to pair all the dedges, and then fix the last two centers of the 4x4 using an orientation preserving alg.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 6, 2017)

Sion said:


> I was thinking for Hawaii 4-O if it would be efficient to pair all the dedges, and then fix the last two centers of the 4x4 using an orientation preserving alg.



Can you provide an example solve? I'm guessing you'd do centres using commutators (as in the cage method), which isn't too bad on its own, but combining this with an awkward edge pairing stage would suck.

In fact, it looks like you're practically forced to have awkward stages of some sort once you have 3×3×4+columns solved. Dealing with edges is pretty weird when you're this restricted. You have nice stuff like a seven-move parity fix (destroys centres), but it's also hard to intuitively solve edges regardless of whether you have to preserve centres because the "M' U M"-like triggers are all 5-cycles. Solving centres is very easy and fast if you don't have to preserve edges, but if you do, it becomes a lot slower.


----------



## Sion (Jan 6, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Can you provide an example solve? I'm guessing you'd do centres using commutators (as in the cage method), which isn't too bad on its own, but combining this with an awkward edge pairing stage would suck.
> 
> In fact, it looks like you're practically forced to have awkward stages of some sort once you have 3×3×4+columns solved. Dealing with edges is pretty weird when you're this restricted. You have nice stuff like a seven-move parity fix (destroys centres), but it's also hard to intuitively solve edges regardless of whether you have to preserve centres because the "M' U M"-like triggers are all 5-cycles. Solving centres is very easy and fast if you don't have to preserve edges, but if you do, it becomes a lot slower.



Thought of the same. Instead, I decided to reduce L10E into L5E via Redux after solving centers. This is different from OBLBL, as it leads to L5EOP, which is a bit faster than OLL/ PLL. It's how I finally solved 4x4 completely, although my redux skills need serious work.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 6, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> lol guys, originally I tried this out as a joke, but:
> 
> 7 FB
> 5-6 <r,R,U> to solve 2x2x3
> ...



I came up with this kinda thing a while back, but my problem with petrus was how EO isn't too nice-- it takes a few seconds to orient all the pieces.(its ok on OBLBL tho...)
What I came up with to fix it was this:
-FB
-Orient 3 edges on R layer and place on DR, FR, and RB
-Roux 4a+place DF/DB edges(about as hard as EOLR, which can be done pretty quickly and fluidly) -- problem is that you may need to use r moves to solve sometimes if the DF/DB edges are on the R layer
-rotationless Petrus F2L + LL


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 6, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Could be good. Main issue with beginners' methods is getting beginners to choose them over LBL


What about HF-beginner? It would be a really nice for beginners to not just transition over to CFOP. because of the L5EO stage, you get the basic LSE 4a step down, and learn some basic EOline.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 6, 2017)

Yeah, I saw your post on that while back. It's less efficient to do EO that way though. Overall the EO step in petrus just seems a little awkward and I think ZZ had the right idea moving it to the front of the solve


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 6, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, I saw your post on that while back. It's less efficient to do EO that way though. Overall the EO step in petrus just seems a little awkward and I think ZZ had the right idea moving it to the front of the solve


Yeah, but for a rotationless petrus it isn't too bad.
One thing I am doing: I use OBLBL as my main method for 5x5. Why? because it takes the best parts of petrus, and EO isn't too bad. Also, I hate building centers.


----------



## UKL (Jan 8, 2017)

I've been experimenting with this for only a few days now, but here goes nothing.

If you've ever looked closely at what Winter Variation actually does, it basically orients all the corner of the top layer. So I've been thinking about combining this with Roux. So the way the method would go would be:


First block
Second block
Winter Variation
Permute last layer corners
LSE
Using this would also decrease the alg count from 42 CMLL cases to 29 cases (27 WV and 2 perms).

So what do you guys think, would this help in decreasing times (or other benefits). Any problems with this?

*P.S. - Suggest any edits or corrections if there's a mistake*


----------



## Cale S (Jan 8, 2017)

This would only skip CMLL 1/6 of the time, and another 1/6 of the time you're giving yourself the worst CMLL case. Adj swap isn't that good of a case either

WV is also pretty inefficient for some cases, especially when you force yourself to use it all the time (if you set up to an R U R' insert you have to do an extra R U2 R' or R U' R'), and it's very inefficient for roux

If you want to decrease the alg count, you could do CP during last pair, which would be 6 cases for the last pair and then only 7 for CMLL


----------



## Elo13 (Jan 8, 2017)

Cale S said:


> If you want to decrease the alg count, you could do CP during last pair, which would be 6 cases for the last pair and then only 7 for CMLL



Or you can do CP during FB.


----------



## TDM (Jan 8, 2017)

Yeah, the oriented corners cases aren't very good - but actually, neither are a lot of the solved CP cases (U, L, T are all bad). Combining both is good, but then the algs can be long if you want to preserve the pair (and also remain pseudo-2-gen). A few people have also taken a look at inserting _just the corner _and solving CO, an then doing something like FR+EO+setup ULUR, but it's far less efficient than standard Roux.

There have been lots of attempts to get this to work but I don't think skipping CMLL is the future of Roux, unfortunately. Influencing EO/EP during CMLL is far easier and will probably save you more time. Though, learning the difference between sledge, R U' R' and R U2 R' could be good to influence better COs.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 8, 2017)

I was looking into the B2 method and I really liked it. I do however realize that CPFB is not, and may never be, feasible for speedsolving. Still, I like the idea of forcing an arrow case for EO. I've thought of a couple different ways to do it, which will be called A and B method. Starting at F2B-1, the steps are:
A
1) Make sure 1 D layer edge is oriented and one is not.
2) Use a 0-flip or 4-flip VHLS case.
3) Solve corners with COLL.
B
1) Make sure 1 D layer edge is oriented and one is not.
2) Insert final F2L pair
3) Use a COLL or CLLEF case to force arrow case.
Both of these could work; B is probably better than A.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 8, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I was looking into the B2 method and I really liked it. I do however realize that CPFB is not, and may never be, feasible for speedsolving. Still, I like the idea of forcing an arrow case for EO. I've thought of a couple different ways to do it, which will be called A and B method. Starting at F2B-1, the steps are:
> A
> 1) Make sure 1 D layer edge is oriented and one is not.
> 2) Use a 0-flip or 4-flip VHLS case.
> ...


I think what most people do (at least what I do) is sort of a simplification of pinkie pie where you have a few (usually 2 though I don't think there are many who actually learn them on purpose but rather just have picked them up over the years) algs for each CMLL which flip or exchange different pieces each time and that can be used to influence EO so that you always get a reasonably nice case and never get any of the really horrible ones like 6-flips. It's nice because you don't have to make sure you have certain pieces in D or anywhere really and it is the same speed as normal CMLL (more or less depending on your lookahead. With my lookahead (which I consider to be reasonable to bad for where I should be), you take no extra time and save a few moves in LSE most of the time).


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 9, 2017)

Wait guys, you don't have to BLD trace

Let's just assume we've got a permutation of corners on R and U faces. We can of course solve DRF and DRB <R,U> leaving a permutation of LL corners on U that we could use to detect a CP fix (aka what people do with COLL or porky style recog), but we can also simulate this solving in inspection with swaps. If we solve DRF and DRB with pure swaps, there's at most 1 extra "correction" swap that we have to do s.t. the 3 swaps performed together form a valid 2-gen permutation (essentially using the property of 2gen group to simulate the <R,U> moves needed to solve DRF and DRB while shortcutting all the tracking you'd need to do so). Then we can much more quickly figure out where our LL pieces would be w.r.t each other than if we had directly tracked what the LL would look like by imagining DRF and DRB solved w/ <R,U>.

So given any permutation of 6 corners we can imagine what the LL would look like if we 2gen solved DRF and DRB by imagining these swaps being done. And then looking at the resulting permutation of LL corners to figure out the key swap

Now this is easy to generalize to 7 corners--whenever we hit the DLF piece, we just pretend it's whatever piece is current at DLF (simulating a swap to solve DLF). Now without any BLD tracing we can extract a key swap, and we can easily express this key swap in a standard form that lets it be easily tracked.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 9, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Wait guys, you don't have to BLD trace
> 
> Let's just assume we've got a permutation of corners on R and U faces. We can of course solve DRF and DRB <R,U> leaving a permutation of LL corners on U that we could use to detect a CP fix (aka what people do with COLL or porky style recog), but we can also simulate this solving in inspection with swaps. If we solve DRF and DRB with pure swaps, there's at most 1 extra "correction" swap that we have to do s.t. the 3 swaps performed together form a valid 2-gen permutation (essentially using the property of 2gen group to simulate the <R,U> moves needed to solve DRF and DRB while shortcutting all the tracking you'd need to do so). Then we can much more quickly figure out where our LL pieces would be w.r.t each other than if we had directly tracked what the LL would look like by imagining DRF and DRB solved w/ <R,U>.
> 
> ...


So we only need to simulate 3 swaps? Im game, I just tried it and it works! Waaay easier than the other way you proposed, thanks!


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 9, 2017)

Here's a table of the correction swaps you need to ensure that every triplet of swaps is actually a valid 2gen permutation.


Basically first you pretend that DLF is solved by pure swap.

Now you take the swap you need to solve DRB and look at the corresponding row in the table. Now take the swap you need to solve DRF after you've done the previous swap to solve DRB and look at the corresponding column in the table. Read out a "correction" swap. Now when you determine what your LL ends up looking like after the two swaps to solve DRB and DRF, you can figure out what swap you need to reduce the corners to 2gen by combining the permutation of the LL corners with this "correction" swap. So if your correction swap is diagU and you find that your LL corners end up needing a diagU swap after you use two swaps to solve DRB and DRF, then your correction swap cancels with the LL corner swap, telling you that the corners are already solvable 2gen


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 9, 2017)

Hey guys, remember that rotationless petrus variant you proposed a while back? Well, Just did an Ao5(I'm calling it Pootris)
Pootris average of 5:
Generated By csTimer on 2017-1-9
avg of 5: 21.81

Time List:
1. (16.59[pootris]) U' R2 B2 D B2 R2 D B2 D' L2 U2 L R2 B' D2 B2 R' F U' L' F
2. 22.18[pootris] F2 D L2 U' R2 U' R2 D2 R2 F2 D2 L' R' B D' R' B L2 U B' U
3. 22.62[pootris] B R2 D' L2 B2 D L2 U' F2 D' R2 L U B' D2 B' R B L
4. 20.62[pootris] B2 F2 D' R2 D L2 U2 F2 D' L2 D L F D' U2 L F' U2 F R' U'
5. (25.87[pootris]) B2 R' B' D B' R2 F R' B2 U' F2 U2 L B2 D2 L2 D2 R B2 R2 B2

Method overview(again -- how I do it)
Roux block, while tracing DF/DB(poot block Here!)
solve DF/DB and centers, while predicting EO
solveEO(I do 2 at a time, with F Rx F', maybe I should do some more efficient EOing...)
Finish F2L
LL(I do COLL-EPLL)


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 12, 2017)

OLL skip or VLS and OLL with EG on skewb would be helpful.
Instead of just EG, you can do EG and orient all top side at once. (EGOLL) This will get rid of L5C and first layer helpful.
If OLL skip is possible for skewb, it will get rid of advanced sarah cases and L5C. It will leave off L4C or L3C. (VLS)

downside is that i cant work on my ksolve program, my stupid command prompt is too advanced and frustrating


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 12, 2017)

hmm interesting. After that in kirmeep maybe...


----------



## Cale S (Jan 12, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> OLL skip or VLS and OLL with EG on skewb would be helpful.
> Instead of just EG, you can do EG and orient all top side at once. (EGOLL) This will get rid of L5C and first layer helpful.
> If OLL skip is possible for skewb, it will get rid of advanced sarah cases and L5C. It will leave off L4C or L3C. (VLS)
> 
> downside is that i cant work on my ksolve program, my stupid command prompt is too advanced and frustrating



There's a document with all cases to solve last layer corners + U center while inserting the last corner, but it's 90 algs and it's almost always faster to do layer then one alg

The EGOLL algs are decent, there's a document with nice algs but it's rarely worth it to use them if you want to be really fast


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 12, 2017)

Hey guys, so I was playing around with some 4x4 direct solving methods and I thing I came up with a really nice method(its more of a way to do LSD in stadler, however some variations):
1.2 opp centers
2.roux F2B
you can do CLL anytime between step 3 and step 5
3.Solve D center, B center, and DB edge(I solve D center, then DB edge, then B center; for freedom of all slices, M2U2M2 is your best friend)
4.Finish last 2 centers in M slice
5.Solve last 5 edges similarly to K4 ELL(is a pretty nice step, a little nicer than ELL imo)

what do you think? my PB with this method is 1:20(My PB with my main, meyer, is 1:18).


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 13, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Wait guys, you don't have to BLD trace
> 
> Let's just assume we've got a permutation of corners on R and U faces. We can of course solve DRF and DRB <R,U> leaving a permutation of LL corners on U that we could use to detect a CP fix (aka what people do with COLL or porky style recog), but we can also simulate this solving in inspection with swaps. If we solve DRF and DRB with pure swaps, there's at most 1 extra "correction" swap that we have to do s.t. the 3 swaps performed together form a valid 2-gen permutation (essentially using the property of 2gen group to simulate the <R,U> moves needed to solve DRF and DRB while shortcutting all the tracking you'd need to do so). Then we can much more quickly figure out where our LL pieces would be w.r.t each other than if we had directly tracked what the LL would look like by imagining DRF and DRB solved w/ <R,U>.
> 
> ...


This seems possible. Could you trace CP the same way as in your other method (message #2516)?


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 13, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> pootris



this method is bad for the EXACT same reason that LBL is bad.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 13, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> This seems possible. Could you trace CP the same way as in your other method (message #2516)?



Yeah, that would be possible assuming that you took the key swap and expressed it in a "standard form" where it must involve the DLF piece if DLF is unsolved.

Actually now that I'm here I might as well post how to track stuff

so you have to keep track of 3 things when tracking: generators, DLF piece position, and key swap. Lucky we've taken care of the last two by making key swaps always include DLF if it's unsolved wrt generators. Generators can be encoded by a single sticker: BDL. This single sticker encodes orientation and permutation of DLB piece (and therefore where our generators are).

So when memorizing the "CP fix" of any cube state, we need to know a single sticker marking BDL, a piece marking DLF piece, and another piece indicating key swap.

I said before that <R,U,L,D> are all pretty easy to track--you just watch the swap move around and shift the generators when necessary. Luckily the single sticker encodes our generators just fine, so to track all of <R,U,L,D> we basically just track all 3 items around the cube as you would normally.

Now the nice part about using BDL is that it's visually apparent whenever we make an F/B move, as the face being turned will always be "parallel" to the BDL sticker (as it must reside on the B face wrt generators). So it's easy to know when we will have to do something other than the normal tracking that we'd use with <R,U,L,D>

To track F moves w.r.t generators, we have to rely on some brute force if we want to do it quickly (for now--working on a b better way to do this). For each of the 36 different swaps we can have memorized, we need to know what swap it turns into before and after an F, F', F2, etc. Since F4 = I, F moves have to cycle through swaps in sets of 4. Therefore we can memorize these in 9 sets of 4-cycles between swaps.

So if you want to know what happens to a no-swap when you apply an F move, you just find the picture corresponding to a no-swap and look at the picture 1 to the right (F). For F', look 1 to the left (though keep in mind the cycles wrap around, so "to the left of the very first element in the group of 4" = "the last element in the group of 4")


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 13, 2017)

I have been working on this method for a few months now, and I believe it has some potential. I call it the GS method, or Grand Setup method. It is a variant of CFOP and Roux, with it's own unique step. I would love to hear anybody's feedback, positive or negative. I would also appreciate it if anyone could help me by making more example solves. I am also looking for a better name for this method. If you think you found a better name than GS, please tell me. Without further ado, here is the GS method.

*Steps:

Step 1:* Build a 2x2x2 block on the bottom in the back right.

*Step 2:* Build an adjacent 2x3x1 block on the L face.

*Step 3:* Pair up last F2L pair, but don't insert it

*Step 4:* Insert last F2L pair with Winter Variation, which orients the last layer corners.

*Step 5:* Simultaneously orient the last layer edges while inserting the DF edge using only M and U moves. This step is intuitive. I call it SFE, or Setup of Five Edges.

*Step 6:* Permute the last layer with PLL.

**Example Solve:

Scramble: *U2 L2 F2 U L2 F2 U2 R2 B2 D' L B' D' U' L D2 R2 B D2 L'

*2x2x2 Block: *D R' F' R' B'

*2x3x1 Block: *U F U L

*Last F2L Pair: *Skip

*Winter Variation: *U2 L' U R U' R' L

*SFE: *U M' U M U2 M' U' M

*PLL: *R' U L' U2 R U' L R' U L' U2 R U' L U'

*Possible Advantages:*
Only 48 Algorithms are needed, (not including reflections,) so most of the solve is intuitive. 

After the blocks are finished, the cube can be solved quickly without any cube rotations.

*Possible Disadvantages:*
GS requires proficiency in Blockbuilding and Roux-Like edge solving, which may be hard for beginners to do efficiently.

The 2x2x2 Block in the back may be awkward to do without cube rotations, so it may take some time getting used to.

** *Sorry the example solve wasn't very good. I don't have much experience with making them.


----------



## Myachii (Jan 13, 2017)

Ngl it looks interesting. Targetted towards multi-method solvers though. Try get some feedback from roux-cfopers


----------



## APdRF (Jan 13, 2017)

Why don't insert the last pair -> OCLL (with easy algs that don't preserve EO) -> SFE -> PLL? It's only 28 algorithms, and OCLLs are better than Winter Variation cases + mirrors. And you can even learn COLL (some algorithms should be easier tan normal COLL) and then solve L5E.


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 13, 2017)

APdRF said:


> Why don't insert the last pair -> OCLL (with easy algs that don't preserve EO) -> SFE -> PLL? It's only 28 algorithms, and OCLLs are better than Winter Variation cases + mirrors. And you can even learn COLL (some algorithms should be easier tan normal COLL) and then solve L5E.


OCLL might be good. COLL has worse recognition, though, so corners solved might not be worth it.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Jan 13, 2017)

What is this method? I'm learning this as an advanced version of 8355 but I'm not sure it could even be considered 8355 at this point.

F2L-2
Insert an F2L edge
Solve third CE pair using VHLS, leaving the solved edge alone
Use a PLL to solve edges
8355 Style L5C


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 13, 2017)

non-intuitive 8355, looks like.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 13, 2017)

Loiloiloi said:


> What is this method? I'm learning this as an advanced version of 8355 but I'm not sure it could even be considered 8355 at this point.
> 
> F2L-2
> Insert an F2L edge
> ...



Is there a reason you'd solve the third and fourth slots as edge-then-pair, instead of the more standard pair-then-edge? It looks like your proposal has neither better lookahead nor lower move count.

If you leave the corner buffer to the last slot, you get the added benefit of being able to solve the last five edges with intuitive commutators very easily.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Jan 13, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Is there a reason you'd solve the third and fourth slots as edge-then-pair, instead of the more standard pair-then-edge? It looks like your proposal has neither better lookahead nor lower move count.
> 
> If you leave the corner buffer to the last slot, you get the added benefit of being able to solve the last five edges with intuitive commutators very quickly.


I don't know how to do commutators, this method is just ease of learning for me. The algorithms are just PLLs I already know and some easy VHLS algs.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 13, 2017)

Loiloiloi said:


> I don't know how to do commutators, this method is just ease of learning for me. The algorithms are just PLLs I already know and some easy VHLS algs.



If you leave the buffer corner to the last slot, you can use a variant of VHLS that _doesn't need to care about corners_. Alternatively, you can also do Petrus-style edge orientation with the last slot (most cases are either one trigger or two triggers that cancel into each other). It's all fundamentally the same idea, except that VHLS is more restricted (and hence takes more moves) because it needs to preserve the pair.

Examples: 1 2
EO-only examples: 3 4

(Also, 8355 is basically Intuitive Commutators: The Method, so you already know how to use commutators!)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 13, 2017)

Looks like a variant of M-CELL to me. Steps 1 and 2 are SSF2L, 3 and 4 are normal WV (though this is just a stepping stone to L5C/TCLL in M-CELL) and PLL (also an intermediate step in some of the variants).

It's not too bad to be honest and I have a 14-15 global average with it a not quite fully advanced method that has all the algorithms for a fully optimised variant (maybe less now; I don't really practise it specifically- I'm pretty sure that's the UWR though) though it would be interesting to see someone specialise in it so go for it!


----------



## Loiloiloi (Jan 13, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> If you leave the buffer corner to the last slot, you can use a variant of VHLS that _doesn't need to care about corners_. Alternatively, you can also do Petrus-style edge orientation with the last slot (most cases are either one trigger or two triggers that cancel into each other). It's all fundamentally the same idea, except that VHLS is more restricted (and hence takes more moves) because it needs to preserve the pair.


I'm a bit lost, what variant are you referring to? Is there somewhere I can find the algs? Or are you just speaking hypothetically?


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 13, 2017)

Loiloiloi said:


> I'm a bit lost, what variant are you referring to? Is there somewhere I can find the algs? Or are you just speaking hypothetically?



Just hypothetically, but I think it's better done intuitively than algorithmically. (Except maybe for some of the 4-flip cases, which are nasty no matter what you do.) The point is that it's not too hard to learn how to do this intuitively.


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 13, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Looks like a variant of M-CELL to me. Steps 1 and 2 are SSF2L, 3 and 4 are normal WV (though this is just a stepping stone to L5C/TCLL in M-CELL) and PLL (also an intermediate step in some of the variants).
> 
> It's not too bad to be honest and I have a 14-15 global average with it a not quite fully advanced method that has all the algorithms for a fully optimised variant (maybe less now; I don't really practise it specifically- I'm pretty sure that's the UWR though) though it would be interesting to see someone specialise in it so go for it!


Now that I think of it, GS is like M-CELL, and revolves around the same idea. GS just goes about that idea differently. 

On a side note, I can't believe you like my method! I was hoping someone with a lot of knowledge would see my thread. The approval of someone like you really means a lot to me. I'm glad to know I'm on the right track.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 14, 2017)

Cale S said:


> There's a document with all cases to solve last layer corners + U center while inserting the last corner, but it's 90 algs and it's almost always faster to do layer then one alg
> 
> The EGOLL algs are decent, there's a document with nice algs but it's rarely worth it to use them if you want to be really fast



0o0 i wanna see thos algs, can u send them plz?


----------



## Neuro (Jan 14, 2017)

Đỗ Viên said:


> I created a new method for 3x3. I call it Perry !
> The step:
> S1: Make b-block + last edge in E-slice ( seems like 3x2x1 block in LD+ 2x2x2 block in BR) (intuitive)
> S2: Orient
> ...


Đỗ Viên, I really like the concept, and I generated all the possible algs needed for the last step (lets call it Perry Last Corner-Edge [PCLE].) 
There are 4 main categories in PCLE:

"Pure"-both a corner and an edge need to be put in
"HKPLL"-only edge insertion
"TTLL"-only corner insertion
"PLL"- Ja, Jb, V, Aa, Ab
I define the pure cases using the bottom edge/corner in relation to the UBL block (R=right edge, F=UFR corner) and blocks on top.
HKPLL is mostly identified by corners/blocks and basically same story with TTLL.

Pure has 36 algs
HKPLL has 9 algs
TTLL has 18 algs
PLL has 5 algs (didn't generate these, didn't see a reason as basically everyone knows PLL)

In total there are 68 algs, hopefully I didn't miss any cases. I'd say it's within reason to learn, but you'd probably need a solid recognition system if used for speedcubing. As of now, the algs have been created without the F/B faces, so move-count may be slightly better than whats given here. Keep looking into it, I think you've got some good potential here!


----------



## Đỗ Viên (Jan 14, 2017)

Thank for your pretty algorithm. I'm still looking for good recognition system (the pattern is very bad) and need to improve the movecount of this method 


Neuro said:


> Đỗ Viên, I really like the concept, and I generated all the possible algs needed for the last step (lets call it Perry Last Corner-Edge [PCLE].)
> There are 4 main categories in PCLE:
> 
> "Pure"-both a corner and an edge need to be put in
> ...


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 14, 2017)

One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 14, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.


Usually, when methods are posted in their own threads, they are fully developed methods, with most/all of the kinks worked out. It seems that the moderators didn't think that your method could be described as above.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 14, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> One quick question: why was my thread moved to here? I'm new to this site. It might be hard for me to find which responses are to my GS method, and which are not.



Unfortunately, moderators don't read threads before choosing where to move them.

You could also get your third step by building a Petrus 3x2x2 block and adding a pair, which would probably be more efficient than your current approach. Nonetheless, this is an interesting method.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 16, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> Unfortunately, moderators don't read threads before choosing where to move them.



Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this _*is*_ a thread for new methods. It's in the title.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 16, 2017)

Ranzha said:


> Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this _*is*_ a thread for new methods. It's in the title.


May I ask what standards are required for a method to warrant their own thread?
If so, what standards are required for a method to warrant their own thread?

SSC, Briggs(2), M-CELL, and QM-LL methods were all posted after this thread had been in frequent use. Those were new methods that were not merged. What's the difference?


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 16, 2017)

Ranzha said:


> Again, you are so quick to assume. While I didn't merge the thread, this _*is*_ a thread for new methods. It's in the title.



Don't judge a thread by its title.


> I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, *yet are not fully developed*.




Either merge ZZ-CT, SSC, and even the damn Petrus Home Thread with this one, or quit merging developed methods with this thread. It's offensive and disrespectful to the method creators that you are dragging their hard work into the _Concept Development Thread_. This is a venue for users to elect to receive feedback on methods in their infancy; it's not a binder for forum organization.


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 16, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> Don't judge a thread by its title.
> 
> 
> 
> Either merge ZZ-CT, SSC, and even the damn Petrus Home Thread with this one, or quit merging developed methods with this thread. It's offensive and disrespectful to the method creators that you are dragging their hard work into the _Concept Development Thread_. This is a venue for users to elect to receive feedback on methods in their infancy; it's not a binder for forum organization.


I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Jan 16, 2017)

On the other end of the spectrum, my thread https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/existing-method.63458/ should have absolutely been moved here, but never was, despite receiving 10 responses, which either means the mods are very inactive or they are not even following their own rules for merging threads. Either way, I ended up just posting here anyway, so now the content of that thread exists in this thread and that one.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 16, 2017)

Loiloiloi said:


> On the other end of the spectrum, my thread https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/existing-method.63458/ should have absolutely been moved here, but never was, despite receiving 10 responses, which either means the mods are very inactive or they are not even following their own rules for merging threads. Either way, I ended up just posting here anyway, so now the content of that thread exists in this thread and that one.



My thread also should have been moved here, it's called "ZZ-XD Experimental Method". I didn't want to repost it in here because I'm pretty sure that's against the forum rules to post the same thing in different places. But yeah, if anyone could move that it'd be great.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 17, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> I have been working on this method for a few months now, and I believe it has some potential. I call it the GS method, or Grand Setup method. It is a variant of CFOP and Roux, with it's own unique step. I would love to hear anybody's feedback, positive or negative. I would also appreciate it if anyone could help me by making more example solves. I am also looking for a better name for this method. If you think you found a better name than GS, please tell me. Without further ado, here is the GS method.
> 
> *Steps:
> 
> ...


Haven't been replying to this thread in ages cuz there haven't been any remotely interesting methods for 3x3 (the only thing I care about) in a while. However this interests me quite a bit. I just got an 11.84 single with this method using the COLL/L5E variant and I quite like the idea! I think I might just work a bit with this method and see what I can bring to it, if I may.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 17, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Haven't been replying to this thread in ages cuz there haven't been any remotely interesting methods for 3x3 (the only thing I care about) in a while. However this interests me quite a bit. I just got an 11.84 single with this method using the COLL/L5E variant and I quite like the idea! I think I might just work a bit with this method and see what I can bring to it, if I may.


If so you might want to take a look at M-CELL. It's a similar idea and might give you inspiration for different variants.


----------



## pjk (Jan 17, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.


The moderating team is discussing this issue now. Note that this "New Method Thread" exists because lots of new ideas were being put forward and having them all in one spot was a logical thing to do. However, we understand there has been some inconsistency in merging threads, and we also understand that if a method is merged, it gets less attention and is harder to find in the future. We will update you once we've come up with a solution. Our goal here isn't to stop people from posting new methods or discussing them, but to organize the forum in way that makes sense for most people to discuss and browse topics. Any feedback you have is useful, thanks.

Edit: Because of the ambiguity of creating a new method and the number of potential threads that can exist, we are going to keep most "new method" ideas in this thread as we have for years. In the event a method idea posted here gets too popular and needs its own thread, we can move it to its own. We will leave this to the discretion of the moderators - though if you think something should have its own thread, please report it so we can discuss it. Thanks.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 17, 2017)

One issue I can think of is that people often propose methods that have already been developed/proposed before. Even though they may have put substantial amounts of work into it and developed a lot of algs, I wonder if the best policy is to merge these posts with previous thread that first proposed the method.

As funny as it'd be I'm not sure I'd like a forum with a bunch of threads of people posting their fully developed roux-cfop hybrid methods.


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> I quite agree. It took me months of hard work to fully develop a new, efficient method, only to have it disappear into another thread where it can never be found again. I'm thinking on finding somewhere else to propose the GS method.


May I ask how it took "months of hard work" to fully develop a method with no new algorithm sets?
(Edit: I also would always post a new method in here, or if it's a ZZ/Roux variant I would post in the respective method's thread. I agree that poeple don't want the forum full of new method posts, especially when most of what's suggested is so similar (though yours isn't similar to anything I've seen before)).

Comments about the method: have you considered EO first? EO->blockbuilding hasn't really been explored much but would help with steps 2, 3 and 5 while only making step 4 slower (not sure if EO would help step 1 or not, could do, I've not experimented much with it).
Edit2: Swapping steps 1 and 2 (with or without having done EO) is something else to consider and could improve fluidity since after FB everything would be <Rw, R, U, F>, though if you do this be aware that similar things have been suggested before (though most insert DF before the pair).


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 17, 2017)

It's likely he generated L5EO, WV and didn't know they had existed yet.

Could also consider FB, 2x2x3 in BDL, pair, corners+insert pair, L5E


----------



## TDM (Jan 17, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> It's likely he generated L5EO, WV and didn't know they had existed yet.
> 
> Could also consider FB, 2x2x3 in BDL, pair, corners+insert pair, L5E


He says it's mostly intuitive and only requires 48 algs (27+21), and he names WV. And even so, you could easily gen those in a day.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 17, 2017)

That's weird. There's not much to generate on top of that..


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 17, 2017)

To answer all of you, the hard work came not from WV or the edges, but finding the best way (Movecount wize) to do f2l without one pair and one cross edge, while still beingconsistent like f2l or ZZ blockbuilding.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 17, 2017)

What way is that?


----------



## Sion (Jan 17, 2017)

I'm working on method with one of my friends in Australia named Martin, and I decided to post it here to see what others think. We call it Sicillian.

1:Solve the D layer via blockbuilding.
2: Orient the cross on the U layer in one look.
3: COLL
4: ÆPLL (augment Parity Last Layer) or (Edge permutation last layer). The difference is that APLL disturbs the E slice in order to solve the U layer, while EPLL does not
5:E-Belt one look fix.

If someone wanted to, there are algorithms that solve APLL and E-belt simultaneously, called EPEU, although you could expect 60 or more algorithms, since I might’ve not found every possible EPEU case, although there could still be some that could be useful.


----------



## Loiloiloi (Jan 17, 2017)

Sion said:


> I'm working on method with one of my friends in Australia named Martin, and I decided to post it here to see what others think. We call it Sicillian.
> 
> 1:Solve the D layer via blockbuilding.
> 2: Orient the cross on the U layer in one look.
> ...


What's the benefit of this method? It seems like a lot of steps that basically just does layer by layer in a different and more inefficient order.


----------



## Sion (Jan 17, 2017)

Loiloiloi said:


> What's the benefit of this method? It seems like a lot of steps that basically just does layer by layer in a different and more inefficient order.



What we saw was less looks in solving.

CFOP is done in Seven looks six or two algorithmic, one or five intuitive , which is highly inefficient if you take CFOP as a raw method, without adding much on. Roux is four intuitive looks, three one algorithmic. Since you need to see what you need to do later, you need to slow your turn speed in order to gain efficiency.

Sicilian is five or four looks, only on one intuitive step. This allows for better speed and efficiency overall.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 18, 2017)

Hey guys, my 4x4 method proposal got drowned in here. It's pretty much stadler but with these steps for the LSE:
-solve D and B center and DB edge(blockbuild or do D center, DB edge, B center)
-solve the last 2 centers 
-Solve the L5E with commutators, like ELL but with one extra piece.

I am consistently sub-1:30 with this method. If you guys like, Ill make links to the videos on my youtube channel describing this method, as well as a 1:08 single I got on Camera with this method.(the one on my profile is outdated sry)

I am using this as a main method, because I believe it has serious potential as a method. any thoughts?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

I may do this. Also, I came up with a name for my method: The Lewis method.
Anyone interested in using it?


----------



## Neuro (Jan 19, 2017)

So I was looking at a proposed alg set a while back (L5EP, I think the original post called it TPLL so that's what I'll use), and it made me think about applying it to other methods, as it's one of the only truly viable 1LLSLL methods and I think it has some serious OH potential as all the algs are 2 Gen. I decided to incorporate them into what are currently the "Big 4" solving methods (movecount is simply predicted, I haven't had much time to test):

ROUX: Good ergonomics and movecount
-FB+DB Edge
-SB -1LS Edge (Oriented)
-EO+FB Edge
-COLL
-TPLL

ZZ (Original): Good ergonomics and movecount
-EO Line
-F2L -1LS Edge
-COLL
-TPLL

CFOP: Decent ergonomics and movecount
-Cross
-F2L -2(1 slot 1 LS edge oriented)
-VHLS
-COLL
-TPLL

PETRUS: Decent ergonomics, good movecount
-2x2x2
-2x2x3
-EO
-F2L -1LS Edge
-COLL
-TPLL

These are definitely works in progress, but I think that TPLL could be a valuble tool for OH in particular. This may be personal bias as I am a ZZ solver, but I think that if you were to use this and ZZ-CT, one would be OP at OH, because you pretty much eliminate all bad/long TSLE cases and get to end in a 2 gen solve. I would likely rank the methods as ZZ, Roux, CFOP, then Petrus for speedsolving; but this of course varies from person to person. Let me know your thoughts and any improvements to the methods! 

Algs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mG3URFEHSVfVlvHbx4B0-wwgRm5PW-LDJcIU7JBAktQ/mobilebasic


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

sorry to break your bubble, Neuro, but this has been proposed at east 3 times before on this same thread. The consensus is That it is not worth the trouble to solve the corner, and it doesnt save that many moves.
EDIT: TTLL works because solving the corner is much easier than solving the edge.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

here are some videos with Lewis method:
quick overview of the method
more in-depth of step 5
1:08 on camera with the Lewis Method(my PB is 1:01 but I average like ~1:25)


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So I was looking at a proposed alg set a while back (L5EP, I think the original post called it TPLL so that's what I'll use), and it made me think about applying it to other methods, as it's one of the only truly viable 1LLSLL methods and I think it has some serious OH potential as all the algs are 2 Gen. I decided to incorporate them into what are currently the "Big 4" solving methods (movecount is simply predicted, I haven't had much time to test)



This looks really good, I'll have to try it out. The L5EP I first learned was for the U-layer and DF, which consists primarily of <M, U> algs, so this surprised me when you said it was good for OH. Also, wouldn't this be 2LLSLL? One for COLL, one for TPLL?


----------



## Fear (Jan 19, 2017)

Thoughts on Hexagonal Franscisco f2l for oh? Assuming you don't do edges then corners for the hexagon and you can plan an efficient hexagon during inspection. The problem I'd come across is that last edge, but you might be able to quickly table abuse that edge into place.


----------



## Neuro (Jan 19, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> sorry to break your bubble, Neuro, but this has been proposed at east 3 times before on this same thread. The consensus is That it is not worth the trouble to solve the corner, and it doesnt save that many moves.
> EDIT: TTLL works because solving the corner is much easier than solving the edge.


Ah man I thought I was onto something here. Well I guess I'll keep trying stuff and see what sticks


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Ah man I thought I was onto something here. Well I guess I'll keep trying stuff and see what sticks


you do 4x4? you should try out Lewis method... I made it last week and now its my main method
look at the video links above and the proposal up a little in the comments


----------



## Neuro (Jan 19, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> This looks really good, I'll have to try it out. The L5EP I first learned was for the U-layer and DF, which consists primarily of <M, U> algs, so this surprised me when you said it was good for OH. Also, wouldn't this be 2LLSLL? One for COLL, one for TPLL?


I'm not sure as to the true nomenclature of this, but the original poster claimed it was 1LLSLL. I could see it as being viewed 2 ways: COLL and TPLL are connected because COLL is a precursor/requirement for TPLL, making it 2 look; or TPLL as being separate and inserting the edge is the only think that solves the LS, making it 1LLSLL. I suppose either are technically correct viewpoints, guess we'll have to let people decide!


----------



## Neuro (Jan 19, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> you do 4x4? you should try out Lewis method... I made it last week and now its my main method
> look at the video links above and the proposal up a little in the comments


It looks like a really good method, but I'm not terribly good with commutators so this probably wouldn't work well for me. I do have a 4x4 method that I've been working on for a while based on ZZ, though. Once it gets refined I might post it, but it'll probably be a while before it becomes an exact science.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> It looks like a really good method, but I'm not terribly good with commutators so this probably wouldn't work well for me. I do have a 4x4 method that I've been working on for a while based on ZZ, though. Once it gets refined I might post it, but it'll probably be a while before it becomes an exact science.


you micht want to check out Z4 and my Yau/Meyer-like Meffd for ZZ, ZZ-4


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 19, 2017)

Sion said:


> I'm working on method with one of my friends in Australia named Martin, and I decided to post it here to see what others think. We call it Sicillian.
> 
> 1:Solve the D layer via blockbuilding.
> 2: Orient the cross on the U layer in one look.
> ...



This resembles Waterman, but I think it's less efficient/ergonomic.


Shiv3r said:


> Hey guys, my 4x4 method proposal got drowned in here. It's pretty much stadler but with these steps for the LSE:
> -solve D and B center and DB edge(blockbuild or do D center, DB edge, B center)
> -solve the last 2 centers
> -Solve the L5E with commutators, like ELL but with one extra piece.
> ...



This is an alright 4x4 method, we've talked about it over fb and discord and stuff. The idea of a direct solving Roux method is really exciting. I'm worried that lookahead and ergonomics will lead to a lower tps cap but I dont have a 4x4 to try this out with, so I can't say for sure. I'm also not sure it's too efficient

I know very little about 4x4 though, so hopefully I'm wrong about all these 



Neuro said:


> I'm not sure as to the true nomenclature of this, but the original poster claimed it was 1LLSLL. I could see it as being viewed 2 ways: COLL and TPLL are connected because COLL is a precursor/requirement for TPLL, making it 2 look; or TPLL as being separate and inserting the edge is the only think that solves the LS, making it 1LLSLL. I suppose either are technically correct viewpoints, guess we'll have to let people decide!



I'm not exactly sure why it's called "TPLL" but I think we should go with established nomenclature: most people would simply call this CLS+L5E


----------



## Neuro (Jan 19, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> you micht want to check out Z4 and my Yau/Meyer-like Meffd for ZZ, ZZ-4


I'll be sure to look into them before finalizing my method


----------



## Neuro (Jan 19, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> This resembles Waterman, but I think it's less efficient/ergonomic.
> 
> 
> This is an alright 4x4 method, we've talked about it over fb and discord and stuff. The idea of a direct solving Roux method is really exciting. I'm worried that lookahead and ergonomics will lead to a lower tps cap but I dont have a 4x4 to try this out with, so I can't say for sure. I'm also not sure it's too efficient
> ...


Yeah I understand where you're coming from (probably just call it L5EP from now on), but isn't the only goal of CLS to orient the corners, not solve them?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 19, 2017)

Oh right, sorry. CPLS+L5E, not CLS.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 19, 2017)

A lot of how to do all the fancy CP reduction for *2GR *(2-gen redux) is still in the works, but just to give a bit of an update on the stuff I'm working on, here's what I'm thinking about right now. The inspection is very difficult at the moment as everything is still a work in progress, and the rest of the solve is straightforward.

*In inspection:*
1) Solve DLB with a rotation
2) find key swap
3) determine how to solve EOPair (explained below)
4) find key swap after moves needed to solve EOPair

*The substeps in order:*
_EOPair _(8 moves, mostly <R,r,U,u,F,f> to make CP tracking ez, but not a hard rule): orient the edges w.r.t the proper centers (so if your DLB piece is white-blue-orange, then you want to orient w.r.t red/orange front, white top), then solve a 2x1x1 by placing the LD edge.
_2GLine _(3 moves): while preserving EO, expand the 2x1x1 into a 3x1x1 and reduce corners to <R,U> and the entire cube to <R,r2,U,u2>.
_Block _(8 moves, mostly <R,r2,U,u2>): while preserving EO, expand the 3x1x1 into a 3x2x2.
_F2L _(13 moves, all <R,U>): solve the rest of the F2L. (keep in mind you'll sometimes get lucky pairs for an F2L-on-left. Definitely make use of them.)
_2GLL _(15 moves, mostly <R,U>): 1LLL w/ 84 algs.

*Wholesolve*: 47 moves, 28 of which are <R,U> (~60% of the solve). (For comparison, ZZ-b gets 47, ZZ-CT gets 52, Felik's ao100 got 61, and the avg movecount of a bunch of Lau's solves on cubesolv.es is 49)

There are of course a couple of "plugin" methods you can add as well on top of your 1LLL: if you have an awkward pair, you could use TSLE/TTLL or CLS/L5E, or insert the pair and learn more 2GLL-like algsets that solve LL + fix a twisted corner; you can make NM blocks if they look really nice, etc.

I know I'm not giving much practical stuff here as inspection thingies still need to be worked out (which is basically just me practicing EOPair over and over to see how feasible/ergonomic it really is), but: here are 9 example solves to feast your eyes on  Average movecount is 45.2 (σ = 6.18).

If EOPair turns out to be too awkward of a step, then my backup idea is a much improved Noah's CP Blocks 2.0:
*CPLine *(3 moves): 3x1x1 + CP.
*FB *(8 moves): Expand to 3x2x1.
*EOLine *(9 moves): <R,r,U,M> to solve EO + DFDB. mdipalma and I did some playing around with HARCS today and got avg movecount for this at 8.6 moves (n = 10).
*F2L, 2GLL *(28 moves): as before.

*Wholesolve*: 48 moves.

Issues here: CPLine will require a good amount of color neutrality to make use of any free pairs (p = 0.64, n = 69) or pairs 1 move away from being formed (p = 1, n = 40). You'll also need fast EO recognition methods and a good way to solve EO + Line pieces efficiently (personally this seems hard but the old CP Blocks thread has Kirjava saying this step is actually very straightforward. If someone can show this to be super easy I might look into it more).

I like the first idea more if EOPair turns out to be really nice and plannable in the same time that top ZZ solvers plan their EOLines (~3-4 seconds)--I think it's certainly possible to determine key swap in ~2 seconds, and that leaves at least 8 seconds to track the key swap in order to predict what it'll be after EOPair.


----------



## Aeron (Jan 19, 2017)

I literally just thought of this method for 3x3. No names, most probably thought of. Heavily uses M-slice. 

So, this is a sort of M-slice relying method like Roux, but its easier I could say?

Steps : 
First 4 Columns
F2L using U moves and M-slices
OLL
PLL

This is super indetailed, so just read through.
Basically, you build 4 big 1x1x3 columns on 4 sides of the cube intuitively. The next step uses a lot of center orienting
(cuz the centers aren't always in the correct place) and M-slices to solve F2L while preserving Corner Permutation. and for LL, since the 4 Corners are oriented and permuted, you just need to solve edges with the 3-4 OLL cases for solving edges only. The next step will mostly be M-slice PLL algs, namely U,U',Z and H-perms. there may be other non-M-slice algs but it is still a PLL alg which you most probably have already learnt. That is all for this crappy and probably very inefficient method. Please tell me whether this method was created before(probably), and comment your views on this method.

Thanks for reading!


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 19, 2017)

Aeron said:


> I literally just thought of this method for 3x3. No names, most probably thought of. Heavily uses M-slice.
> 
> So, this is a sort of M-slice relying method like Roux, but its easier I could say?
> 
> ...


This is more or less PCMS though that doesn't do OLL/PLL as that is more inefficient and slower.
It's not too bad a method though not very widely used and it is generally acknowledged that roux is better because you don't have to deal with S or rotations which can be difficult to do smoothly in a slice heavy method. Cool idea though yes it has been thought of before.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> This is more or less PCMS though that doesn't do OLL/PLL as that is more inefficient and slower.
> It's not too bad a method though not very widely used and it is generally acknowledged that roux is better because you don't have to deal with S or rotations which can be difficult to do smoothly in a slice heavy method. Cool idea though yes it has been thought of before.


yeah, all corners/columns first, when optimized enough, become roux.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So I was looking at a proposed alg set a while back (L5EP, I think the original post called it TPLL so that's what I'll use), and it made me think about applying it to other methods, as it's one of the only truly viable 1LLSLL methods and I think it has some serious OH potential as all the algs are 2 Gen. I decided to incorporate them into what are currently the "Big 4" solving methods (movecount is simply predicted, I haven't had much time to test):
> 
> ROUX: Good ergonomics and movecount
> -FB+DB Edge
> ...


after actually trying it, it may be decent. If you know COLL, it is actually pretty good. 
I think that the problem is that if you are neutral with this and ZZ-CT, you have to decide between TSLE-TTLL and TPLL. 
I think it may be a better Idea to use this subset if you are using ZZ, and normally do COLL-EPLL, because unless you get a really easy insert you can use this subset(which all except the 5-cycles, can be done as conjugated EPLL's), and COLL would be the same as you normally would. I actually may use this with ZZ for OH for a while, even though I went back to roux OH. I have seen this before but it was to be used in a different place and I didnt like it.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 19, 2017)

Aeron said:


> Basically, you build 4 big 1x1x3 columns on 4 sides of the cube intuitively.


I don't know about anyone else, but I don't know of any way to build columns completely intuitively, I just do four F2L pairs and COLL (I can't be bothered to learn CLL or CMLL). Is everyone just overlooking this or is there something I don't know?? I'd be really interested in learning how to do this intuitively.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I don't know of any way to build columns completely intuitively, I just do four F2L pairs and COLL (I can't be bothered to learn CLL or CMLL). Is everyone just overlooking this or is there something I don't know?? I'd be really interested in learning how to do this intuitively.


youre nit missing anything, you do CLL. or something like WV.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

Wait guys, I did some calculations for finishing off L10P of Lewis method (after F and U centers are solved, solving the last 10 wing pieces). 

So the idea is to use a single comm to solve one DF wing + solve one other wing on LL, then do the same with the second DF wing (so now the wings are solved and there are at most 6 unsolved wings on LL). Then permute the remaining wings in 1 look. (leading to a 3look system)

I think this is actually feasible, since alg count is 6!/2! wing permutations * 1 wing orientations / 4 U symmetries = 90 cases.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Wait guys, I did some calculations for finishing off L10P of Lewis method (after F and U centers are solved, solving the last 10 wing pieces).
> 
> So the idea is to use a single comm to solve one DF wing + solve one other wing on LL, then do the same with the second DF wing (so now the wings are solved and there are at most 6 unsolved wings on LL). Then permute the remaining wings in 1 look. (leading to a 3look system)
> 
> I think this is actually feasible, since alg count is 6!/2! wing permutations * 1 wing orientations / 4 U symmetries = 90 cases.


I like the Idea, my only problem is the alg count. It may make sense to learn comms to do that though. 
My 4look system is the way I'm using it right now, and I have gotten 1:01 with that so...
Ill tell you guys as soon as my PB hits sub-1


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

I was using 2GR on reddit's daily scramble and got this wonderful 40 HTM solution:

D2 L' D' F2 D B2 L B U2 R F R U2 L2 B U' F' D2 L2 D'
x y // insp
U2 r u r' U' f2 // EOPair 6/6
r' F r // 2GLine 3/9
R U' M2 U R' u2 // Block 6/15
R U' R U R U R U' R' U R // F2L 11/26
U' R U R' U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R2 // 2GLL+R2 14/40


----------



## sqAree (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I was using 2GR on reddit's daily scramble and got this wonderful 40 HTM solution:
> 
> D2 L' D' F2 D B2 L B U2 R F R U2 L2 B U' F' D2 L2 D'
> x y // insp
> ...



It's interesting, I thought 2GR would turn out to be not too efficient, because solving with only R and U is known not to be too efficient. Now it seems like I was right in the sense that the 2-gen part is by far the longest in the method and wrong in the sense that the whole solve has still super few moves. Which together makes the method awesome. I'm pleasantly surprised. I consider learning that for OH once it's fully developed.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

Well, admittedly this is a lucky solve. <R,U> is not at all efficient, and average movecount is still projected to be just barely sub-50. However i have been surprised by a good number of low-40 or lower (I had one that was 34 moves!) solves--I think this is because of how lucky it's possible to be with each step (EOPair might be very easy, Block step could have preformed lines, F2L can make use of F2L-on-left and R2/U2 pseudos, OLL skips can happen, you can get pure sune 2GLLs, etc.) I think this luck can be further enhanced by learning more ways to solve the <R,U> subgroup (e.g. using TSLE-TTLL or CLS-L5E when last pair looks bad).

If you want a more representative sample of what 2GR solves are actually like, I've posted 9 example solves further up in this thread. I'm not "cherrypicking" these solves, they really are a list of all the 2GR solves that I've done so far. (Basically whenever I pull up a new cstimer scramble I plug it into alg.cubing.net and type up the solve. So in total I've only done 10 full 2GR solves.)

Including this last 10th solve, average movecount is *44.7 *(σ = 6.05). Still lower than the expected 47, but I'm going to be a bit pessimistic and assume that I've just been getting lucky.


----------



## sqAree (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Well, admittedly this is a lucky solve. <R,U> is not at all efficient, and average movecount is still projected to be just barely sub-50. However i have been surprised by a good number of low-40 or lower (I had one that was 34 moves!) solves--I think this is because of how lucky it's possible to be with each step (EOPair might be very easy, Block step could have preformed lines, F2L can make use of F2L-on-left and R2/U2 pseudos, OLL skips can happen, you can get pure sune 2GLLs, etc.) I think this luck can be further enhanced by learning more ways to solve the <R,U> subgroup (e.g. using TSLE-TTLL or CLS-L5E when last pair looks bad).
> 
> If you want a more representative sample of what 2GR solves are actually like, I've posted 9 example solves further up in this thread. I'm not "cherrypicking" these solves, they really are a list of all the 2GR solves that I've done so far. (Basically whenever I pull up a new cstimer scramble I plug it into alg.cubing.net and type up the solve. So in total I've only done 10 full 2GR solves.)
> 
> Including this last 10th solve, average movecount is *44.7 *(σ = 6.05). Still lower than the expected 47, but I'm going to be a bit pessimistic and assume that I've just been getting lucky.


I guess as a method developer you have to be pessimistic. ^^ But even with barely sub50 moves it still looks nice, because RU = tps max. It's ergonomic and has no drawback in look-ahead. It's funny when I think about CFOP whose idea it is to be much less efficient and use rotations to be able to solve some parts of it 2-gen and spam tps there; here we get the same with less moves and no rotations.
But well, I know I'm in the hype mood, so it might turn out less awesome than it sounds.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

sqAree said:


> I guess as a method developer you have to be pessimistic. ^^ But even with barely sub50 moves it still looks nice, because RU = tps max. It's ergonomic and has no drawback in look-ahead. It's funny when I think about CFOP whose idea it is to be much less efficient and use rotations to be able to solve some parts of it 2-gen and spam tps there; here we get the same with less moves and no rotations.
> But well, I know I'm in the hype mood, so it might turn out less awesome than it sounds.



Yeah, from my experimentation with the method I'm very excited, as it feels like sub-50 movecounts largely depend on how good you are at solving the <R,U> subgroup w/ blockbuilding or algset tricks (which is good since those are improvable with practice).

Though, I would still be quite happy with a ~50 move average. This is comparable to Lau's Roux average movecount and is already ~10 moves more efficient than Felik's CFOP avg movecount.

Most "method theory" seems to account for CFOP's success over (or equality with) more efficient methods like Roux and ZZ by claiming that there's a lower possible max tps compared to CFOP's qtm optimized 2-gen + simpler lookahead. If this method is feasible, it doesn't look to me like there will be this tps cap to counterbalance the advantage it has over CFOP in movecount...

So maybe I shouldn't be too pessimistic after all.

But of course this all assumes the inspection can actually be done. The first step is still in development but after a lot of EOPair practice it's starting to "click" for me, so I'm hoping it will eventually be feasible to quickly plan it out and begin tracing CP.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> So the idea is to use a single comm to solve one DF wing + solve one other wing on LL, then do the same with the second DF wing (so now the wings are solved and there are at most 6 unsolved wings on LL). Then permute the remaining wings in 1 look. (leading to a 3look system)



But if you use 3-cycle comms for the DF wings, you can't completely control where the two solved wings are, so if you take into account that the two solved wings can be in any of 28 positions, this makes the case count blow up.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> But if you use 3-cycle comms for the DF wings, you can't completely control where the two solved wings are, so if you take into account that the two solved wings can be in any of 28 positions, this makes the case count blow up.



Whoops, I did math wrong. True case count should be 1/4 * 8! / 2!, not 1/4 * 6! / 2!. So actually it's 56 * 90 = 5040. 

gg to that idea then


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Whoops, I did math wrong. True case count should be 1/4 * 8! / 2!, not 1/4 * 6! / 2!. So actually it's 56 * 90 = 5040.
> 
> gg to that idea then


Whatever, I can still 4look it with like 10 algs lol.(all the L2E cases)


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus, could you please make a tutorial on 2-gen redux? the problem I have is that I cannot for the life of me plan CP in inspection, maybe I should check the tables again...


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus, I had a thought. If you are doing the CP tracking with 7 corners, and since slice moves don't break CP, couldn't you just always start with the DLB corner "solved", and then determine your Key swap from that, and then after you do CPline of FB+CP or whatever it is, then you use slice moves to fix the centers? that means that there is no setup moves... You just rotate so that the DLB corner is at the DLB spot, then solve from there.

because I suck at things like EOline, and CP on top of that is really hard, this is what I think Im gonne use for right now:
1.solve DLB and DLF corners and solve CP, if possible solve the DL edge(CPline)
2.solve the rest of first block with slice moves(and fix centers)
3.Solve 2x2x3 like OBLBL-3 (AKA Pootris), by solving DF+DB and EO at the same time, use L5E/LSE EO to do this by setting up oriented edges to the R face and then doing MU EO.(like in my ooold rotationless petrus idea)
4.solve 2-gen F2L and LL.
It's pretty much Noah's CP blocks/your alternate method... I think that the fact that you can always have 1 corner "solved" means you only have to deal with 7


----------



## Zanaso (Jan 20, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Teoidus, I had a thought. If you are doing the CP tracking with 7 corners, and since slice moves don't break CP, couldn't you just always start with the DLB corner "solved", and then determine your Key swap from that, and then after you do CPline of FB+CP or whatever it is, then you use slice moves to fix the centers? that means that there is no setup moves... You just rotate so that the DLB corner is at the DLB spot, then solve from there.



This is exactly what he has switched to doing, actually. You can see this by looking at his example solves. They all start with rotating so that DLB is solved, then he solves EO + DL using <R,U,F,r,u,f>.



> Teoidus, could you please make a tutorial on 2-gen redux? the problem I have is that I cannot for the life of me plan CP in inspection, maybe I should check the tables again...


Is it determining the key swap that you're having trouble with? If so, you can message me on the discord server and I can teach you how to do this. I don't think he's published the DLF inserts that fix the CP when you know the key swap, though.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Teoidus, I had a thought. If you are doing the CP tracking with 7 corners, and since slice moves don't break CP, couldn't you just always start with the DLB corner "solved"



As zanaso said this is what I am doing in inspection (and also what I said in my post on 2GR a while back, the first step is to solve DLB in inspection)



Shiv3r said:


> Teoidus, could you please make a tutorial on 2-gen redux? the problem I have is that I cannot for the life of me plan CP in inspection, maybe I should check the tables again...



I've published all the information you need to figure out how to reduce, but it's definitely not friendly yet. I'll release more user-friendly stuff once I get more things fleshed out.

As of right now I am deriving the DLF inserts by hand based on the following 3 key swap changes:


If you do start using FB -> 2x2x3+EO, let me know how fast you can orient the edges and solve DFDB and if you can regularly get 9 stm.

Also, please stop calling it pootris. It's just not a good name.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> As zanaso said this is what I am doing in inspection (and also what I said in my post on 2GR a while back, the first step is to solve DLB in inspection)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


okay. I stopped calling it pootris, I call it OBLBL-3 because that's pretty much what it is: OBLBL on 3x3. 
so I may learn 2GR, but I think that just CPline then EO is better, maybe instead of tracking CP while doing EO, tracking EO while doing CP is a better Idea.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I think that just CPline then EO is better, maybe instead of tracking CP while doing EO, tracking EO while doing CP is a better Idea.



I've tried this out--tracking EO while doing CPFB is harder than you'd think (you have to keep track of 11 pieces + where the centers are over the course of ~11 moves), and if you don't track EO then the recognition seems difficult. 

I break down the advantages and disadvantages of this variant in my original post a while back up in this thread, read that pls


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 20, 2017)

Okay guys, I someone helped me make a Lewis method step 5 scramble generator! It's live here. thanks to TYCuber with the scrambler!


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Okay guys, I someone helped me make a Lewis method step 5 scramble generator! It's live here. thanks to TYCuber with the scrambler!



Can you please tell TYCuber to use .innerHTML = s on a div element instead of alert(s)?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Can you please tell TYCuber to use .innerHTML = s on a div element instead of alert(s)?


I know its annoying and I cant copy off scrambler. Ill tell him


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 22, 2017)

I thought of an idea for square-1. It is a possible improvement on the Vandenberg method.
1- Parity cubeshape
2- Corner separation (I will be the first to switch from the incorrect terminology of orientation)
3- Edge separation and permutation of D-layer corners
4- Reduced PBL subset
Step one and two could probably be done in one look, by an experienced squanner (I'm making that a word). Three is a reduced subset of ESCP (EOCP), where the top layer's permutation can be ignored, and would have 14 or 38 algs, depending in whether you use M2 first to reduce it to an easier case. Step four would have 210 algs, including non-parity EP and PLL. This could be a three look method, with a feasible number of algs, which would be crazy.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 22, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I thought of an idea for square-1. It is a possible improvement on the Vandenberg method.
> 1- Parity cubeshape
> 2- Corner separation (I will be the first to switch from the incorrect terminology of orientation)
> 3- Edge separation and permutation of D-layer corners
> ...


It looks like a lot like the Vandenbergh method


----------



## Neuro (Jan 22, 2017)

Hey guys, so here's the first draft of my N4 method (yet another ZZ 4x4 method.) PM me is you'd like to help me look into this further. The main goal of this was to minimize the amount of EO pairing while solving as well as drastically reducing rotations (also opens gates to M slice pairing in the beginning if you like that)

1-L/R/D centers: Fairly easy, would recommend L/R first then put in D

2-Pair DB/DF edges and place in DL/DR: solvable with D or D'

3- Pair 1 more D layer edge + a corresponding E slice piece and put both oriented in E slice: 2 edges that make a 3x3x1 block (Orange White and Orange Green, Red White and Red Blue, etc)

4- Solve Last 3 Centers

5- Place line edges and solve 3x3x1 block with prepared edges: Hide block in the back of the cube

6- Solve one more 3x3x1 block: Same criterion, hide in back of cube

7- EO pair last 6 edges: I'd recommend that if you find parity to ensure that the parity is on a U layer edge to make blockbuilding easier

8- ZZ F2L

9- LL: Reccomend COLL and EPLL+Parity

If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll answer to the best of my ability. Still a work in progress and definitely in development, but if anyone's interested I'd be happy to work with them to make improvements!


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 22, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> It looks like a lot like the Vandenbergh method


Read the first line please. The point is that the last two steps are different. Saying that is like saying the ZB method is a lot like CFOP.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 22, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Read the first line please. The point is that the last two steps are different. Saying that is like saying the ZB method is a lot like CFOP.


but ZB is not an improvement, at least not to most people. Also, most fast Square-1-ers can like ~3look squan anyway.(they often do something like this but intuitive)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 22, 2017)

Okay. I was mostly annoyed because you didn't give any answer, but I accept the "most people can 3 look square one anyway". My point in proposing this method is that, like ZB, though most people might not find it an improvement, but some might.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 22, 2017)

What, the analogy holds

"This is a possible improvement to Vandenbergh"

"ZB is a possible improvement to CFOP"

Surely the dude didn't generate 700 algs if he didn't think it were a possible improvement.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 22, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> What, the analogy holds
> 
> "This is a possible improvement to Vandenbergh"
> 
> ...


wait they genned all of them? if so I'm impressed. 
The thing I have against like vandenbergh in general is there are a few people sub-15 with roux& screw, so lol.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 22, 2017)

Maybe. I assumed he did, because he had an exact case count on his site.


----------



## supercavitation (Jan 23, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> (I will be the first to switch from the incorrect terminology of orientation)


Rob Yau's been using separation instead since at least when he started working on Yau-1, maybe before.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 23, 2017)

41 STM 2GR Example Solve
F2 D2 L2 D2 R' B' D2 R2 D B' R2 U2 B2 R2 F' L F' U2 R' D
x2 z' // insp
M f R F' f2 // EOPair 5/5
U' M' F M // 2GLine 4/9
U R' U r2 U' R' u2 // Block 7/16
U' R' U R' U R' U2 R2 U R' U R U' R' U' R // F2L 16/32
U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R U2 // 2GLL 9/41


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 24, 2017)

34 STM 2GR Example Solve

No, I didn't try to do anything fancy here. Just lucky.

F2 R2 B2 L2 F2 D L2 D2 F2 U R2 F' U F' D R F L F L2 U2
z y // insp
U u2 r' f r f // EOPair 6/6
u r F r // 2GLine 4/10
U' M2 E2 // Block 3/13
R2 U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U z' // F2L 10/23
R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' // 2GLL 11/34


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> 34 STM 2GR Example Solve
> 
> No, I didn't try to do anything fancy here. Just lucky.
> 
> ...


Are these speedsolves?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 24, 2017)

They're not timed solves, but they are me typing up the first thing I see on alg.cubing.net. So I don't really sit and think about what to do


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> They're not timed solves, but they are me typing up the first thing I see on alg.cubing.net. So I don't really sit and think about what to do


So you can do CP in inspection? What method do you use at the moment?


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 24, 2017)

WVCP?
Winter Variation into an EPLL. 
It should be super useful for OH 3x3.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 24, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> WVCP?
> Winter Variation into an EPLL.
> It should be super useful for OH 3x3.


The thing I don't like about this is the huge alg count. 
Maybe a better WVLS idea would orient edges and then guarantee an adjacent corner swap PLL case.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 24, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> WVCP?
> Winter Variation into an EPLL.
> It should be super useful for OH 3x3.



Algs have been generated for it, 162 algs that aren't all very good isn't worth it


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 24, 2017)

Cale S said:


> Algs have been generated for it, 162 algs that aren't all very good isn't worth it


maybe there are some nice WV-like LS things though... like trying to skip crappy PLL do perform OH(diag swap Pll's). Orienting corners and forcing an adjacent swap on the LL may be a decent Idea. can anyone help me figure out the case count ? like you @Teoidus


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 24, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> maybe there are some nice WV-like LS things though... like trying to skip crappy PLL do perform OH(diag swap Pll's). Orienting corners and forcing an adjacent swap on the LL may be a decent Idea. can anyone help me figure out the case count ? like you @Teoidus


If we're starting with oriented edges, then just double WV case are needed (preserve/opposite swap and adjacent swap) so 54


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 24, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> If we're starting with oriented edges, then just double WV case are needed (preserve/opposite swap and adjacent swap) so 54


so if the algs are bad for directly solving only the ones that would leave you with a diag PLL, then we can just use any adjacent normal swap WV case, so we can pick and choose from all the cases leaving us with a lot of really nice cases.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 24, 2017)

I want to gen this algset eventually, but I dont have a good alg generator on my computer(its a chromebook), so Im kinda hosed.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 24, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> So you can do CP in inspection? What method do you use at the moment?



Sorta; I can recog CP and plan EOPair. I can't track CP quickly yet but I'm working on it.

I use Roux atm, not sure if I will switch.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 25, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> so if the algs are bad for directly solving only the ones that would leave you with a diag PLL, then we can just use any adjacent normal swap WV case, so we can pick and choose from all the cases leaving us with a lot of really nice cases.


The problem with this is that, sadly, no good way has been devised to detect CP during LS. I guess you could use Statue's CPLS recognition, but I don't think it's very good.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 25, 2017)

I was going to use WVCP recog which is like COLL almost.


----------



## efattah (Jan 25, 2017)

After 1 year of working on my LMCF method I got my first full-step sub-10 single (9.75). As I posted in another thread I am starting to add Waterman's last step (solve two redges while simultaneously orienting the midges). This step has 288 extra algorithms.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 25, 2017)

efattah said:


> After 1 year of working on my LMCF method I got my first full-step sub-10 single (9.75). As I posted in another thread I am starting to add Waterman's last step (solve two redges while simultaneously orienting the midges). This step has 288 extra algorithms.


You have yet to post any algsheets, even though I have been interested in this method for a while.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 25, 2017)

What sorts of movecounts do you get on average?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 25, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> What sorts of movecounts do you get on average?


he said like 45, sonetimes even sub-40 on speedsolves. proves that being fully algorithmic has advantages.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 25, 2017)

Would anyone be interested in a 4x4 Method for ZZ that could rival Yau? Right now me and Neuro are working on a Z 4x4 method(N4 or NS4) that means you always skip the extra look taken for the LL to solve PLL parity, and you also can solve OLL parity directly after edgepairing or even fix it during edgepairing(due to EO, you can tell if there is only 1 flipped edge). The alg count to solve EPLL and parity is 9 including both pure PLL parities and pure EPLL's. Anyone interested? I am averaging sub-1:40 with it right now(would average sub-1:20 but i suck at edgepairing), and Neuro has gotten a sub-1:20 single.


----------



## efattah (Jan 25, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> What sorts of movecounts do you get on average?



I just counted ten solves and the average was 44. However a great advantage of this method is that low-movecount solves (39 or lower) happen remarkably often, around 1 in 6. At the same time there is the occasional 52-54 move solve as well. It is also worth mentioning that I have had several speedsolves at 28-29 moves which is totally unbelievable.

I have done extensive analysis of the statistics to try to understand what is happening. If you consider CFOP F2L, to skip a pair requires two pieces right next to each other to be exactly pre-solved. If just the corner (in the slot) or just the edge (in the slot) is already solved by accident, this gives no advantage and is even considered a disadvantage. When you solve the corners first, the E2L pairs of the second step are random pairs of L/R slice edges and do not need to be next to each other. This means that if you have just one edge pre-solved in the L face, well you already have saved some moves, and if you have two edges solved (either 2 in L, 2 in R, 1 in L and 1 in R) now you skip an entire E2L pair. So in LMCF the chance of skipping an E2L pair is huge. At least half of solves have one edge piece already pre-solved and perhaps 1 in 5 have two edge pieces solved. Since I usually solve 1 edge piece at the same time as the corners, then 1 in 5 solves I only need to do two E2L pairs and then I am already on the last step (solve remaining L/R edge while orienting the midges).

The EGW variant of LMCF (EGW = EG + Waterman) adds the power to solve two edge pieces at the same time as orienting the midges. This adds an even greater statistical bias to lower movement solutions, because in EGW if you have 1 edge pre-solved (which happens 50% of the time), then the steps are:
1. Solve corners + 1 edge piece in 1 look
1b. [1 extra edge is found pre-solved]
2. Solve two E2L pairs (4 edge pieces)
3. Solve last two edge pieces while orienting the midges
4. Permute midges

Step 1 has the same complexity as CFOP PLL and steps 3+4 have the same complexity as CFOP OLL, so it really just comes down to E2L vs. F2L, and both EGW and LMCF the chance of skipping E2L pairs is way higher than skipping F2L pairs in CFOP.

Waterman's extremely low movecounts are real. As I posted in another thread, in the EGW variant, the solve proceeds based on the scramble. If an easy CLL face can be found, then you use block building to build one face minus one edge and basically solve the whole cube with Waterman. More often no easy block build of such a face is possible but rather you can see all the corners + 1 edge in one look, in which case you solve those with EG and proceed with the classic LMCF solution.

In summary I think the EGW and LMCF methods offer equal speed potential as the best CFOP variants but with the added advantage of much higher statistical chance of fast singles.

Edit: An interesting analysis is time ratios. My current global LMCF average is around 16.7 but I am not a fast turner and solving the corners with EG takes me 5 seconds on average. Using the corners as a metric, world class solvers can solve the corners in 2.0 seconds, so I am 2.5 times slower than a world class solver. Applying this to my global LMCF average predicts a fast turning average of 16.7 / 2.5 = 6.68, and my 9.75 full-step single done by a fast turner would convert to 9.75 / 2.5 = 3.90 (full-step!)


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 25, 2017)

efattah said:


> I just counted ten solves and the average was 44. However a great advantage of this method is that low-movecount solves (39 or lower) happen remarkably often, around 1 in 6. At the same time there is the occasional 52-54 move solve as well. It is also worth mentioning that I have had several speedsolves at 28-29 moves which is totally unbelievable.
> 
> I have done extensive analysis of the statistics to try to understand what is happening. If you consider CFOP F2L, to skip a pair requires two pieces right next to each other to be exactly pre-solved. If just the corner (in the slot) or just the edge (in the slot) is already solved by accident, this gives no advantage and is even considered a disadvantage. When you solve the corners first, the E2L pairs of the second step are random pairs of L/R slice edges and do not need to be next to each other. This means that if you have just one edge pre-solved in the L face, well you already have saved some moves, and if you have two edges solved (either 2 in L, 2 in R, 1 in L and 1 in R) now you skip an entire E2L pair. So in LMCF the chance of skipping an E2L pair is huge. At least half of solves have one edge piece already pre-solved and perhaps 1 in 5 have two edge pieces solved. Since I usually solve 1 edge piece at the same time as the corners, then 1 in 5 solves I only need to do two E2L pairs and then I am already on the last step (solve remaining L/R edge while orienting the midges).
> 
> ...


It would be nice if you could post algorithms for E2L, please. I think it has potential.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jan 25, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Would anyone be interested in a 4x4 Method for ZZ that could rival Yau? Right now me and Neuro are working on a Z 4x4 method(N4 or NS4) that means you always skip the extra look taken for the LL to solve PLL parity, and you also can solve OLL parity directly after edgepairing or even fix it during edgepairing(due to EO, you can tell if there is only 1 flipped edge). The alg count to solve EPLL and parity is 9 including both pure PLL parities and pure EPLL's. Anyone interested? I am averaging sub-1:40 with it right now(would average sub-1:20 but i suck at edgepairing), and Neuro has gotten a sub-1:20 single.



I'd definitely be interested.


----------



## efattah (Jan 25, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> It would be nice if you could post algorithms for E2L, please. I think it has potential.



Okay I will try to post them soon. I sent an early version to Crafto22 almost a year ago, but a lot has changed since then so I will update them.

Eric


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 25, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> I'd definitely be interested.


It is this so far: 
L/R centers
DB & DF edges at DR/DL, solve one other cross edge and one E-slice edge, place like you would in yau(ORIENTED)
L4C 
Solve final cross dedge and pair up the E-slice edge with a corner and create an xcross
Pair up edges & fix parity and EO
ZZF2L
COLL-EPLL+parity


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 26, 2017)

efattah said:


> I just counted ten solves and the average was 44. However a great advantage of this method is that low-movecount solves (39 or lower) happen remarkably often, around 1 in 6. At the same time there is the occasional 52-54 move solve as well. It is also worth mentioning that I have had several speedsolves at 28-29 moves which is totally unbelievable.
> 
> I have done extensive analysis of the statistics to try to understand what is happening. If you consider CFOP F2L, to skip a pair requires two pieces right next to each other to be exactly pre-solved. If just the corner (in the slot) or just the edge (in the slot) is already solved by accident, this gives no advantage and is even considered a disadvantage. When you solve the corners first, the E2L pairs of the second step are random pairs of L/R slice edges and do not need to be next to each other. This means that if you have just one edge pre-solved in the L face, well you already have saved some moves, and if you have two edges solved (either 2 in L, 2 in R, 1 in L and 1 in R) now you skip an entire E2L pair. So in LMCF the chance of skipping an E2L pair is huge. At least half of solves have one edge piece already pre-solved and perhaps 1 in 5 have two edge pieces solved. Since I usually solve 1 edge piece at the same time as the corners, then 1 in 5 solves I only need to do two E2L pairs and then I am already on the last step (solve remaining L/R edge while orienting the midges).
> 
> ...



Interesting. So in comparison to Roux the tradeoff is 4-5 moves saved + higher variance in solves in exchange for slightly worse ergonomics and a higher alg count.

What I like most about the idea is that it uses inspection very efficiently, planning ~13 moves of EG on average. If average movecounts are ~45ish, that's almost 30% of the whole solve, compared to ~10 moves planned in CFOP or Roux (approximately 16% and 20% respectively)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 26, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I was going to use WVCP recog which is like COLL almost.


Is it developed, and if so, can you give a resource? I would be quite interested in this.


----------



## efattah (Jan 26, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Interesting. So in comparison to Roux the tradeoff is 4-5 moves saved + higher variance in solves in exchange for slightly worse ergonomics and a higher alg count.
> 
> What I like most about the idea is that it uses inspection very efficiently, planning ~13 moves of EG on average. If average movecounts are ~45ish, that's almost 30% of the whole solve, compared to ~10 moves planned in CFOP or Roux (approximately 16% and 20% respectively)



When I got into speed cubing a year ago I looked at CFOP and Roux and both suffer the same problem of executing a significant algorithm in the middle of a solve (42 for Roux CMLL and lots for CFOP LL). This meant that both the recognition and the mental algorithm 'fetch' are included as part of the solve time. It was for that reason that I created the LMCF method, whose ultimate purpose was to 'move' the large algorithm recognition & fetch time into the cube inspection time (recognizing and fetching EG1, EG2 and CLL during inspection like a 2x2 solver). If you finish the solve with pure LMCF and you don't use Waterman's complex final step, the rest of the LMCF solve does not require any significant algorithm recognition/fetch time (no more so than CFOP F2L). If, on the other hand you use the EGW variant and you introduce Waterman's complex final step, then indeed you do introduce one large-set algorithm into the middle of the solve, saving around 5 more moves at the expense of the recognition & fetch time. However EGW would have the lowest movecount of any speedsolving method, it would average almost 5 less than LMCF which is already 44 (so EGW would probably be 39-40).

The big learning curve for LMCF is the E2L phase, which is really similar to CFOP F2L in that there is so much work to do in on-the-fly optimization, lookahead, setting up cases to minimize rotations and so on. E2L requires an absolutely different way of thinking about the cube compared to F2L. Being good at F2L will not at all help you get good at E2L because they are so different. The E2L learning curve would be the major drawback for this method, in terms of the average cuber.

Another huge advantage of E2L vs. F2L, besides the previously explained statistical advantage of single pre-solved pieces, is that in E2L you can solve 3 edge pieces simultaneously (called an E2L triplet). For real time speedsolving I find that I can solve an E2L triplet once every second solve. The triplet does not take any longer than an E2L pair. Some of my fastest solves have solved 1 edge piece along with the corners, then solved two E2L triplets (6 edges pieces total), then all that is left is the final L5E step.

E2L triplets are actually 'available' in almost every solve, but for practical reasons setting them up isn't efficient. They sort of have to have a 'ready made setup' to be efficient to execute. Hence once every second solve they appear ready-made to execute.

The fastest Waterman solver I know of (somrandomkidmike) had some 12.XX Ao5's with Waterman and an 8 second single, and he also would solve 3 edge pieces at the same time when the opportunity showed itself.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 26, 2017)

I have to say that, having looked into CF and variants, I'm skeptical of your movecount estimates for EGW. Could you post the algorithms that you have so far, and maybe some example solves? As far as I understand it EGW solves are either either: EG + 1 edge (~14), 3x E2L (3 * 7? = 21?), L5E (14) which seems to yield 49 STM avg, or Waterman in it's advanced form: Layer (14), CLL (9), 2 Redges (7? i'm trying to use optimistic estimates, and from playing around 7 seems like a good minimum value), 2 Redges + Midge orientation (once again I will go with 7, that seems very optimistic), Midge permutation (5) which yields 42 STM.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 26, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I have to say that, having looked into CF and variants, I'm skeptical of your movecount estimates for EGW. Could you post the algorithms that you have so far, and maybe some example solves? As far as I understand it EGW solves are either either: EG + 1 edge (~14), 3x E2L (3 * 7? = 21?), L5E (14) which seems to yield 49 STM avg, or Waterman in it's advanced form: Layer (14), CLL (9), 2 Redges (7? i'm trying to use optimistic estimates, and from playing around 7 seems like a good minimum value), 2 Redges + Midge orientation (once again I will go with 7, that seems very optimistic), Midge permutation (5) which yields 42 STM.


I would really like Alg sheets for E2L, efattah. If you make them, I will learn this method, because it means that any person good at 2x2 will be able to get pretty fast at LMCF(which I assume stands for *L*azy *M*an's *C*orners *F*irst). I Mean, I like the fact that I can reuse my CMLL algs on 2x2(though they aren't too efficient Im still sub-5). It would be awesome to be able to do the reverse! Please, make an E2L alg sheet. If you want, I will make a tutorial for this method, I think it has serious potential.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 26, 2017)

Cale S said:


> Algs have been generated for it, 162 algs that aren't all very good isn't worth it


i actually want to see the algs


----------



## Cale S (Jan 26, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> i actually want to see the algs



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1w_ZdrQP_IRK8p9MirpP0xKXu1j4k2pn24UUFPuFFtHw/edit#gid=0


----------



## efattah (Jan 27, 2017)

Okay I created two example solves for LMCF. I am only semi-color neutral. I solve either the green or blue face (corners) first. If I cannot see ANY easy green or blue face corners, I will solve any other color and then do the appropriate EG algorithm, but since I am not good enough to predict the AUF I waste time doing the AUF if I start on any other color than blue or green (since starting with my 'normal' colors I do not need to AUF).

To be totally fair and prevent me from selecting 'favorable' scrambles I went into this week's race to sub-20 and picked the first two scrambles and solved them naturally, then reconstructed them in alg.cubing.net

Scramble: B2 D R2 D' U2 F2 U B2 F2 U2 L' B' L' D F' R F2 R2 B' U' L
y2 x' F2 L2 U L2 U' // face [5]
R U2 R' F R' F' R U' R U' R' // CLL [11]
U M U M' // 1 edge piece [4]
z R2 M d' M U M' // E2L triplet [6]
y' x M U M U2 M' U // E2L pair [6]
l2 M U M U M U M' U2 M' U' // solve last edge piece while orienting the midges, this is worst case scenario! [11]
M' U2 M' U2 M2 // permute midges [6]
Total 49 STM
Total for CLL 16
Total for E2L 16
Total for L5E 17

Scramble: D' F2 U' L2 U' R2 U F2 U R2 D2 B' U2 F U' R' D L' D B' U R
x' U r F r U' R' y2 // face [6]
R U R' F2 U F R U R' // EG1 Sune [9]
z R2 U M' U' // E2L pair [4]
R2 L2 U M' U2 M2 U // E2L pair [7]
x M2 U' M U2 M' U' // E2L pair [6]
R2 U M U2 M U R' // solve last edge while orienting midges [7]
U2 M' U2 M' // permute midges [4]
Total 43 STM
Total for EG 15
Total for E2L 17
Total for L5E 11

To comment on the movecount estimates. You'll see here that in the first solve we got a free triplet, and in the second solve we did not get a free triplet but we did get a free pre-solved edge piece on the blue face. This is typical; either you get a free edge piece pre-solved, or you get a free triplet, as both have a 50/50 chance of happening. 

My EG movecounts are higher than 2x2 experts mostly because I am not color neutral and not really that good at making a face in 4 moves or less. However you'll see the extreme low movecount of the E2L phase. When counting the moves for an E2L pair, you need to include set up moves to be fair. These two examples solved 14 edges pieces in the E2L phase with 33 moves, for an average movecount of 2.35 per edge piece or 4.70 moves per pair which is WAY LOWER than an F2L pair.

I post the E2L algs asap.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 27, 2017)

I see why the E2L pairs are so moveoptimal now--they're almost all reducible to R/L setups of EO + Roux 4c 3-cycles! 1 move for EO, 4 to solve the edges, and at most 2 setup moves to place the two open slots at UL and UR -> pretty much 7 moves maximum. Very interesting.

I'm not sure how L2E + MidgeEO is as efficient as that seems like a bit of an awkward step, but I'll wait to see what the algs look like.


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 27, 2017)

Quick idea: Would it be possible to have a zz variant where instead of two 2x3x1 blocks on the sides of the line, you build two 3x3x1 blocks? if so, it would force a last layer skip every time because of edge orientation. If not zz, there would be only the 2-flip (opposite) ELL case after the blocks, because of permutation rules.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 27, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> Quick idea: Would it be possible to have a zz variant where instead of two 2x3x1 blocks on the sides of the line, you build two 3x3x1 blocks?



After you build your first block, you have only one face that can turn freely, which makes it basically impossible to do the second block intuitively.


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 27, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> After you build your first block, you have only one face that can turn freely, which makes it basically impossible to do the second block intuitively.


nevermind then.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 27, 2017)

Cale S said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1w_ZdrQP_IRK8p9MirpP0xKXu1j4k2pn24UUFPuFFtHw/edit#gid=0


Thank you!! This is gonna be useful > : )


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 27, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> nevermind then.


I tried this once, we called it 1LLLLL, where we solved a solved line of pieces and EO solved. We had some algs to set it up from EOF2L-1, and it had only 15 cases for LL. I can send you the algs if you want.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 28, 2017)

Hey guys, I started practicing with ECE again and came up with a few ways to optimize it. Here's how it goes:

1. Solve the FL and BL edges whilst ensuring the other E-slice edges are oriented

2. Use the experimental corner orientation method outlined on the SSC wiki page to orient the corners and solve the E-slice

I'd like to add that when I solve CO and the E-slice, I am almost always able to do this step in around 12 moves, and I've even had solutions as low as 7 moves. I believe this may be due to the fact that I actually do things more intuitively, rather than following every step.

3. Separate the corners into their respective layers

4. Permute all corners

5. Solve two or three D-layer edges, leaving L5E or L6E, whichever you prefer solving

6. Solve the remaining edges

Example solve:

Scramble: R2 U2 L2 B2 L2 R2 B' L2 B' D2 B' D F2 R' B2 L U R2 B' F2 U2

x2 D L' // FL + BL (2/2)
U R2 (D2 U') R U' R (U' D2) R' // CO + E-slice (8/10)
y' R2 (U2 D') R2 D' R2 D R2 D' R2 D' R2// corner separation + cancels into CP (11/23)
M' U' M' U2 M2 u y // 3 D-layer edges (6/29)
M' U M U M' U' M' U' M U2 M' U' M2 U'// L5E (14/43)

Total moves: 43 ATM

Although many parts of this solve may seem lucky, they are actually surprisingly common. Let me know what you guys think!


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jan 28, 2017)

whats the difference between cpls and wvcp? does cpls not orient corners? if it dosent isn't that not many algs and therefore viable?


----------



## Neuro (Jan 28, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> whats the difference between cpls and wvcp? does cpls not orient corners? if it dosent isn't that not many algs and therefore viable?


WVCP would orient and permutes the corners and CPLS only does permutation. CPLS is only 6 algs, but recognition is really difficult. If someone came up with a good recog system it could be good for OH or as a direct lead into 1L2GLL though


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 28, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, I started practicing with ECE again and came up with a few ways to optimize it. Here's how it goes:
> 
> 1. Solve the FL and BL edges whilst ensuring the other E-slice edges are oriented
> 
> ...


So what times are you getting with it atm?


----------



## TDM (Jan 28, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> whats the difference between cpls and wvcp? does cpls not orient corners? if it dosent isn't that not many algs and therefore viable?


Something having not many algs doesn't make it viable. Solving the cube entirely with setup moves and T perms isn't viable for speedsolving. And many larger alg sets like OLLCP and ZBLL _are_ viable.

I don't think CPLS is viable unless you know full 2GLL (except sunes are possibly optional). It's a lot of time to add on to a solve and won't necessarily save you much time during LL.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jan 28, 2017)

TDM said:


> Something having not many algs doesn't make it viable. Solving the cube entirely with setup moves and T perms isn't viable for speedsolving. And many larger alg sets like OLLCP and ZBLL _are_ viable.
> 
> I don't think CPLS is viable unless you know full 2GLL (except sunes are possibly optional). It's a lot of time to add on to a solve and won't necessarily save you much time during LL.


If there's only 6 cases (like in a coll set) why can't you learn 27*6 recognition cases/angles. It couldn't be that hard, and you get the potentially amazing advantage of 2gll.

I didn't check what cpls really was since everyone said it was bad anyway.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 28, 2017)

genericcuber666 said:


> If there's only 6 cases (like in a coll set) why can't you learn 27*6 recognition cases/angles. It couldn't be that hard, and you get the potentially amazing advantage of 2gll.
> 
> I didn't check what cpls really was since everyone said it was bad anyway.


2GLL really isn't as much of an advantage as you think.


----------



## VenomCubing (Jan 28, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I tried this once, we called it 1LLLLL, where we solved a solved line of pieces and EO solved. We had some algs to set it up from EOF2L-1, and it had only 15 cases for LL. I can send you the algs if you want.


I'm really interested. I just finished learning the 57 Olls a few days ago, but my recognition isn't that great. with only 15 algs, my recognition shouldn't suffer that much. you can go send them to me via conversation, unless you can find my Email, in which case, please Email them to me. I really appreciate it. Thanks!


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jan 28, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> 2GLL really isn't as much of an advantage as you think.


OH? And actually looking at some of the algs they seem a bit long


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 28, 2017)

If movecount for getting to 2gll is comparable to movecount for getting to zzll/zbll, then it's an advantage.

Otherwise you have a tradeoff between efficiency and ergonomics


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 28, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> So what times are you getting with it atm?


Although it's very efficient, it is extremely difficult to execute the CO + E-slice step quickly. Although I have had some perhaps sub-40 ATM speedsolves I'm averaging around 20-22 seconds currently. Not nearly as fast as I was with regular ECE, but I'm confident that with practice this method will be far better. It just takes some getting used to.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 28, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Although it's very efficient, it is extremely difficult to execute the CO + E-slice step quickly. Although I have had some perhaps sub-40 ATM speedsolves I'm averaging around 20-22 seconds currently. Not nearly as fast as I was with regular ECE, but I'm confident that with practice this method will be far better. It just takes some getting used to.


Yeah, I've been playing around with it for a few months as well and I think it would be faster than straight SSC-O as well because as you said the lookahead can be very tough especially when you have to deal with all the edges (though likewise I'm still faster with the other variant.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 29, 2017)

Hey so I have been playing around with skewb, and I was wondering about the case count for a substep Im working on.
method is this: 
-Solve first block(2 corners + center) - optimal for x2 y neutrality is I believe at most 3 moves(thats the most I ever have had to do)
-solve the last 2 corners on the D face
-CLL
-L5C

I was wondering what the case count would be for a subset that solves CLL and the R center so you always get a L4C case on the "M" slice. can you guys help?


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 30, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Yeah, I've been playing around with it for a few months as well and I think it would be faster than straight SSC-O as well because as you said the lookahead can be very tough especially when you have to deal with all the edges (though likewise I'm still faster with the other variant.


Yeah, I'm also trying to find a more efficient way to solve the last eight edges, I'm not too fond with the way I solve them atm...


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 30, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey so I have been playing around with skewb, and I was wondering about the case count for a substep Im working on.
> method is this:
> -Solve first block(2 corners + center) - optimal for x2 y neutrality is I believe at most 3 moves(thats the most I ever have had to do)
> -solve the last 2 corners on the D face
> ...


Isn't this just Skroux but with the steps switched up a bit?


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 30, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Isn't this just Skroux but with the steps switched up a bit?


Yeah, but scroux the second block is too hard to do very fast. This is pretty much a scroux variation.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 30, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Yeah, but scroux the second block is too hard to do very fast. This is pretty much a scroux variation.


Oh okay, I don't know much about skroux, I've always used Sarah's intermediate. If you find your method works better than go for it


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 31, 2017)

Hey guys, been playing around with skewb. Is there an alg set out there for TCLL on a skewb? I think that it may make first payer building more efficient if you can leave one corner twisted, because you can save a few moves.(Also, in scroux, it is a lot easier to get SB with a twisted corner)


----------



## MethodNeutral (Feb 1, 2017)

I've been experimenting with this method for a little bit and thought I'd mention it in here, it seems pretty interesting. The steps are:

1. EOline
2. Left block
2b. CP (optional)
4. BR block (cross piece + pair)
5. U-layer block (2x2x1) and parity fix
6. Permutation of last 3 edges and last 4 corners
7. Corner orientation

So, assuming you don't do CP, you get to F2L-1 through blockbuilding. Then you can use the open slot to make the U-layer block intuitively, this isn't that hard. Once this is done, place the block and check the last three edges for parity. If there is, the solution is intuitive (the U center must be rotated 90 degrees), but you can use an alg for this. I use U R U R' U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U'.
After parity, solve EP (using U' R U R' or its inverse) and corners can be placed using the same trigger in sets of three. For example, doing the trigger three times swaps UFL and DBR, and swaps UFR and UBR. Rotating and doing the trigger left-handed produces a similar result, so corner placement isn't bad, although if CP was done earlier, the triple trigger is only needed once if at all, and without rotations.
CO to finish, I just use a CLS alg for this which only affects two corners.

Example solve: B2 L' B2 U2 R D2 B2 R D2 R' B2 F' R' D U2 F2 R2 D' B F' U

EOline: F D U L B' R' D2
Left block: U2 L' U L2 U' L' R U2 R U L' U' L
CP: L' U R2 U' L
BR Block: U R U R2 U' R U R2 U' R2
U Block: R U R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U' R U2 R'
Parity fix: (U' R U R') U R U R' U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U'
Corner Placement: (U' R U R')3
CO: U R U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2

I think this method really shines in its stats, the chances of parity skip is 1/2, the chances of edges being cycled is 1/3, and the chances of corners being placed (assuming CP is done beforehand) is 1/2, so the total probability of only having to twist corners after blockbuilding is 1/12. I'm not sure about the probability if CP isn't done, but this by itself is really good.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 1, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> I've been experimenting with this method for a little bit and thought I'd mention it in here, it seems pretty interesting. The steps are:
> 
> 1. EOline
> 2. Left block
> ...


It's not too bad but some of the algs will really suck because it's basically tripod (and the "parity fix" looks pretty horrible which is usually included in the algs and it's not very nice). Put simply, the first few steps are reasonbly good, the last two are horrible even when combined into one alg.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 1, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Put simply, the first few steps are reasonbly good, the last two are horrible even when combined into one alg.



Might be interesting to note that once you have EO and the tripod done, you can set up to a ZBLL in two moves, or only one move if you don't count AUF. It's not that bad… except for having hundreds of cases.


----------



## Parham Saeednia (Feb 1, 2017)

Hi.guys!
im not sure if here is the right place to ask my question ,but i can not find a better place...
my question is '' Is there any set of algs for the CO part of the Human Thistlethwaite method?''


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 1, 2017)

Parham Saeednia said:


> Hi.guys!
> im not sure if here is the right place to ask my question ,but i can not find a better place...
> my question is '' Is there any set of algs for the CO part of the Human Thistlethwaite method?''


There is an alg which is on Ryan Heise's site and a few other useful links on the wiki. It's also possible to use WV, SLS or the ECO from SSC (check the wiki). In future, it would probably be better to use create a thread or preferably use the one question answer forum.


----------



## kid who cubes (Feb 1, 2017)

loving this thread ive been waiting for one of these, okay ill give you my idea.....

Stages:
1. cross
2. Build F2L but with any edge(not paring the correct edge per corner, orientation can be anything) 
3. One algorithm to solve the remaining edges F2L.
4. Last layer 

Me and my friend have already made 17 algs for this.

Pros: look ahead can go very far
very few moves are needed per pair
the algs are easy to use

Cons: 
the algs can flow poorly
building pairs with any edge can confuse you.

I will be making a separate thread when all the algs are made, tell me what you think.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 1, 2017)

kid who cubes said:


> loving this thread ive been waiting for one of these, okay ill give you my idea.....
> 
> Stages:
> 1. cross
> ...


Why not just solve directly? It will have just as good lookahead and will be more efficient as you won't need to do the extra alg (also you will need an extra pause which will not be very good as you waste a lot more time than you would save especially when you need to do the extra alg).


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 1, 2017)

Hey guys. 
Just an update on the Lewis method(Thats what I called the 4x4 direct solving Method I posted ).
I have optimised step 5a a little bit, making it more efficient, although I do the old way if I find the DB edge is alreasy solved when I finish the D center. 

Also, 4-look L5E has turned out to be really smooth and lookahead friendly(That's because it's basically sighted 3-style with two buffer spots, both the wing slots at DF/FD) You can see the piece that will be out in the buffer you are using when you are finishing the comm, and then AUF immediately afterwards for the next comm.

Me and this guy on facebook,(Ill keep him anonymous for now) are trying to outdo the other's fastest time with this method. I got a 59.68 last friday, then he got a 59.3(just hours after learning it) last weekend, then just two days ago I got a 56.102. 

I also made an example solve with Lewis method, and it's on youtube here(using the most current version).

I use Lewis method as my main method and have for like 3 or so weeks now, and I really like it, not to mention it has dropped my times to sub-1:15 average of 100, with a PB ao12 of sub-1:10 (edgepairing added >20 secs to my meyer solves, so Im not surprised). If you are interested in learning this method or have any questions, feel free to shoot me a Message.
Thanks for reading,
Shiv3r


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 2, 2017)

Not a method exactly but it's a concept so whatever

Basically an extension to the sim in cstimer that helps train lookahead more efficiently

So it comes preloaded with a method definition file that tells it what pieces need to be solved in what order and stuff, then when you start solving a pair (it'll detect this somehow i guess) it'll remove those stickers from the sim cube; when you make moves it'll give arrow cues (like in Posner cue paradigm) to direct your attention towards where new information is coming from (so for example if you do an R' an arrow will point to whatever was just on the B face to direct your attention there, since those pieces will be about to be revealed).

So the end result is it forces you not to pay attention to what you're currently solving and it trains you to direct your attention efficiently

Even better but more complex: an augmented reality type app that videos you solving, detects moves, and adds the arrows and hides pieces accordingly.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 2, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Not a method exactly but it's a concept so whatever
> 
> Basically an extension to the sim in cstimer that helps train lookahead more efficiently
> 
> ...


Hey anyway, I think there is something like that but only for corners. 
Also, Teoidus, How far developed is your 2GR method? and can you make a video tutorial on it? 1:08 or so yesterday on 4x4(with Lewis method ofc), and I got 2 sub-1 times.
And also, I am starting to average ~


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 2, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey anyway, I think there is something like that but only for corners.


Can you link me to it? I know there's the coracle lookahead drill but that's very different. It trains you on inferring a 3rd unknown corner sticker when only 2 stickers are visible (which is useful for lookahead but hardly what i'm suggesting here).



Shiv3r said:


> Also, Teoidus, How far developed is your 2GR method? and can you make a video tutorial on it?


It's still being developed. Progress is slow because I'm busy with other things but I'll release everything when I'm satisfied with all the tutorials and stuff.




Shiv3r said:


> 1:08 or so yesterday on 4x4(with Lewis method ofc), and I got 2 sub-1 times.
> And also, I am starting to average ~



What is the average movecount and how does it compare to Yau?

(Also what is Yau average movecount for each substep--cross+centers, 3-2-3, 3x3 stage?)


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 2, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Can you link me to it? I know there's the coracle lookahead drill but that's very different. It trains you on inferring a 3rd unknown corner sticker when only 2 stickers are visible (which is useful for lookahead but hardly what i'm suggesting here).
> 
> 
> It's still being developed. Progress is slow because I'm busy with other things but I'll release everything when I'm satisfied with all the tutorials and stuff.
> ...


Average movecount is slightly higher than Yau but is comparable to Meyer or Hoya. The lookahead trainer is exactly what I meant, i didnt look at teh link sorry.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 2, 2017)

Do you know where I might be able to find Yau statistics?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 2, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Do you know where I might be able to find Yau statistics?



from what I have been told, Meyer's average movecount is 120-140, or "slightly Higher than Yau."

Movecount-wise, from my experience, Lewis method seems to be more move-efficient and lookahead friendly than Stadler. And just from doing solves with each method (I made sure I used roughly the same TPS), My method also seems to be more move-efficient than either K4 or Kenneth's big cubes method, which along with Stadler are the biggest 3 direct solving methods.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 2, 2017)

Also, I just made this crappy movecount example solve (less efficient than I can do in speedsolves, It was super unlucky) with the method, just to show the basic Idea of the method. some comms I did super inefficiently.


----------



## asacuber (Feb 3, 2017)




----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 3, 2017)

Also, guys, I finished the FP pyraminx method algs, in full!(havent like tried speed-optimizing them, most are still just the optimal algs). Here they are.
for those of you who don't know what the FP method is, it is a method that was proposed over 2 years ago but there were never any algorithms generated, or if they were there are ZERO on the internet. I don't know why, because the algorithm count isn't too bad. There are 21 cases total, but 2 are ELL's, at least 4 of them are inverses of 4 other algs (I have still not figured out all the algs that are mirrors/inverses), and 5 of them are standard LBL algs(FP includes LBL as well.) so in reality, you only need to learn 21 - 5 - 4 - 2 = at most *10 new algorithms *_For a 2-look pyraminx method. _
---------------------------
*here are the steps:*
*-solve a face (like a layer but the edges don't have to be permuted correctly)
-in 1 algorithm, solve the rest.*
--------------------------------------
a lot of the algorithms have not been made speed-optimal as they were genned using Jaap's digital pyraminx puzzle/solver. i am working on speed-optimizing them slowly.
Pros:
-2 looks for the whole method
-with minimal inspection, you can predict which of the FP sets you will get(you can narrow it down to at most 6 cases by just looking where the D edges get placed)
-VERY low algorithm count; if you know LBL and Keyhole(even though the 2 ELL algs are pretty easy), then you only have to learn 10 new algs.
-in inspection use less time trying to build a face vs. a layer, more time can be spent to plan further in the solve.
-Theoretically 1looking is easier
Cons:
-the algorithms currently are not very fast(this will change as they get improved)
-stell a few more algs than 1-flip or intuitive L4E
-not proven to be fast yet -- I haven't learned the whole thing yet, and I average like 12 secs.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Feb 5, 2017)

Quick idea: would it be good to have alternative insertion algs for Oka, to help prevent bad cases?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 5, 2017)

I 


Sue Doenim said:


> Quick idea: would it be good to have alternative insertion algs for Oka, to help prevent bad cases?


I have been thinking of genning algs for Oka+centers, you insert the edges while orienting centers


----------



## Sue Doenim (Feb 5, 2017)

Where could I find an alg generator?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 5, 2017)

https://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/javascript/pyraminj.htm


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 7, 2017)

35 STM 2GR

B D2 F' L F' L' F' R B D' F U2 B2 R U' L' F L' F' R'
// insp
U' r2' u' y' R U r2' // EOPair 6/6
y R2 U F2 // CPLine 3/9
R2 u2 U R U' r2 // Block 6/15
R U2 R2 U' R2 U' z' // F2L 6/21
U2 R U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U R2 // 2GLL 14/35


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> 35 STM 2GR
> 
> B D2 F' L F' L' F' R B D' F U2 B2 R U' L' F L' F' R'
> // insp
> ...


So I've looked at all the stuff you posted for cpll, and I understand now how to find the key swap and read the 2gen corrections table, but I cant figure out how to read your F move charts. How do you track the F moves on the tables? This cp in inspection is really cool (if i can figure it all out)
Thanks


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 7, 2017)

Hey guys. There is a 4x4 method like Yau but for ZZ me and Neuro came up with. It is called NS4. You start 3x3 stage with EOXcross every time.
it also allows you to figure out if you have OLL parity even when finishing edgepairing, and by adding a few algs to EPLL you will never have to waste another look to resolve PLL parity.
Here are the steps:
-Solve L & R centers
-Solve the Line edges, place them at DL and DR, so a D/D' move would place them correctly. Also place an oriented cross dedge and an oriented E-slice edge at FL/FR.
-Solve last 4 centers
-Solve last cross dedge (solving another dedge with 2-at-a-time at this point is good), then Resolve the cross. Pair up the E-slice edge with a corner to make an F2L pair and place in one of the back slots oriented.
-Edgepairing+EO. You can either EOpair, or solve 2-at-a-time while orienting the edges afterwards, it's up to your taste. Resolve OLL parity now if you have it.
-ZZF2L. You should have full EOCross, and one F2L pair already solved in the back. there is a 50/50 chance it is in the correct spot already, but if it isnt, now place it in the right spot. You now have EOXcross, and continue with ZZF2L/Rotationless F2L or whatever you want to call it
-Last layer. I _HEAVILY_ suggest using COLL-EPLL, because by adding ~ 4 algs and the 2 pure parities to the EPLL algset, you get EPLL+parity, which solves PLL parity at the same time as well. EPLL algs here.

The _original_ thinking behind this method was this: CFOP has Yau/Hoya, Roux has Meyer, but what does ZZ have? a shittier form of redux+beginner edgepairing, Z4(_which no one uses_). but after playing with this, I have found that having a yau-like version of ZZ wasn't the only advantage of this method. You also get a really fast 3x3 stage, and with only a few extra EPLL+parity algs you have a purely 2-look last layer(CFOP LL on 4x4 varies and can go as high as 4 with double parity). And movecount isn't a disadvantage as well; with help from Teoidus, we found that the average movecount is about 128, which is only a little worse than Yau(which is 120-140 moves), and _more efficient_ than Meyer(130-150). 

Anyone think this is interesting?


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 7, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> So I've looked at all the stuff you posted for cpll, and I understand now how to find the key swap and read the 2gen corrections table, but I cant figure out how to read your F move charts. How do you track the F moves on the tables? This cp in inspection is really cool (if i can figure it all out)
> Thanks



Each table has a cell which represents a 4-cycle of key swaps. To get from one state to another in each cell, you do an F move. (So if a cell contains swaps A B C D, and you have swap B, an F move will get you to C, another will get you to D, and another (or an F') will get you to A)

I have a much easier recognition method now but I haven't had time recently to make it look nice. Hopefully I'll get time eventually to do so


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Each table has a cell which represents a 4-cycle of key swaps. To get from one state to another in each cell, you do an F move. (So if a cell contains swaps A B C D, and you have swap B, an F move will get you to C, another will get you to D, and another (or an F') will get you to A)
> 
> I have a much easier recognition method now but I haven't had time recently to make it look nice. Hopefully I'll get time eventually to do so


 
So on this chart how would say a UFL-DFR key swap be affected by an F? I still don't quite grasp how its layed out yet


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 7, 2017)

So the ULF-DFR swap is in this set of 4:


To get what would happen to the swap after an F move, just look at the diagram to the right of the ULF-DFR swap (in this case that gives you URF-ULB). (To figure out what would happen after an F', look at the diagram to the "left", which would give you URB-DRB since the chart wraps around)


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> So the ULF-DFR swap is in this set of 4:
> View attachment 7452
> 
> To get what would happen to the swap after an F move, just look at the diagram to the right of the ULF-DFR swap (in this case that gives you URF-ULB). (To figure out what would happen after an F', look at the diagram to the "left", which would give you URB-DRB since the chart wraps around)


Thanks a lot


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 7, 2017)

Okay can someone who understands this whole key swap CP 2GR stuff explain it to me pleaaaase? I'm very interested in this method due to its movecount but I just can't wrap my head around it. Anyone willing to dedicate just a bit of time to make a short in-depth tutorial would be much appreciated by many, I'm sure!

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 7, 2017)

2Gen-redux is not a finshed method yet crafto22. as soon as it is finished he will make a tutorial, I have been talking with him.

*Let me Repost this because evidently no one was listening the first time:*(also it got drowned by posts asking about 2GR)
Hey guys. There is a 4x4 method like Yau but for ZZ me and Neuro came up with. It is called NS4. You start 3x3 stage with EOXcross every time.
it also allows you to figure out if you have OLL parity even when finishing edgepairing, and by adding a few algs to EPLL you will never have to waste another look to resolve PLL parity.
Here are the steps:
-Solve L & R centers
-Solve the Line edges, place them at DL and DR, so a D/D' move would place them correctly. Also place an oriented cross dedge and an oriented E-slice edge at FL/FR.
-Solve last 4 centers
-Solve last cross dedge (solving another dedge with 2-at-a-time at this point is good), then Resolve the cross. Pair up the E-slice edge with a corner to make an F2L pair and place in one of the back slots oriented.
-Edgepairing+EO. You can either EOpair, or solve 2-at-a-time while orienting the edges afterwards, it's up to your taste. Resolve OLL parity now if you have it.
-ZZF2L. You should have full EOCross, and one F2L pair already solved in the back. there is a 50/50 chance it is in the correct spot already, but if it isnt, now place it in the right spot. You now have EOXcross, and continue with ZZF2L/Rotationless F2L or whatever you want to call it
-Last layer. I _HEAVILY_ suggest using COLL-EPLL, because by adding ~ 4 algs and the 2 pure parities to the EPLL algset, you get EPLL+parity, which solves PLL parity at the same time as well. EPLL+ parity algs here.

The _original_ thinking behind this method was this: CFOP has Yau/Hoya, Roux has Meyer, but what does ZZ have? a shittier form of redux+beginner edgepairing, Z4(_which no one uses_). but after playing with this, I have found that having a yau-like version of ZZ wasn't the only advantage of this method. You also get a really fast 3x3 stage, and with only a few extra EPLL+parity algs you have a purely 2-look last layer(CFOP LL on 4x4 varies and can go as high as 4 with double parity). And movecount isn't a disadvantage as well; with help from Teoidus, we found that the average movecount is about 128, which is only a little worse than Yau(which is 120-140 moves), and _more efficient_ than Meyer(130-150). 

Anyone think this is interesting?


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> 2Gen-redux is not a finshed method yet crafto22. as soon as it is finished he will make a tutorial, I have been talking with him.
> 
> *Let me Repost this because evidently no one was listening the first time:*(also it got drowned by posts asking about 2GR)
> Hey guys. There is a 4x4 method like Yau but for ZZ me and Neuro came up with. It is called NS4. You start 3x3 stage with EOXcross every time.
> ...


Oh okay perfect thank you for the quick response. It's simply difficult to find information when there are so many posts being made all at once. On the subject of your 4x4 method, it seems very interesting. I'm thinking about switching to ZZ-CT so this could be useful!


----------



## MethodNeutral (Feb 8, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Anyone think this is interesting?



Yes, you have mentioned this and we have seen it, I'm sure some people find it interesting. However, reposting this at any available opportunity is not the way to go about spreading your method, and it is actually in the forum guidelines that you shouldn't do this. Maybe post something whenever there's a new development or something, but don't keep posting it unless people ask you to. Also, this didn't answer the question crafto asked, which will probably be covered up by new posts now, just like you mentioned. I had the same question as crafto, and if you can explain your 4x4 method, it would be greatly appreciated if you could explain this 2-gen reduction instead. Thanks.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> Yes, you have mentioned this and we have seen it, I'm sure some people find it interesting. However, reposting this at any available opportunity is not the way to go about spreading your method, and it is actually in the forum guidelines that you shouldn't do this. Maybe post something whenever there's a new development or something, but don't keep posting it unless people ask you to. Also, this didn't answer the question crafto asked, which will probably be covered up by new posts now, just like you mentioned. I had the same question as crafto, and if you can explain your 4x4 method, it would be greatly appreciated if you could explain this 2-gen reduction instead. Thanks.


Preach. I feel someone could at least fill us in on what a key swap is or some of the basic functioning of this CP stuff...


----------



## MethodNeutral (Feb 8, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Preach. I feel someone could at least fill us in on what a key swap is or some of the basic functioning of this CP stuff...



I can help you understand CP, actually. Basically, whenever you do anything 2-gen (I'll use R and U for clarity) it's impossible to swap two corners. You can cycle edges, but no corners. So, in order to reduce to 2-gen (i.e. 2G redux) you have to make some swap of corners first (I guess they're calling it a key swap). Still, I don't know what this key swap thing is other than that it solves CP, but hopefully this will help you understand what's going on until someone who is familiar with the method posts a tutorial/overview.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 8, 2017)

Working on a new LSE variant ATM, kinda combines EOLR and pseudo but does so intuitively. So far all my reconstructions have been under 14 STM but definitely need to test it more. May have existed before so here's one of the reconstructions just to make sure I'm not bringing up an old idea:

*used qqtimer to generate a LSE scramble*
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M2_U_...2_U//EO&#2b;pseudo_EOLR
M_U2_M_U2_M-_U-//L4E_


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> I can help you understand CP, actually. Basically, whenever you do anything 2-gen (I'll use R and U for clarity) it's impossible to swap two corners. You can cycle edges, but no corners. So, in order to reduce to 2-gen (i.e. 2G redux) you have to make some swap of corners first (I guess they're calling it a key swap). Still, I don't know what this key swap thing is other than that it solves CP, but hopefully this will help you understand what's going on until someone who is familiar with the method posts a tutorial/overview.


Thanks for the help, but I think I'm pretty clear on this part of the CP. I'm still a bit confused with the way the method works as a whole but I suppose once the tutorial is made it should dispel any confusion.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 8, 2017)

@crafto22 I'm sorry the explanations are so unclear. Most of what I've been posting on this thread is in-dev stuff so it's not very organized. So far the best resources for the theory behind 2GR are the first two links in my sig (I make some follow up posts after the second link, scroll down and you'll see them) and this video I made a little while back. They should give a 7/10-ish idea of how/why 2GR works.

Since I've written those things I've come up with a better way to detect and track CP during inspection and I'm working on a 2GR website to sorta collect all information needed to learn 2GR into one place. I'm pretty busy with schoolwork but hopefully I can get that up within 2-3 weeks.

In the meantime though, if you have any specific questions/things you're confused about feel free to ask and I will try to explain. I check this thread pretty often


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> @crafto22 I'm sorry the explanations are so unclear. Most of what I've been posting on this thread is in-dev stuff so it's not very organized. So far the best resources for the theory behind 2GR are the first two links in my sig (I make some follow up posts after the second link, scroll down and you'll see them) and this video I made a little while back. They should give a 7/10-ish idea of how/why 2GR works.
> 
> Since I've written those things I've come up with a better way to detect and track CP during inspection and I'm working on a 2GR website to sorta collect all information needed to learn 2GR into one place. I'm pretty busy with schoolwork but hopefully I can get that up within 2-3 weeks.
> 
> In the meantime though, if you have any specific questions/things you're confused about feel free to ask and I will try to explain. I check this thread pretty often


Thank you so much! This method has interested me for quite some time now, I'm very thankful for your response.


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 8, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> @crafto22 I'm sorry the explanations are so unclear. Most of what I've been posting on this thread is in-dev stuff so it's not very organized. So far the best resources for the theory behind 2GR are the first two links in my sig (I make some follow up posts after the second link, scroll down and you'll see them) and this video I made a little while back. They should give a 7/10-ish idea of how/why 2GR works.
> 
> Since I've written those things I've come up with a better way to detect and track CP during inspection and I'm working on a 2GR website to sorta collect all information needed to learn 2GR into one place. I'm pretty busy with schoolwork but hopefully I can get that up within 2-3 weeks.
> 
> In the meantime though, if you have any specific questions/things you're confused about feel free to ask and I will try to explain. I check this thread pretty often


Just outta curiosity, what is the basics behind the new recog method for the key? I really would enjoy a slightly simpler way to identify it. Thanks again


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 8, 2017)

hey guys, just made a video tutorial on NS4, because so many people seemed interested, and a few asked for a tutorial. Here it is.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

Hey everyone, so I have been very interested in ZZ-CT recently, but I have progressed so much with CFOP that I see little hope in ever using ZZ as my main method. I don't know if this concept has been proposed before, but it allows me to use TSLE and TTLL in my CFOP solves with the use of (on average) only one or two extra moves! And TSLE/TTLL is far more efficient than LS/OLL/PLL, of course. So here's the idea:

The solve begins as usual, with cross and the first two pairs. The next step consists of pairing up the third CE pair and using a VHLS algorithm to solve the pair along with EO. I'm able to do this quite quickly, and most VHLS algorithms are only one or two moves longer than the standard insertion, although there is of course that split second required to identify the EO case. One would then proceed with TSLE and TTLL to finish the solve.

Here's an example, since I'm almost certain my explanation was not very well written:

Scramble: U B2 R' D2 L F2 R2 D2 F2 U2 L' B2 U R B' D2 B2 R D L'

x2 // inspection
R B' R2 u' L2 // cross
y' L' U2 L U' L' U L // first pair
R U' R' f' L' f // second pair
R' U' R // CE pair
Okay now at this point the edges that need to be flipped in order to solve the pair and EO are the LU and RB edges. This is because the alg we're going to use to solve the pair is unable to affect the RF edge, simply because that's not how VHLS works. This means we are solving EO relative to the RF edge's orientation. Therefore we do it like this:
U' B L U L' B' // VHLS alg that flips LU and RB; EO is now solved
y' U R' U' R U R' U R // TSLE
y U2 R U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U // a nice 2-gen TTLL

Total moves: 48 HTM

That's a pretty damn good move count for a CFOP variant if you ask me!


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 8, 2017)

I


crafto22 said:


> Hey everyone, so I have been very interested in ZZ-CT recently, but I have progressed so much with CFOP that I see little hope in ever using ZZ as my main method. I don't know if this concept has been proposed before, but it allows me to use TSLE and TTLL in my CFOP solves with the use of (on average) only one or two extra moves! And TSLE/TTLL is far more efficient than LS/OLL/PLL, of course. So here's the idea:
> 
> The solve begins as usual, with cross and the first two pairs. The next step consists of pairing up the third CE pair and using a VHLS algorithm to solve the pair along with EO. I'm able to do this quite quickly, and most VHLS algorithms are only one or two moves longer than the standard insertion, although there is of course that split second required to identify the EO case. One would then proceed with TSLE and TTLL to finish the solve.
> 
> ...


I thought of something like this but with VHLS and then WV, so you get an OLL skip right then. I don't think it has much advantage as something like, say, petrus.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I
> 
> I thought of something like this but with VHLS and then WV, so you get an OLL skip right then. I don't think it has much advantage as something like, say, petrus.


Of course, I realize standard ZZ would be much better, but this is an alternative for anyone who is either looking to switch to ZZ-CT from CFOP or who prefers to stick with the early steps of CFOP as oppose to those of ZZ in order to finish with CT.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 8, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> Just outta curiosity, what is the basics behind the new recog method for the key? I really would enjoy a slightly simpler way to identify it. Thanks again



Basically you look at the corners that belong at DRB and DRF. Based on where they are, you can look at the permutation of 3 other corners to figure out what your LL would look like if you solved DRB + DRF with <R,U>. This lets you find out which LL corners need to be swapped.

There are simple patterns of 3 corners to look at based on where DRB and DRF are. Currently making pretty pictures to help illustrate. Should be out in the coming weeks


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 8, 2017)

EDIT: Disregard this, I'm stupid. Original post hidden in a spoiler box.



Spoiler






crafto22 said:


> most VHLS algorithms are only one or two moves longer than the standard insertion



People keep bringing up EO before the last slot using something like VHLS and they're all flawed in exactly the same way.

The claim you're making is _false_. It's "true" for normal VHLS, but not if you're orienting the edges during the third slot. You're not accounting for the cases where the edge in the last slot is misoriented, which require one or two extra triggers (i.e. 3-7 moves) to fix. Partial edge control before the last slot is definitely beneficial and I'm pretty sure every fast cuber does that, but full edge control, just so you can do TSLE/TTLL, seems pointless.

(Actually, it's not even true for normal VHLS with R U' R' insert, and definitely false for VHLS with R U R' insert. The only short cases are R U'/U2 R' (3 moves), R U R' (3 moves), sledge (4 moves) and flip + insert (6 moves, two distinct cases), so you really have only 5 good VHLS cases out of 16. (ed: I'm bad at counting; there are only 16 cases.))


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> People keep bringing up EO before the last slot using something like VHLS and they're all flawed in exactly the same way.
> 
> The claim you're making is _false_. It's "true" for normal VHLS, but not if you're orienting the edges during the third slot. You're not accounting for the cases where the edge in the last slot is misoriented, which require one or two extra triggers (i.e. 3-7 moves) to fix. Partial edge control before the last slot is definitely beneficial and I'm pretty sure every fast cuber does that, but full edge control, just so you can do TSLE/TTLL, seems pointless.
> 
> (Actually, it's not even true for normal VHLS with R U' R' insert, and definitely false for VHLS with R U R' insert. The only short cases are R U'/U2 R' (3 moves), R U R' (3 moves), sledge (4 moves) and flip + insert (6 moves, two distinct cases), so you really have only 5 good VHLS cases out of 32.)


First off, lay off the accusations, what I'm saying is NOT false, you seem to misunderstand what I'm explaining. Flipping the fourth slot edge is never necessary, and most VHLS algs are 5 moves. The standard insert is 4 moves. Where is the flaw here, exactly?


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

@xyzzy I'll concede my explanation was not very clear, but many points you are bringing up are invalid considering the way I intend to use VHLS. It isn't VHLS. It's specific VHLS algs (only 6 or 7 I believe are necessary) in order to solve EO in relation to a certain piece.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 8, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> @xyzzy I'll concede my explanation was not very clear, but many points you are bringing up are invalid considering the way I intend to use VHLS.



Hm, okay. I was skimming through your earlier post and misread something. Apologies.

Point still remains that VHLS isn't really all that good, however. There are, in fact, only 5 out of 16 VHLS cases (counting both R U R' and R U' R' inserts) that use at most five moves, or 4 out of 8 cases if we're looking at only the R U' R' cases.

There's also the case where the last slot edge is in place, but flipped; it's rare and can be avoided most of the time anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 8, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Hm, okay. I was skimming through your earlier post and misread something. Apologies.
> 
> Point still remains that VHLS isn't really all that good, however. There are, in fact, only 5 out of 16 VHLS cases (counting both R U R' and R U' R' inserts) that use at most five moves, or 4 out of 8 cases if we're looking at only the R U' R' cases.
> 
> There's also the case where the last slot edge is in place, but flipped; it's rare and can be avoided most of the time anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter.


Yes, I usually try to avoid the last edge in place bit flipped. I do realize this is not a fully developed concept yet, but I'm working on improvements.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 8, 2017)

absurdly lucky 2GR solve... easy block, easy F2L, COLL skip lmao

L2 F U F2 U' F2 D L F2 U' B' R B L B' R U F' L2 U
z' // insp
r U' R2' y' r U M2' // EOPair 6/6
y U' r F r' // CPLine 4/10
U2 r2 U r2' U R u2 // Block 7/17
U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 U2 z' // F2L 7/24
M2 U M' U2 M U M2 U' // 2GLL 8/32


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 8, 2017)

Hey, so People. An update on using K4. (AKA why people don't use it)
after playing with it, watching Austin moore livestream solves , and seeing this video, I don't know why more people don't use it.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 8, 2017)

Okay, this is still very much a work in progress, but it contains pretty much everything I've done on CP so far, including a way to easily memorize the CP tracking tables + 5 annotated 2x2 examples showing how tracking works + 23ish full 3x3 solves

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A74Tv5nzoXEzEN1NGORZ8sabOhcFWQmDCMpSpoFTF3I


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 8, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Okay, this is still very much a work in progress, but it contains pretty much everything I've done on CP so far, including a way to easily memorize the CP tracking tables + 5 annotated 2x2 examples showing how tracking works + 23ish full 3x3 solves
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A74Tv5nzoXEzEN1NGORZ8sabOhcFWQmDCMpSpoFTF3I


Thanks a lot!


----------



## Neuro (Feb 9, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey, so People. An update on using K4. (AKA why people don't use it)
> after playing with it, watching Austin moore livestream solves , and seeing this video, I don't know why more people don't use it.


Hey, so I think the main reason people don't use K4 is because of ELL. There are a lot of people that in general don't understand the concept of commutators, and the idea of using an LL method based entirely on a foreign concept scares them a bit (recognizing cycles and EO can be a bit tough if not experienced.) Also, I find the recognition of ELL to be awkward and a bit slow, but that can probably be chalked up to inexperience.

It should also be noted that the beginning of K4 is pretty awkward, and some people may not be comfortable with a method that doesn't have (as) efficient F2L. But this would be really easy to improve on. You could build Roux blocks, do L4C, use commutators to insert the last 2 F2L edges, and do ELL (but this is really just a less efficient variant of Lewis.) You can also take a basic cross approach (Yau and use K4 to build F2L and solve LL), or you could even make a ZZ direct solving method (although it would probably have a horrendous movecount); say, build LR centers, use OBLBL to make EO line, use K4 pairing to blockbuild F2L, and finally ELL. All have potential but I'd focus on the ZZ and CFOP based approaches b/c they'd be the most efficient and easiest to execute.

So yes it has potential, it's just scary to a lot of people; and while I'm no statistician, I would predict that it has a higher movecount than the main 4x4 methods. But if you could find a nice recog system I think it could be worth looking into, or maybe change the steps of ELL up a little. Maybe orient all the dedges and solve one so you only have 6 wings to solve?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 9, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Hey, so I think the main reason people don't use K4 is because of ELL. There are a lot of people that in general don't understand the concept of commutators, and the idea of using an LL method based entirely on a foreign concept scares them a bit (recognizing cycles and EO can be a bit tough if not experienced.) Also, I find the recognition of ELL to be awkward and a bit slow, but that can probably be chalked up to inexperience.
> 
> It should also be noted that the beginning of K4 is pretty awkward, and some people may not be comfortable with a method that doesn't have (as) efficient F2L. But this would be really easy to improve on. You could build Roux blocks, do L4C, use commutators to insert the last 2 F2L edges, and do ELL (but this is really just a less efficient variant of Lewis.) You can also take a basic cross approach (Yau and use K4 to build F2L and solve LL), or you could even make a ZZ direct solving method (although it would probably have a horrendous movecount); say, build LR centers, use OBLBL to make EO line, use K4 pairing to blockbuild F2L, and finally ELL. All have potential but I'd focus on the ZZ and CFOP based approaches b/c they'd be the most efficient and easiest to execute.
> 
> So yes it has potential, it's just scary to a lot of people; and while I'm no statistician, I would predict that it has a higher movecount than the main 4x4 methods. But if you could find a nice recog system I think it could be worth looking into, or maybe change the steps of ELL up a little. Maybe orient all the dedges and solve one so you only have 6 wings to solve?


K4 in its purest original form has only slightly higher movecount than yau. that's about what Meyer/Hoya/lewis are at.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Feb 9, 2017)

OLLCP with half the algs- use phasing to make sure misoriented edges are opposite of each other.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 9, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> OLLCP with half the algs- use phasing to make sure misoriented edges are opposite of each other.


That's a lot of extra moves and looks just to get an EPLL. And it's still like 100 algs... I don't see that as being beneficial.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 9, 2017)

Oh yeah guys... got a 1:02 4x4 single on camera with Lewis method! I still have a lot of pauses, especially during F2B, so I think I could have sub-1 or maybe even sub-50'd it with smoother blocks.






EDIT: made a wiki page for Lewis method, with videos linked if you want to ever learn.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Feb 9, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> That's a lot of extra moves and looks just to get an EPLL. And it's still like 100 algs... I don't see that as being beneficial.



I'm not saying this makes it viable, but phasing opposite edges is usually around 3-4 moves, which really isn't that much. But I agree about ELL not being very good, unless you use it only when the cases come up, not as a substep. And it's only around 40-50 algs, not 100.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 9, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> I'm not saying this makes it viable, but phasing opposite edges is usually around 3-4 moves, which really isn't that much. But I agree about ELL not being very good, unless you use it only when the cases come up, not as a substep. And it's only around 40-50 algs, not 100.


If my math is right, the case count would be:
possible edge orientations: 4flip, noflip, oppflip1, and oppflip2(there are 2 because of COLL asymmetry). You'd have 42 cases for each set, so that'd be 42*4 = 168 cases. that is not alg count, and I bet there would be mirrors/inverses, but the case count is pretty high.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 9, 2017)

I think the best way to do OLLCP with CFOP is to get EO out of the way at the start of the solve


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 9, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I think the best way to do OLLCP with CFOP is to get EO out of the way at the start of the solve


true, true. literally cuts the amount of cases to 42 

I got a 1:02 PB average of 5 today, 3 of the solves were sub-1. Lewis method ofc.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Feb 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> If my math is right, the case count would be:
> possible edge orientations: 4flip, noflip, oppflip1, and oppflip2(there are 2 because of COLL asymmetry). You'd have 42 cases for each set, so that'd be 42*4 = 168 cases. that is not alg count, and I bet there would be mirrors/inverses, but the case count is pretty high.



Alright, I checked on algdb and there are 25 ELL cases, but this doesn't count EPLL (all oriented), so the grand total is 29.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 10, 2017)

not for OLLCP. there are CLL's to worry about. not ELL's


----------



## efattah (Feb 10, 2017)

New 3x3 PB today with LMCF: 8.88 single! Probably the lowest movecount speedsolve of my life, 27 moves!! That's why it's called low movecount corners first!

Approximate reconstruction:

1. During the 15 second inspection I saw I could solve the green face and get a CLL skip on blue (1 in 162), and I also saw I could solve the blue center and one blue edge in 2 moves
2. Solved the corners and one edge as above (5 moves)
3. Solved 2 E2L pairs (15 moves)
4. Solved last edge and got a midges orientation skip (3 moves)
5. Permuted the midges and adjusted the R face (4 moves)

STPS 3.04

Note this was one of the first solves in the day so I was not warmed up at all. Had it been later in the sequence my TPS would have been higher and it could have even been sub 7, and if this were done by an expert it could have been 3.50.

This was done with Valk 3 (non-magnetic) on stackmat (I actually took a photo of the timer 8.881), too bad it wasn't on video.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 10, 2017)

Have you posted the algs yet?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 10, 2017)

efattah said:


> New 3x3 PB today with LMCF: 8.88 single! Probably the lowest movecount speedsolve of my life, 27 moves!! That's why it's called low movecount corners first!
> 
> Approximate reconstruction:
> 
> ...


The lowest movecount speedsolve of I think anybody. Feliks couldn't get that many moves. holy **** that could have been sub-3 at 10 TPS. Teach us this method Efattah! youre a god!


----------



## TDM (Feb 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> The lowest movecount speedsolve of I think anybody. Feliks couldn't get that many moves. holy **** that could have been sub-3 at 10 TPS. Teach us this method Efattah! youre a god!


I've had one or two solves with movecounts like that before... The scramble is far more important than the method if you want to get sub-30 moves. I think Feliks could get sub-30 moves with a LL skip, given that F2L movecount averages low-mid 30s.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 10, 2017)

TDM said:


> I've had one or two solves with movecounts like that before... The scramble is far more important than the method if you want to get sub-30 moves. I think Feliks could get sub-30 moves with a LL skip, given that F2L movecount averages low-mid 30s.


I guess so. but the avg movecount for LMCF is crazy. I have been able to play with it intuitively, since I know CLL(just CMLL algs lel). it's crazy.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 10, 2017)

Guroux's gotten 30 before

avg movecount seems like it's around 44 if we go by efattah's claims, which is low but by no means crazy


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 10, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Guroux's gotten 30 before
> 
> avg movecount seems like it's around 44 if we go by efattah's claims, which is low but by no means crazy


It is crazy if you are talking about actual movecount in speedsolves. Average movecount for roux is about 48 in speedsolves, and ZZ is over 50 in speedsolves. CFOP is over 60. As far as I can tell, Efattah's movecount estimates are based off of movecounts in speedsolves not the most optimal solution.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> It is crazy if you are talking about actual movecount in speedsolves. Average movecount for roux is about 48 in speedsolves, and ZZ is over 50 in speedsolves. CFOP is over 60. As far as I can tell, Efattah's movecount estimates are based off of movecounts in speedsolves not the most optimal solution.


Most good rouxers will often be below the oft quoted 48 stm and I'm sure other methods are similar because of all the tricks you can learn.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 10, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Most good rouxers will often be below the oft quoted 48 stm and I'm sure other methods are similar because of all the tricks you can learn.


mmk. I think that ZZ is still slightly higher than roux however. and CFOP is far above. The most move-optimized CFOP is FreeFOP, which I think could actually get pretty low movecount solves.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> mmk. I think that ZZ is still slightly higher than roux however. and CFOP is far above. The most move-optimized CFOP is FreeFOP, which I think could actually get pretty low movecount solves.



If anything I think this is at least proof that movecount isn't the sole measure of a method's potential. 

CFOP is ~60, ZZ without any of the large sets ~57 and with the large sets ~48, vanilla Roux is ~48 and Roux with advanced tricks ~45


----------



## efattah (Feb 10, 2017)

Sorry I still haven't posted the algorithms but more interesting is the probability of sub-30 movecounts. Let's look at the solve I had:

1. CLL skip; 1 in 162, but only if you always solve a true face. Since I solve with EG, 2/3 of the time the first face is an EG face not a CLL. So in LMCF the real chance of CLL skip is 1 in 486, unless of course you are so good in inspection that you can see in the inspection that you can get a CLL skip if you make a face and not an EG face.

2. I had 2 pre-solved edges after the CLL skip. I don't know the exact probability of this but from experience I'd estimate 1 in 8. However for this analysis we need to look at the probability of having AT LEAST 2 edges pre-solved (not exactly 2, but at least two). This would drop it to around 1 in 7.

3. Midge orientation skip. This is more tricky. When solving the last ledge/redge normally you do the 'solve last redge while simultaneously orienting the midges.' In that sense there is no skip. However when solving the last E2L pair you can sometimes just solve the last ledge/redge at the same time, and in so doing you finish both the L and R faces and 'hope' the midges end up oriented. This is what happened in my solve. If you 'gamble' and hope for a midge orientation skip, the chance of getting it is 1 in 8. But honestly I only make this gamble about 1 in 5 solves.

So, you can do a 'normal' LMCF solve where you start with EG faces and always do the L5E step normally. This is the best for average movecount. But if you aim for fast singles and extreme low movecounts, you are better off making a solid CLL face and hoping for a CLL skip and then gambling on the L5E and hoping for a midge orientation skip.

1. Normal solve chance of sub-30 movecount:
1 in 486*7*8*5 = 1 in 136,080

2. Gamble for low movecount and the chance is
1 in 162*7*8 = 1 in 9072

And yet the truth is with CLL having an average of 9 (?) moves per algorithm, a CLL skip drops the average movecount from 44 to 35. So any solve with a CLL skip and you are running a 35 move solve. Which is 1 in 162 if you choose to start with CLL. Interestingly somrandomkidmike's 8 second Waterman solve played out exactly like my 8.88; he had a CLL skip and also skipped a step in the L5E.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 10, 2017)

New PB with Lewis method: 49.423.

Just wanted to put that out there. wasn't even a nice solve, just randomly had no pauses and good lookahead one solve.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 10, 2017)

Can you post the algs please?

Doesn't seem like they're being revised at this point. You could've posted them just now?


----------



## efattah (Feb 11, 2017)

Okay, this took me some time to compile out of my head!
Here is the LMCF method PDF with algorithms. Welcome to the realm of occasional 27-35 move singles.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Feb 11, 2017)

Can this method be possible?
ZFOP-CT
1. EO Cross
2. ZZF2L (sometimes can use 3 or 2gen multislot)
3. TSLE
4. TTLL


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 11, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> Can this method be possible?
> ZFOP-CT
> 1. EO Cross
> 2. ZZF2L (sometimes can use 3 or 2gen multislot)
> ...


literally what a ZZ solver (colorfulpockets or Chris Tran)would do on a lucky scramble


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 11, 2017)

43 STM 2GR

R' D' L' B U B L' F' R F' U2 R' B' L2 F2 U' B U L' U'
y' z' // insp
y' r2 U' r' R2 U' R' // EOPair 6/6
R2 U' R2' y // CPLine 3-1/8
r R u2 M' E r2' u // Block 7/15
R2 U' R2' U2 R U R2' U' R U z' // F2L 10/25
U' R U R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U2' R' U2 r2 // 2GLL 18/43

A good example of a more advanced way of going about EOPair: often you can take advantage of large strings of <F,f,U,u> by applying a y' and executing them <R,r,U,u>. Because of this trick, this solve doesn't have any L/B/D/F moves at all. (also 2GLL is literally 40% of the whole thing, lol)

Current average movecounts for all 26 full 2GLL solves that I've done so far is 43.65, with median 43 and standard deviation 5.52. This is pretty far below projected (49 STM) but I think it's good to have that buffer as these solves aren't strictly speedsolves and more just me doing whatever seems half-decent on alg.cubing.net.

For comparison, when I do a similar thing with Roux I can usually average 45 moves (n = 100) but in speedsolves my movecount is more around 48.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Feb 11, 2017)

For basic phasing there's 3 cases. 1 is 3 moves 1 is 4 moves and the other is 7. So an average just under 5 a normal insert is 3 moves so it's only ~2 moves more


MethodNeutral said:


> I'm not saying this makes it viable, but phasing opposite edges is usually around 3-4 moves, which really isn't that much. But I agree about ELL not being very good, unless you use it only when the cases come up, not as a substep. And it's only around 40-50 algs, not 100.


----------



## efattah (Feb 11, 2017)

Sorry here is version 4 with some corrections and additions.

With this formally compiled the average movecount for E2L algorithms is 6.15. In real solving there is usually 1.5 setup moves so the real average is 7.65.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 11, 2017)

efattah said:


> Sorry here is version 4 with some corrections and additions.
> 
> With this formally compiled the average movecount for E2L algorithms is 6.15. In real solving there is usually 1.5 setup moves so the real average is 7.65.


Im guessing due to this you sometimes have an L5E with non-matching L and R faces?


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 11, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Im guessing due to this you sometimes have an L5E with non-matching L and R faces?


What? No, you can just adjust whichever face doesn't match/is solved and then do your L5E if that's a problem...


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 11, 2017)

The setup moves are for the E2L algs. they likely start with the slots for the edges to be solved into at UL and UR, if we go off of the example solves that efattah's posted, so sometimes you have to do L or R moves to place your slots in those positions


----------



## Neuro (Feb 12, 2017)

For LSE, what if we were to insert one of the L/R edges, and then use an alg to insert the remaining edge while orienting the rest? It seems like the algs would be pretty short, one could easily use pseudo to shorten the setup(which is already at most 3-4 moves), and the cases wouldn't be *too* difficult to recognize. Only downside I see is alg count (150ish without y2 symmetry) 

4 flip cases, 2 flip cases, and 0 flip cases. 
--10 2 flip, 4 4 flip, 1 0 flip

Last edge can be in 1/5 places
--10 possibilities taking orientation factor

150 algs


----------



## efattah (Feb 12, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Im guessing due to this you sometimes have an L5E with non-matching L and R faces?



75% of the time you are doing L5E with non-matching L and R faces on U. The trick is while you executed the L5E midge orientation algorithm by muscle memory, you examine the corners and centers and figure out in advance which move is needed to correct the L and R slices to match (L', R2, and R are the only ones which smoothly flow into midge permutation; R' does not). Immediately upon finishing the midge orientation you instantly roll into the L/R correction move then from there into midge permutation. L5E is so fast I can usually do it in around 2.3 - 2.7 seconds despite my very slow TPS. A fast Rouxer could do it in 1.4 or less.

In the situation where you still have two unsolved edges at UR and UL *and* the L and R faces (on U) each match or are of opposite color, you can finish the solve with Roux LSE if you are very good at Roux. If L and R do not match, edge recognition for Roux LSE is essentially impossible. Even so sometimes the last E2L pair leaves you with only one unsolved edge (at UR or UL), in which case L5E is faster than Roux LSE since it has only 2 steps rather than 3 and fewer moves.


----------



## efattah (Feb 12, 2017)

Neuro said:


> For LSE, what if we were to insert one of the L/R edges, and then use an alg to insert the remaining edge while orienting the rest? It seems like the algs would be pretty short, one could easily use pseudo to shorten the setup(which is already at most 3-4 moves), and the cases wouldn't be *too* difficult to recognize. Only downside I see is alg count (150ish without y2 symmetry)
> 
> 4 flip cases, 2 flip cases, and 0 flip cases.
> --10 2 flip, 4 4 flip, 1 0 flip
> ...



This is exactly what we do in LMCF L5E if you see my document and there are only 8 cases (or 32 with reflections). And recognition is insanely easy.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 12, 2017)

efattah said:


> This is exactly what we do in LMCF L5E if you see my document and there are only 8 cases (or 32 with reflections). And recognition is insanely easy.



Great to hear, I'll take a look at the cases!

So yeah you can get some crazy low LSE movecounts using this, I'll do like 10 or so solves and get back

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M2_U-...U-_M-_U-_M2&alg=U_M_U-_M_U_M2_U_M_U2_M-_U2_M-

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M-_U2...M2_U_M_U-_M-&alg=U_M2_U-_M-_U-_M_U-_M-_U-_M2


https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M2_U_...-_U_M-&alg=U-_M_U-_M-_U_M-_U2_M-_U_M_U2_M2_U


So I did my tests with it and applied a 0.05 critical value (2 tailed) and the average movecount should be between 17 moves and 9 (yeah, pretty crazy range there I know.) Some of my cases probably could've been solved more efficiently, but these should still give pretty accurate results. 

I've gotten 10-11 move LSE's using this, and the highest I got was a 14, which is the currently accepted average movecount for LSE. 

I'd be willing to say that it is usually more efficient than normal LSE. Roux users, rejoice; you have yet another tool to add to your LSE arsenal!


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 12, 2017)

Hm. Seems interesting. What was the average movecount?


----------



## MethodNeutral (Feb 12, 2017)

efattah said:


> This is exactly what we do in LMCF L5E if you see my document and there are only 8 cases (or 32 with reflections). And recognition is insanely easy.



Where can I see this document? I'd like to learn these if there are only 8 cases.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 12, 2017)

MethodNeutral said:


> Where can I see this document? I'd like to learn these if there are only 8 cases.


This has a doc with LMCF algs


efattah said:


> Sorry here is version 4 with some corrections and additions.
> 
> With this formally compiled the average movecount for E2L algorithms is 6.15. In real solving there is usually 1.5 setup moves so the real average is 7.65.





Teoidus said:


> Hm. Seems interesting. What was the average movecount?


Average movecount from my 10 examples was 13, but again some of the cases could've been done more efficiently (I'm not a Roux user, I just like to play with it from time to time) Also got some nasty cases that the LMCF algs couldn't do directly (based off of orientation of last LR edge in the buffer) so I had to work around that


----------



## efattah (Feb 12, 2017)

LMCF has L5E algorithms for every possible case including bad and special cases. I'll update the document to add them all. Indeed there are special cases for many of the earlier steps as well.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 13, 2017)

Seems interesting, but I think it would be more useful in special cases where one edge is pre-solved.
In fact, you could get even lower movecounts by inserting _any_ U-layer edge, then inserting the other while doing EO, then doing 4C with UFUB sometimes.
Im going to try this out!


----------



## efattah (Feb 13, 2017)

LMCF L5E can be expanded to L6E, I have been working on this for a few weeks now but I still haven't memorized all the cases. I am finishing generating the last cases and this method is extremely powerful both for LMCF and for Roux. In LMCF L6E, you solve the last 6 edges in 2 looks even if the L/R faces are misaligned (which happens in LMCF, but not in Roux). There are cases for all combinations of random solvings of the UR and UL edge (i.e. neither solved, one solved but disoriented, two solved but disoriented, etc.) In other words any MU scramble can be solved in 2-looks. The number of setup moves is 0-3 with an estimated average of 1; the average moves to solve UL+UR while orienting the midges is so far 8.3 (will have an exact number soon), and that leaves midge permutation which I assume has an average of 3.7 (if you include skips in the average). So the average move count would be 13.0 by my estimates, with one fewer looks than with Roux. Personally I am very skeptical of the 14 move count average of Roux LSE; by my own experiments it is more like 15-16, with 3 looks.

There are 110 cases if you include all the reflections. The average move count does not increase over L5E which is remarkable since you are solving an extra edge. For LMCF this is huge, because it keeps the L5E time the same but decreases the number of edges that need to be solved in the E2L phase from 7 down to 6, reducing the move count of LMCF by 3 moves from 44 to 41, and that still doesn't include Waterman's last step which drops the average by at least 1-2 more moves. So full LMCF (EGW) would theoretically have a 39-40 average if you use the advanced L6E.

I firmly believe this approach to the last six edges is faster than classic Roux LSE, so in the spirit that there may be more people interested in it for the Roux application vs. the small number of people interested in LMCF, I am compiling a more clear graphical document with all the cases clearly laid out. I should have it done in less than a week.

I would also comment that the move count is not entirely the whole story. Some cases are very unique and have finger tricks that are faster than most MU algorithms:

UL and UR both solved but disoriented, with 4 disoriented midges:
R' F R U M' U2 M2 U R' F' (+optional R) [10-11]
(this is 6 bad edges and would take 11 moves with Roux JUST TO ORIENT THE EDGES then you still have to solve UL/UR)

Solve DF into UR, with UL empty, UR holds the UL piece, oriented, with top midge orientations X O X:
L' U R B' M' B R' U' (+optional R) [8-9] -> extremely fast!


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 13, 2017)

efattah said:


> UL and UR both solved but disoriented, with 4 disoriented midges:
> R' F R U M' U2 M2 U R' F' (+optional R) [10-11]
> (this is 6 bad edges and would take 11 moves with Roux JUST TO ORIENT THE EDGES then you still have to solve UL/UR)


not if you use advanced 6flip tricks(there are a few, where you solve the 6flip with misoriented centerw or whatnot). With the way I would execute that algorithm the movecount is actually just around that, like 10-11.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 13, 2017)

efattah said:


> Personally I am very skeptical of the 14 move count average of Roux LSE; by my own experiments it is more like 15-16, with 3 looks.



If you use EOLR, it should be around 13. You can look up reconstructions of Lau's solves (though he doesn't actually make full use of EOLR) or reconstruct some of Kian's solves if you're curious.

I also think your 2-look system (orient + solve l/redge, then permute midges) is basically full EOLR -> 4c, which I think people are already doing. The difference is you've decided to generate non<M,U> algorithms.



efattah said:


> For LMCF this is huge, because it keeps the L5E time the same but decreases the number of edges that need to be solved in the E2L phase from 7 down to 6, reducing the move count of LMCF by 3 moves from 44 to 41, and that still doesn't include Waterman's last step which drops the average by at least 1-2 more moves. So full LMCF (EGW) would theoretically have a 39-40 average if you use the advanced L6E.



I'm still not sure where you're getting these figures. 13 EG + 3 * 7 E2L + 13 LSE = 47 STM?

Unless you can ensure that P(skip >= 1 E2L pair + easy LSE case) is always 1, you're not going to be getting 39-40 STM movecounts?


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 14, 2017)

34 STM 2GR

D B D B2 D R U L F2 D2 F' L2 B U' F' L2 B L' U' L2
x' // insp
y' E R B' r' U M2 // EOPair 6/6
y U L' U' L // CPLine 4/10
r2 U' R2' U' M2 U2 R' u2 // Block 8/18
U R' U2 R U R2' // F2L 6/24
M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U // 2GLL 11/35


----------



## efattah (Feb 14, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I also think your 2-look system (orient + solve l/redge, then permute midges) is basically full EOLR -> 4c, which I think people are already doing. The difference is you've decided to generate non<M,U> algorithms.
> I'm still not sure where you're getting these figures. 13 EG + 3 * 7 E2L + 13 LSE = 47 STM?
> Unless you can ensure that P(skip >= 1 E2L pair + easy LSE case) is always 1, you're not going to be getting 39-40 STM movecounts?



Answers:
1. The 2-look system may not have significantly fewer moves than Roux EOLR, but it will have faster TPS since you execute at algorithm speed instead of intuitive speed.

2. The move count for LMCF is more complicated than that:

You solve the centers and 1 edge in 1-2 moves on most solves, or sometimes it takes 3 moves after EG is finished
This leaves 5 edges left to solve. 50% of the time one of these is already solved, leaving two E2L pairs (2 x Z). The other 50% of the time you can solve the 5 edges as one pair (Z) and one triplet (7).

Things are further complicated by the number of moves Z required to solve a pair and triplet. A triplet will average about 7, and whereas the average movecount for the E2L pair algorithms is 6.3 + setup, that is not the actual average. That is the flat average across all the cases but it ignores the fact that the most common cases are 3 and 5 moves respectively. So the actual average for a pair will be less than the flat average across all the algorithms. Regardless, being extremely generous and using a value of 7 moves for both the pairs and triplets:

EG is 13
1 edge + center is solved in 1-3 moves
Then 14 moves for the remaining 5 edges
LSE is 13

So the predicted total is 13 + (1-3) + 14 + 13 = 41-43

However this does not take into account the high frequency where 2 or even 3 edges are pre-solved after doing the corners. In this case you get dramatically lower move counts (circa 35), and these bring down the average even more.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 14, 2017)

efattah said:


> Answers:
> 1. The 2-look system may not have significantly fewer moves than Roux EOLR, but it will have faster TPS since you execute at algorithm speed instead of intuitive speed.



I don't think the idea of "intuitive speed" is useful. LSE feels very algorithmic to me at this point, even though I learned it intuitively. While I've seen you dismiss roux LSE as requiring too much thought many times, I have to disagree with the idea that Roux tps can't match your 2look system's tps. Movecount is comparable and Roux with constant lookahead, even at a slightly lower tps, will arguably beat maxed out tps + a delay to recognize.




efattah said:


> 2. The move count for LMCF is more complicated than that:
> 
> You solve the centers and 1 edge in 1-2 moves on most solves, or sometimes it takes 3 moves after EG is finished
> This leaves 5 edges left to solve. 50% of the time one of these is already solved, leaving two E2L pairs (2 x Z). The other 50% of the time you can solve the 5 edges as one pair (Z) and one triplet (7).



Wasn't this triplet stuff a lucky thing? I see the point about the distributions being non-uniform, but I don't see how you can guarantee 2 looks/14 moves for E2L. Even in your example solves that you've posted you regularly seem to take more than this?


----------



## efattah (Feb 14, 2017)

OK I just did a bunch of high speed solves (as fast as I could count) keeping lookahead realistic and not looking for 'optimal' cases, to see how many moves E2L takes to solve 6 edges:

15,19,19,18,14,17,25,15,15,21,14,21,12,12,19,18,25,20,16,19,16,21,25,23,15,15,15,16

The average was 17.85.

So EG (13) + E2L (17.85) + 2-look LSE (13) = 43.85


----------



## efattah (Feb 14, 2017)

As far as Roux LSE and its advanced variants, it may be there is not a much better solution for Roux solvers. I can't use Roux LSE for LMCF anyway, so I'm just happily trying to improve my method with the 2-look LSE that works with disoriented L/R faces; if it has no value for other methods that is too bad but I'm mostly focused on improving my own method anyway.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 14, 2017)

It could still be useful for pseudo-blocks.

What do you average with the method now?


----------



## efattah (Feb 14, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> It could still be useful for pseudo-blocks.
> What do you average with the method now?



I'm still averaging 16.7 (Ao50=16.3, Ao12=15.3). I have had an 11 and a 12 in the same Ao5, and I recently had probably my most lovely solve, a full step 9.10 using CsTimer hitting the spacebar on the splits, and the splits were 2.02 (corners), 4.74 (E2L), 2.34 (L5E).

I'm still using 1-look L5E, I know a few of the 2-look LSE cases but that's my next task (to learn them all).

Some of the LSE algorithms double as E2L pair algorithms. This is starting to allow me to select the E2L algorithm on the fly (from several choices of the same case), which allows partially setting up the next pair (as each alg affects the other pieces and L/R slightly differently). The overall method could be optimized for 10 years and still have new tricks. That's what I enjoy about it, I'm always finding new tricks.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 14, 2017)

So method neutrality is something I've been interested in for a while now, and I think I've finally got a basic plan to method neutrality. While I don't think it's particularly useful if you are already extremely good at a single method, it's still an interesting concept so I thought I might as well explain my system for those who are interested. Here's the document I made. Enjoy and leave any suggestions you have!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kbeFfLPNEd3IODrMZtpsj0XzJ-NwOCQxiStYF6Q45IU/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 14, 2017)

tbh I think petrus/zz neutrality can be very powerful


----------



## Neuro (Feb 14, 2017)

Sounds interesting, the main reason I didn't put Petrus on there is b/c I really don't like it. I find the ergonomics to be pretty bad which basically cancels out the movecount advantage for me. Does sound good though, may do some tests later. Any other suggestions as to what to put onto the doc?


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 14, 2017)

I think it may be better to first solve a rouxblock and then expand to 2x2x3+EO with <R,r,U,M>. More ergonomic and allows you to one-look 2x2x3's

Waterman/Roux neutrality could be interesting if you see an easy layer


----------



## Neuro (Feb 14, 2017)

Could be a nice method, only problem is the EO portion would be hard to recognize in inspection given so little time after planning Roux block. 

As for Waterman/Roux, I would probably be more inclined to use PCMS, LMCF, or some other corners/columns first variant given the difficulty of the last few steps and the awkward first steps of Waterman. May add it/some variation into the doc because it does sound pretty nice. Right now I'm looking at how to improve inspection for what's current, but I am more than willing to add combinations.


----------



## efattah (Feb 14, 2017)

Interesting document. I have long been a proponent of LMCF+[CFOP-ZBLL] as the ideal method neutral system. Inspection is extremely simple; rapidly rotate the cube; if you see three corners making a face (or even a full face), use LMCF, otherwise use CFOP. With three corners making a face, it is easy to one look the EG solve which gives a slick LMCF time. Best of all you can identify the presence of three corners making (almost) a face in probably 1-2 seconds. Giving you 13 seconds to inspect for CFOP if you choose that route.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 14, 2017)

efattah said:


> Interesting document. I have long been a proponent of LMCF+[CFOP-ZBLL] as the ideal method neutral system. Inspection is extremely simple; rapidly rotate the cube; if you see three corners making a face (or even a full face), use LMCF, otherwise use CFOP. With three corners making a face, it is easy to one look the EG solve which gives a slick LMCF time. Best of all you can identify the presence of three corners making (almost) a face in probably 1-2 seconds. Giving you 13 seconds to inspect for CFOP if you choose that route.



Looks nice, I'll be adding LMCF into the doc and make the variations as seen viable. May add other methods (Petrus. Even though I don't like it, other people do so I won't cut them out). 

Others may include PCMS, SSC, MCELL, and ECE; but probably won't add, because of lack of lookahead/developmemt that the other methods have.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 14, 2017)

Hey guys, why does no one use VH method? Because Im a rouxer, and I know COLL(mostly by conjugating CMLL's with M moves and such), If I dont use OBLBL(really only for 5x5), then I will solve 5x5+ with VH method. the odd-numbered cubes are easier because you don't get parity, but it seems to be pretty nice. I mean, I know 4 VHLS cases algorithmically and I can solve the other ones bu using the others inserts and stuff. 
so if you don't know, VH method is a simplified ZB method(thats why ZZ with COLL and EPLL is sometimes called ZZ-VH). here are the steps:
-cross
-F2L-1
-insert the last pair(can be either pair or split pair), and orient edges
-COLL
-EPLL

I have an example solve here, which took as many moves as normal CFOP would. 

now remember, I don't like using CFOP-based methods, but on 5x5+ where I solve with like either Hoya5 or just redux, the fact that not very much inspection is needed to start 3x3 stage is pretty beneficial. so I will do Vandenbergh-harris, because then I can just go into a COLL(i do know full PLL but not full OLL, and my corner orientation recognition is just as fast as my CxLL recognition), and then an EPLL, of which all the cases are pretty nice and 2-gen(except for H-perm, but its so low movecount its ok-- I use the 2-gen Z perm anyway).


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 14, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey guys, why does no one use VH method?



But… people do? Some VHLS cases are bad and there's no point using them instead of just OLL, but I think most people know at least the easy cases.

I use it a bit more often on 4×4×4 than on 3×3×3 because some of the PLL algs I use are terrible on big cubes (and I haven't learnt alternatives), so forcing EPLL by doing VHLS and COLL is pretty useful. Forcing 1-flip cases when parity happens is also useful.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 14, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> But… people do? Some VHLS cases are bad and there's no point using them instead of just OLL, but I think most people know at least the easy cases.
> 
> I use it a bit more often on 4×4×4 than on 3×3×3 because some of the PLL algs I use are terrible on big cubes (and I haven't learnt alternatives), so forcing EPLL by doing VHLS and COLL is pretty useful. Forcing 1-flip cases when parity happens is also useful.


I don't get parity because I use the Lewis method on 4x4, and I only do up to 5x5(OBLBL or Hoya5) rn. but the VHLS cases are all nice, and I can do most of them intuitively while inserting the last slot so I can do that, and it skips what would otherwise be a 3rd look for LL on 5x5.


----------



## mDiPalma (Feb 14, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> tbh I think petrus/zz neutrality can be very powerful



You are basically picking the easiest path to familiar territory. EO and blocks are about as independent as you can get. 

It's no coincidence that many of the fast Petrus users are also fast ZZ users (and vice versa).


----------



## Neuro (Feb 14, 2017)

I'm about to start work on the second version of my method neutrality doc. Any last minute suggestions?

Right now I have: Petrus, LMCF, maybe some high potential experimental methods (MCELL, SSC, ECE, PCMS, etc), and of course recog systems/viable combos for all


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 15, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> it skips what would otherwise be a 3rd look for LL on 5x5.



Or you could just use Petrus.

This is actually what I do on 5×5×5 since OBLBL means you already have one gigantic block sitting right there.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 15, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Or you could just use Petrus.
> 
> This is actually what I do on 5×5×5 since OBLBL means you already have one gigantic block sitting right there.


I do OBLBL, and I actually do use Petrus with it. 
Now I just need to find a way to combine AvG with EOpairing. Because my solves with OBLBL on 4x4 with EOpairing(the pairing used in Z4) have gotten me sub-1:15 solves(for comparison, I average 58-1:08ish with Lewis method on 4x4). This is because the hardest step in OBLBL is doing EO right after edgepairing, and EOpairing, even if slightly less efficient, skips that step, and there are few enough edges that it doesn't make that big of a difference.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 15, 2017)

Here's the second rendition of the method neutrality doc. Do you think I should add subset neutrality in the doc or strictly limit to methods themselves? It'd basically be V2.5

**LARGE EDIT- Deleted tables, felt they were unnecessary and provided little in the way of understanding the concept

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VtmdlFansxiboZMgIGGNKXppKDLsgiuVGlRz3e6z0fA/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 15, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Here's the second rendition of the method neutrality doc. Do you think I should add subset neutrality in the doc or strictly limit to methods themselves? It'd basically be V2.5
> 
> **LARGE EDIT- Deleted tables, felt they were unnecessary and provided little in the way of understanding the concept
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VtmdlFansxiboZMgIGGNKXppKDLsgiuVGlRz3e6z0fA/edit?usp=sharing


A lot of the fastest petrus solvers use ZZ, I think that in fact they are Similar. so I disagree with petrus/zz being somewhat similar, they are similar. Petrus+roux is doo difficult to achieve I think though. Ill tlel you if theres anything else I disagree on.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 15, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> A lot of the fastest petrus solvers use ZZ, I think that in fact they are Similar. so I disagree with petrus/zz being somewhat similar, they are similar. Petrus+roux is doo difficult to achieve I think though. Ill tlel you if theres anything else I disagree on.



Ok I'll make sure to change some of the method comparisons. That was actually one I was on the fence about. I'll be thoroughly testing all the combinations and may delete some, but I think that they're all viable if even for just a small group.

Any thoughts on adding substep neutrality?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 15, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Ok I'll make sure to change some of the method comparisons. That was actually one I was on the fence about. I'll be thoroughly testing all the combinations and may delete some, but I think that they're all viable if even for just a small group.
> 
> Any thoughts on adding substep neutrality?


Unless it's ZZ-CT. 
I think that for ZZ OHers, I think that fast singles are possible with a method like ZZ-rainbow if you can see if the rainbow will be mostly solved after EOline, but that may be just a neutrality thing. like Mats valk is substep neutral between VLS-PLL and OLL-PLL. substep neutrality is nice if you know only nice cases for each one.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 15, 2017)

Well if I were to add it it'd look something like this:

Roux: All LSE

Pinkie Pie: Easy inserts or 1/both UF/UB or UR/UL oriented on bottom
EO LR/FB- Good case after CMLL
UFUB- Good case after CMLL
L5E- 1 top edge presolved or very fast insert after CMLL
ZZ: LS+LL

ZBLL/OCLL+PLL/COLL+EPLL- LS presolved or 3/4 move insert
L5EP- If LS corner presolved
ZZ-CT- No LS, hard insert
CFOP:LS+LL

OLS/OLL+PLL/VH- Edges disoriented
Any ZZ variant-Edges oriented, follow same ZZ criterion

Also, what about Opp cross ELL+EPLL for Roux? With all edges oriented of course. Might be helpful if their are no good options to solve UF/UB or UR/UL. Would be used in conjunction with OLLCP

So Pinkie Pie with DB/DF on bottom (and centers solved, but I may make y2 reflection algs), and direct solving from there

*EDIT- Could be used with OLLCP, but would also work after CMLL/Roux EO if easy.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 16, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Stuff about a method Neutrality Document


I was thinking. Since both LMCF and Roux use a lot of M-slices and wierd fingertricks and both can get low movecounts, and you should already know C(M)LL if you do Roux, I think that LMCF/Roux neutrality could be powerful. 
how it would work:
scan around the cube quickly. If you can find a face you can do easily, then work on onelooking that, and then do LMCF. If you do not find one within the first few seconds of inspection, then plan a Roux first block and continue with Roux. 
I think that it would mean you would normally do Roux more often than LMCF, but since many fast Rouxers know at least EG-1 along with C(m)LL, They can easily do it. And besides that, there are not very many algs in LMCF. And, since the movecount is low, even if your TPS is slower than your Roux TPS, then you can get times probably roughly as fast as your roux times. 
Just an Idea. Also I am considering learning LMCF and doing that, maybe you should add that Neuro?


----------



## Neuro (Feb 16, 2017)

It's in the newest version along with other LMCF combos, and that's basically the same as how I made the recognition system. Any other methods that should be in the doc? Currently I have CFOP, Petrus, Roux, ZZ, and LMCF along with neutrality systems for all combos


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 17, 2017)

Update on the Lewis method:


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Feb 17, 2017)

Yesterday I made a face first 3x3 method and I posted it on r/Cubers. It got a surprisingly good response considering how much they hate seeing new method posts, so now i'm posting it on here.

Step 1: Make a face with one corner missing

This is pretty simple. Just blockbuild a face on the bottom. This is just like making a layer but you do not need to permute the pieces.

Step 2: Solve 3 middle layer pieces using keyhole

Use the slot without a corner to insert middle layer pieces one by one. If you see an unsolved middle layer piece, put the spot where it goes above the empty corner slot and insert it. Repeat until 3 middle layer edges are solved.

Step 3: Permute 3 corners on the first layer

Find the corner that is not in the first layer and insert it in the spot where it belong relative to the other corners. Make sure you insert using the empty edge slot so that you don't mess up what you have already done. When you insert the corner, don't worry about taking another one out. That is exactly what you are supposed to do. Just repeat with the corner you take out. If all of the corners are inserted but you don't have 3 permuted, take an unsolved corner out and put it in the right spot. When you finish this step, you should have 3 solved corners on the first layer and the 4th permuted corner in the last layer. If you have 4 solved or permuted corners on the first layer, that is okay too.

Step 4: Solve the final first layer corner and final middle layer edge

For this step, just use non-matching F2L. If you know F2L, the only challenge to this is making sure the edge is oriented. You can use last slot tricks if you want, but they are not required.

Step 5: Solve the last layer and permute the first layer edges

I know of 2 2-look version under 400 algs: CLL and ELL+EPFL, and OLLCP and EPBL. I see the most potential in the second one. If you are afraid of algs, then you can intuitively permute the first layer edges with M, U, and D moves and solve the last layer. Unfortunately, I don't have algs for both of the 2-look versions.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 17, 2017)

Other steps? What I see now is a blockbuilder's approach to CFOP with keyhole F2L


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 17, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> Yesterday I made a face first 3x3 method and I posted it on r/Cubers. It got a surprisingly good response considering how much they hate seeing new method posts, so now i'm posting it on here.
> 
> Step 1: Make a face with one corner missing
> 
> This is pretty simple. Just blockbuild. This is just like making a layer but you do not need to permute the pieces.


Where are the rest of the steps...?


----------



## Neuro (Feb 17, 2017)

Ok found the Reddit post: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/5ujsn7/i_just_made_a_face_first_3x3_method_and_its_cool/

Might have potential, but OLLCP has a ridiculous amount of algs and inserting LS+ bottom layer CP seems a bit counterproductive.

I'd probably keep the face, but solve the corners so you can insert LS with VH (orient LL edges) and do COLL after. But at that point it's basically a blockbuilding version of SSC (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)

EDIT: This variant gives a really fun solve, but I don't see it being used well for speed. Scraping this one for the time being


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Feb 17, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Where are the rest of the steps...?


Sorry, I tested the spoiler boxes with one step (I didn't do it right) and I edited the rest in. I didn't think anyone would get to it that fast.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 17, 2017)

Since it doesn't seem like your primary goal is speed I think it might be more fun to continue the face-building concept as far as you can while still being a reasonable method. Like maybe after the first face you can try and build an adjacent face or something.


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 17, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> Sorry, I tested the spoiler boxes with one step (I didn't do it right) and I edited the rest in. I didn't think anyone would get to it that fast.


Oh okay no worries. I feel like the first and second step can definitely be combined using non-matching F2L. One could simply solve cross without caring for EP and then solve F2L without worrying about CP either. That could work.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 17, 2017)

Maybe do some advanced blockbuilding to make NM F2L? Like Petrus/MCELL or variants?

EDIT: Got a 65 move solve (Petrus variant). Keep in mind I'm not a great blockbuilder and was influencing bottom layer CP while doing so. Recog is hard, wouldn't reccomend. I'll test crafto's variant and my old variant and get back soon


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 17, 2017)

So I was playing around with ECE and ZZ-CT and sorta came up with this hybrid method that could be pretty good.

1. Solve EO and 2 E-slice edges on L
Estimated average moves: 6

2. Solve a 1x1x3 under the solved E-slice edges, forming a pseudo Roux block
Estimated average moves: 7

3. Solve the remaining E-slice edges whilst orienting one D layer corner
Estimated average moves: 6

4. Orient all the corners using one of 16 algs
Estimated average moves: 5

5. Expand the pseudo Roux block to a pseudo 2x2x3
Estimated average moves: 4

6. Solve F2L minus one corner
Estimated average moves: 4

7. Solve the cube with TTLL
Estimated average moves: 12

Projected average move count: ~44 STM


----------



## Neuro (Feb 18, 2017)

So here's an idea I came up with: Neuro Last Slot- A block based method that uses only 85 algs for full 1LLL

Used in conjunction with ZZ, one gets to a point where it is essentially tripod (FB done, built to F2L-1, and 2x2x1 built in *UBL*) and uses one of 35 algs to insert the last slot while preserving the top block. 

**I build left block first, wrote out of preference

I'm fairly certain that all of the NLS algs can be done 2 gen, but they may get too long. Currently the average movecount for NLS is about 9.5 moves. NLS recog is fairly straightforward, and at the moment I have it broken down by where the last F2L edge is and then looking at orientation/location of F2L corner.

By preserving the block, you get a 50 alg 1LLL (no PI or H ZBLL's and S/AS reduce to 6 algs per set; while the remaining ZBLL sets go to 11 algs each, and the remaining 5 are PLL's). Recog for 1LLL shouldn't be too hard if one is somewhat familiar with ZBLL.

Depending on how good one is at ZZF2L, they may be able to plan F2L-1 and top block together directly after first block. Also useful in lucky solves or for those just getting into ZBLL.

Here's an 49 move example solve (Not sure as to the average movecount, but I suspect it's in the same range as ZZ-CT)
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_B2.../NLS
R2_U_F_U-_F2_D_R2_D-_R2_F_U-_R2_U2//ZBLL

Also attached current NLS algs. Generate in cube explorer


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 18, 2017)

Here's an example solve of the method I proposed in my previous post:

Scramble: F R2 D' L2 R2 D' L2 U F2 U' F2 L2 B R D F' D U L D

y' r F' M' B L2 D' L' // EO + E-slice edges (7/7)
U' R2 U' R U' R2 D2 // 1x1x3 (7/14)
M2 U R' // remaining E-slice edges + one D-layer corner (3/17)
U' M2 // pseudo 2x2x3 (2/19)
U' R' U' R U2 R' U' R' // CO (8/27)
U' R2 U2 R2 U R2 // F2L minus one corner (6/33)
U2 R U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R // TTLL (12/45)
(U' D2) // ADF = Total moves: 46


----------



## efattah (Feb 18, 2017)

Hi guys,

I am making extraordinary progress speeding up my LMCF times by incorporating the new L6E algorithms. Sadly I have some life stuff coming up and I will have to take a short break from cubing so this will be my last post for a while. I am attaching here my latest (incomplete) algorithm sheets in case someone wants to continue pursuing this method while I am taking a break.

1. LMCF L6E algorithms and E2L triplet algorithms (these new triplet algorithms allow way more frequent triplets):
2. LMCF Waterman document, compiling the Waterman algorithms for solving the last two ledges/redges while orienting midges

As a comment to those who want to get started in LMCF. Like CFOP there are many 'variants' depending on how many algorithms you want to learn. You can start with as little as 11 algorithms and move up to over 500 if you learn the full method with all reflections; with greatly diminishing returns as you learn more algorithms. The basic set is:
- Either CLL, CMLL or EG1 to solve the corners (assume you already know one of these, preferably full EG of course)
- Just THREE E2L algorithms are required (plus reflections)
1. DF into UR, UR goes into UL: U M' U'
2. DF into UR, UR goes into UL: M U M U2 M'
3. DF into UR, UL holds the edge piece of that side but flipped: U' M U2 M2 U'
- Eight L5E algorithms (you can compensate for not knowing reflections by doing U2's and D2's)
[Learn the set solving DF into UL while orienting midges = 8 cases)

When using basic LMCF E2L try to solve the DF into UR with the above three case pairs; if there is no such case, move the opposite L/R side to displace whatever edge piece is there (when solving your next edge) and use the displaced edge as your next edge, preserving lookahead. This basic low-algorithm variant is very fast to learn, has slightly higher movecount but still easily capable of sub-10.

LMCF + Roux would be a very fast double method. You'd be surprised how many scrambles have full corner faces pre-solved, in which case 1-look is trivial for the corners and you can lookahead to the edges themselves.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 19, 2017)

48 move NLS solve:
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_F2...y-_D-_L-_D_F2_R_U_R-_F2_L2_U-_L-_U_L2_U//ZBLL

Obviously movecount will be different in real solves but it's showing promise so far


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> 48 move NLS solve:
> https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_F2...y-_D-_L-_D_F2_R_U_R-_F2_L2_U-_L-_U_L2_U//ZBLL
> 
> Obviously movecount will be different in real solves but it's showing promise so far


48 moves is certainly nothing exceptional, and considering your optimizing the solve (move count would surely be higher in a speedsolve) I don't see how this shows much promise. If you're going to start the solve with ZZ, I'm certain you would agree that finishing with TSLE/TTLL or some other form of ZZ last layer would work just as well, and recognition and the move count would perhaps be better. Speaking of recognition, ZBLL recog is pretty hard, so why not just go the easy route and finish with something with easy recog?


----------



## Neuro (Feb 19, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> 48 moves is certainly nothing exceptional, and considering your optimizing the solve (move count would surely be higher in a speedsolve) I don't see how this shows much promise. If you're going to start the solve with ZZ, I'm certain you would agree that finishing with TSLE/TTLL or some other form of ZZ last layer would work just as well, and recognition and the move count would perhaps be better. Speaking of recognition, ZBLL recog is pretty hard, so why not just go the easy route and finish with something with easy recog?


It's mostly meant for people interested in ZBLL but don't know where to start or for lucky solves. It's also for people who despise learning algorithms, and to teach new concepts to intermediate solvers.

Although I will continue to use ZZ-CT as my main variant, I don't think this should be dismissed. It can be used as an effective transitioning tool into ZBLL while dropping the 1LLL algs by 9 times from traditional ZBLL, and it can be used in lucky solves. In regards to movecount other variants are better, but it's certainly not a hindrance. Personally I will learn it in order to give me an advantage in nice situations.

I do realize that ZZ-CT would be better in overall speed/moves, but one still has to learn over 100 algs in order to use it in it's entirety. With NLS, most of the cases can be done intuitively, so one won't even need to learn the full 35 patterns. The LL recog is 1 look with very little algs, 50 with 5 likely already being known to be exact. 

While I recommend ZZ-CT over NLS for most people, I do think it is is useful for people looking to advance into ZBLL and in lucky solves. It teaches beginners basic ZBLL recog with only fairly easy cases while not severely hindering their current solving times.

45 move NLS solve *not optimized. *Somewhat lucky, but shows method's power.
(Did the first thing I saw on alg.cubing so basically a speedsolve)
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=D2_R2_B2_L-_U2_B2_R2_F2_R-_B2_F2_D_F_L-_D-_L-_U-_B_R_D2_L&alg=y_D2_R_F-_R2_B-_U-_B//EO_line U2_L_U_R2_L_U-_L-//FB U2_R2_U_R2//F2L&#45;1 U2_R_U-_R-_U2_R_U_R-_U//TB R2_U-_L_U-_R2_U_L-_U2_R2_U-_R2//NLS y2_R_U-_L-_U_R-_U-_L//ZBLL
I'll do say 25 solves with it over the break and get back with stats
*may consider making this my main variant if movecount is low*


----------



## Sion (Feb 19, 2017)

Hawaii 4-0 Method

This is a Big cubes method I came up with completely intuitively with very little help. It is currently my main 4x4 method, and I hope I can translate it to even bigger nxn puzzles in the future.

1: Solve a 1x1x3 Column.
2: Build a 1x3x3 block using the 1x1x3 column.
3: Solve the D layer center and solve another 1x3x3 block with the original 1x1x3 column, making a 3x3x3 block.
4: Extend the 3x3x3 block into a 3x3x4 block.
5: Build two columns in front of the 3x3x4 block.
6: Reduce the remaining edges into 5 edge pairs (last layer and DF position edge)
8: Solve the remaining edges.
9: Solve the last two centers with one algorithm.

Might do examples later.


----------



## SenorJuan (Feb 19, 2017)

Interesting. Tell us about parity, please.


----------



## Sion (Feb 19, 2017)

Parity is traditionally with step eight, although you could put it as a final step later in the solve.


----------



## One Wheel (Feb 19, 2017)

I got as far as step 5. Not going to replace Yau for me, I'm afraid.


----------



## efattah (Feb 21, 2017)

I had a semi-lucky 9.99 second LMCF solve from the Race-to-Sub 15 thread. I happened to video the series and I have posted the video of and reconstruction of the solve:






9.99 LMCF solve reconstruction
Scramble: B2 U2 B2 D' R2 B2 D R2 U2 B2 D' L U B F' L' D2 R D U

x' y' U2 R' [D U] // create green face and AUF in prep for EG1
F' U R U' R' U F R U R' // EG1 Sune case
U2 M U2 M' // solve blue-white edge piece on U layer
x y r U' M' U // rotate, solve green-yellow edge piece and displace blue-yellow edge piece
x L' U M' U' // solve blue-yellow edge and displace blue-orange
r U M U' // E2L pair, blue-orange and green-white
L' R2 U' M' U // solve last E2L pair and gamble on a midge orientation skip
U2 M' U2 // midge orientation skip, permute midges

38 STM, 9.99 seconds
3.80 STPS


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 21, 2017)

Sion said:


> Hawaii 4-0 Method
> 
> This is a Big cubes method I came up with completely intuitively with very little help. It is currently my main 4x4 method, and I hope I can translate it to even bigger nxn puzzles in the future.
> 
> ...


It looks a lot like OBLBL to be honest, however I like the Idea or the columns.

Here's an alternative I would suggest:
after the 3x3x4 block and the 2 columns, solve the last 2 centers completely with <l, r, U>. then proceed to do CLL and then L5E(last 5 edges or Lewis 5 edges). one reason I like L5E is I myself am very good at it since I use it in my main method, and I can do it almost pauselessly.

just wondering, what is your average? I use Lewis and currently average around 1:02 or so, and that includes the very same L5E step.

EDIT: if I get around to it I will do an example solve with both variations, and Im calling mine the HK variant because it is basically HK-petrus variant on 4x4.


----------



## Sion (Feb 21, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> It looks a lot like OBLBL to be honest, however I like the Idea or the columns.
> 
> Here's an alternative I would suggest:
> after the 3x3x4 block and the 2 columns, solve the last 2 centers completely with <l, r, U>. then proceed to do CLL and then L5E(last 5 edges or Lewis 5 edges). one reason I like L5E is I myself am very good at it since I use it in my main method, and I can do it almost pauselessly.
> ...



i can go for aroun 4 minutes, but this is probably because I started to take 4x4 seriously only a couple days ago.

I'm pretty confident a world class solver could get sub 40 with this because of how intuitive it is, and block efficency.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 21, 2017)

Sion said:


> i can go for aroun 4 minutes, but this is probably because I started to take 4x4 seriously only a couple days ago.
> 
> I'm pretty confident a world class solver could get sub 40 with this because of how intuitive it is, and block efficency.


the problem I have with this method is the same I have with petrus: ergonomics. Petrus is low movecount, but because of the high amount of rotations involved not very many people use it. Also more structured methods are often faster because of the lookahead advantage.
I only started to take 4x4 seriously in january, so I know what you mean.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 22, 2017)

40 move NLS solve using some advanced cancellations. Had a 41 move w/ no cancellations and full step but I overwrote the alg.cubing link on accident.
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_D_...U_R_D_R-_U-_R_D-_R
y_B-_U2_B-_D-_F_R2_F-_D_B2

Ok so I did 12 solves with optimization and got a mean of 45.92 moves, so the range using α=0.025 would be between 38.72 and 53.13 moves. I think that 30-40 is possible, but that it'd be rare at best. Some of the cases are pretty nasty in terms of moves and sometimes it's hard to build top block; but depending on combinations you can get top block solved, 3 move LS insert, and 7 move LL.

I will continue to use ZZ-CT as my main variant but use this in nice cases. Still, it would be useful for those wishing to learn ZBLL but don't know where to start, are really lazy with learning algs, and/or want eazy(ish) recog for 1LLL.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 22, 2017)

Why would you use -CT if NLS has a lower avg movecount?


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 22, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Why would you use -CT if NLS has a lower avg movecount?


Because it doesn't. He's optimizing his solves, as he said, and when optimizing CT solves the move count is about the same if not lower. Additionally it seems like CT has better recog.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 22, 2017)

I highly doubt that optimized CT solves get 46- movecounts.

15 TTLL + 10 TSLE leaves ~20 moves for EOF2L-1(!!).

Unless by "optimized" you mean an FMC attempt.

@Neuro can you do a speedsolve movecount average?


----------



## Neuro (Feb 22, 2017)

Because some of the cases get really nasty. Sometimes it takes 7 moves to make the block, 12 moves to insert the LS, and 14 moves when optimized to solve ZBLL. So in real speedsolves, move count with bad cases may get in the 60's if not careful.

Basically if no easy block can be made I'll use CT, and maybe if the NLS case is bad and CT would be more efficient.

A speedsolve average is actually my next task. I have the scrambles now so I can probably have the average out tomorrow

EDIT: the way I optimized my solves was using HARCS to find the best EOline+LB and then using cube explorer to solve F2L-1 and top block seperately. From there I used the algs from the wikia to solve ZBLL and my currently generated algs for NLS


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 22, 2017)

Neuro said:


> A speedsolve average is actually my next task. I have the scrambles now so I can probably have the average out tomorrow
> 
> EDIT: the way I optimized my solves was using HARCS to find the best EOline+LB and then using cube explorer to solve F2L-1 and top block seperately. From there I used the algs from the wikia to solve ZBLL and my currently generated algs for NLS


okay Neuro, Ill try to do some solves with it, do you have like an alg sheet(printable hopefully) I can use?
EDIT: does HARCS have an optimal EOline solver?
EDIT OF EDIT: I think the reason why ZZ-CT is a great LS method is because it does not rely on any LS setup moves like WV does, because it only looks for one piece at a time.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 22, 2017)

also Neuro what is your system for naming the cases for NLS?


----------



## Neuro (Feb 22, 2017)

@Shiv3r, HARCS does have an EOline solver. Set it to solve with ZZ, put in the scramble, and set your style(s) *I usually limit it to UF and DB for simplicity* and from there all you need to do is put in EO line and it'll give you optimal EO lines for both styles.

I really like CT for the same reason. Recog of LS+LL is really easy and skips are relatively frequent. My main problem with it is alg count. It's not a problem for me, but might be for other people; hence why I created NLS. It's specifically tailored to people who want a 1LLL but hate learning algs. [85] is still a little high, but definitely learn-able and some of the LL should be known as well as NLS having many intuitive cases.

My recog is based off of where the edge is [A B C] and where the last d face sticker is [A-L]. So B A would have the edge is in the slot and the last corner would be in U F L and is facing left (insertable using R U' R')

Revised the page slightly, noticed an issue with the B/C sets. Generate in Cube Explorer to see cases. Will make official alg sheet soon, but for time being load and switch from generator to solver:


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 22, 2017)

Neuro said:


> @Shiv3r, HARCS does have an EOline solver. Set it to solve with ZZ, put in the scramble, and set your style(s) *I usually limit it to UF and DB for simplicity* and from there all you need to do is put in EO line and it'll give you optimal EO lines for both styles.
> 
> I really like CT for the same reason. Recog of LS+LL is really easy and skips are relatively frequent. My main problem with it is alg count. It's not a problem for me, but might be for other people; hence why I created NLS. It's specifically tailored to people who want a 1LLL but hate learning algs. [85] is still a little high, but definitely learn-able and some of the LL should be known as well as NLS having many intuitive cases.
> 
> ...


However, The TSLE not really "algs", they are more like LSE EO, squan subeshape, or sarah's intermediate, where you cycle through cases and eventually solve it. Then you learn optimized algs for the annoying cases later. so in reality, the alg count for ZZ-CT(NOT case count b/c all TSLE's are cases but not algs) is 78, which is lower than NLS. also recognition is easier.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 22, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> However, The TSLE not really "algs", they are more like LSE EO, squan subeshape, or sarah's intermediate, where you cycle through cases and eventually solve it. Then you learn optimized algs for the annoying cases later. so in reality, the alg count for ZZ-CT(NOT case count b/c all TSLE's are cases but not algs) is 78, which is lower than NLS. also recognition is easier.


I agree with the approach you take with TSLE, but learning how to effectively cycle the cases can take beginners a long time to master and use effectively. If we argue about alg vs case count, then NLS also has a few cases that can be effectively cancelled because of how intuitive they are (a standard 3 move insert is one of my "algs".) If we look at mirroring cases, S and AS reduces to only 6 algs, and I'm sure that some of the other ZBLL's mirror. I'd argue that they probably have very similar alg counts and that CT has more cases.

However, CT and NLS are aimed at different people. CT is a 2 look LL+LS, NLS is a 1LLL. CT is for people who have no problem learning algs, want a recog system they are familiar with, and will bargain with LL+LS. NLS is for people who don't like algs, are willing to change their recog style, and see benefits of a true 1LLL. Therefore while they can be compared, it'll ultimately come to personal preference. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I will use them interchangeably, as both of them have probability of low movecount and ergonomic solves.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 22, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I agree with the approach you take with TSLE, but learning how to effectively cycle the cases can take beginners a long time to master and use effectively. If we argue about alg vs case count, then NLS also has a few cases that can be effectively cancelled because of how intuitive they are (a standard 3 move insert is one of my "algs".) If we look at mirroring cases, S and AS reduces to only 6 algs, and I'm sure that some of the other ZBLL's mirror. I'd argue that they probably have very similar alg counts and that CT has more cases.
> 
> However, CT and NLS are aimed at different people. CT is a 2 look LL+LS, NLS is a 1LLL. CT is for people who have no problem learning algs, want a recog system they are familiar with, and will bargain with LL+LS. NLS is for people who don't like algs, are willing to change their recog style, and see benefits of a true 1LLL. Therefore while they can be compared, it'll ultimately come to personal preference. They both have advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I will use them interchangeably, as both of them have probability of low movecount and ergonomic solves.


I will argue with your Idea that NLS is a 1LLL, as you have more looks than an insert+LL. you build a block on the top then use algs to insert the pair. Also, if youre talking about alg count, ZZ-b has less algs than ZZ-NLS and is a more efficient LS IMO, and also has the 1look LL factor. I mean I think this method should really be called ZZ-tripod.

Now, I know a lot of ZZ solvers know COLL, some ZBLL, WV etc. I think that if you already have a U-layer pair then pairing up the last edge then inserting the pair may be more efficient, so learning some of the cases will be Nice.

Hey, so I was thinking of how to Make ZZ much more efficient, and I think I know how, for about as many algs as there are for COLL-EPLL(if you count L3C, which can very easily be done with commutators). It has already been invented by Kenneth gustavvson,who called it fish-n-chips, if you do it over CFOP+VHLS. Here are the ZZ-Snyder step 1(what Im calling it) algorithms: http://blog.naver.com/dmdrlrndk/90192057323. Also called EP+1

and if youre anything like Tony Snyder in efficiency you will probably get around 45-50 moves on average. Also, this is probably easier to recognize than Speed-heise, with around half the algs for the first step. I will post example solves later if you want. 
I think the way to go for better efficiency is to start emulating more FMC tactics for the last steps, with things like L3C.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 22, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I will argue with your Idea that NLS is a 1LLL, as you have more looks than an insert+LL. you build a block on the top then use algs to insert the pair. Also, if youre talking about alg count, ZZ-b has less algs than ZZ-NLS and is a more efficient LS IMO, and also has the 1look LL factor. I mean I think this method should really be called ZZ-tripod.
> 
> Now, I know a lot of ZZ solvers know COLL, some ZBLL, WV etc. I think that if you already have a U-layer pair then pairing up the last edge then inserting the pair may be more efficient, so learning some of the cases will be Nice.


Yeah I've been debating as to if it's a 1LLL or not, but I'm simply not sure what it truly is. I will call it ZZ-T but I will continue to call the algset NLS as tripod LS is pretty much a thing already and traditional tripod doesn't have edges preoriented. Also, doesn't ZZLL still have over 100 cases?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 22, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Yeah I've been debating as to if it's a 1LLL or not, but I'm simply not sure what it truly is. I will call it ZZ-T but I will continue to call the algset NLS as tripod LS is pretty much a thing already and traditional tripod doesn't have edges preoriented. Also, doesn't ZZLL still have over 100 cases?


over 100 cases, yes, but only 71 algorithms. so the alg count for ZZ-CT and ZZ-B is about the same, except that ZZ-CT is a highly advanced variation of ZZ-C as far as I can tell and ZZLL is a variant of ZZ-a. depends where you want to go with ZZ, there are a few ways.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 22, 2017)

I agree, many people will take different directions with LL. ZZ-Snyder looks interesting, I'll play around with it


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 22, 2017)

I am not even Y axis neutral, and because I dont main ZZ my efficiency is crap, but here is a 53 HTM example solve with ZZ-snyder
I got a really bad case for the setup. this is maybe the worst possible case to get, moves-wise. if not, this could have easily been much more efficient.
but if I had done COLL+EPLL it would have been 55 HTM, heres another example solve where I did what I would normally do , COLL-EPLL, and got a 55 HTM solution. here it is.

So I got a nasty ZZ-snyder setup case but I still got a lower movecount than COLL-EPLL would have been.

If you want me to do more example solves then I will, when I have time. I will also probably tell you the movecount of the "normal" solve and then compare it.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 22, 2017)

Isn't zzll better?

This approach doesn't look effective unless you memorize algs from EOF2L-1 to L3C (aka the Heise step).


----------



## crafto22 (Feb 23, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Isn't zzll better?
> 
> This approach doesn't look effective unless you memorize algs from EOF2L-1 to L3C (aka the Heise step).


What's the average movecount for ZZLL?


----------



## Neuro (Feb 23, 2017)

I'm working on speedsolving stats for NLS and got a 41 move solve with a pretty nice TB cancellation
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R2_D_...2_R-_U_R-_U-_R2_U_R-_U_R_
R-_U_L_U-_R_U_L-_U2


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 23, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> What's the average movecount for ZZLL?



~14


----------



## FredTheCuber (Feb 23, 2017)

Has anyone proposed a version of Winter Variation or Summer Variation that simultaneously permutes the edges yet? I'm currently working on this. The ergonomics side of this is really good and you will only get H perm A perm and E perm after this, with a much greater chance of a complete LL skip. Alg count: 27*6=162. Slightly annoying, but the algs that I have generated are pretty short so far and fast to execute. Is there anything that I should look into?


----------



## Cale S (Feb 23, 2017)

FredTheCuber said:


> Has anyone proposed a version of Winter Variation or Summer Variation that simultaneously permutes the edges yet? I'm currently working on this. The ergonomics side of this is really good and you will only get H perm A perm and E perm after this, with a much greater chance of a complete LL skip. Alg count: 27*6=142. Slightly annoying, but the algs that I have generated are pretty short so far and fast to execute. Is there anything that I should look into?



27*6 is 162

And you could do WVCP with the same number of algs, which doesn't give you E perms


----------



## FredTheCuber (Feb 23, 2017)

Cale S said:


> 27*6 is 162
> 
> And you could do WVCP with the same number of algs, which doesn't give you E perms


But recognition for CP is not that great. You only need to look at 3 more stickers to determine an EP case.


----------



## Cale S (Feb 23, 2017)

FredTheCuber said:


> But recognition for CP is not that great. You only need to look at 3 more stickers to determine an EP case.



Isn't CP also 3 stickers?


----------



## FredTheCuber (Feb 23, 2017)

Cale S said:


> Isn't CP also 3 stickers?


It is, but edges are already oriented so you kinda know where to find the 3 stickers, otherwise ZZ-d would have been much easier. Anyway this might not be a great idea given that amount of algs. Better off EPLS+L4C or full ZZ-b.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 23, 2017)

And if youre a roux or ZZ solver your CLL recognition will be as fast as just recognizing OCLL, and so just recoging the corners is better. 
If youre going to do something like this, why not just have 2 sets of WV(54 algs total) that avoids diag swap PLL's? you only need to recog when you have a diag swap and then execute the alg, if you arent going to get diag swap you dont need to care about recognition, and can do a different alg. about 110 less algs, and you don't get Y perm, V perm, E-perm, or N-perms. seems good to me. 
EDIT: if you're going to avoid diag swaps, it may be better to use the cases that will solve the diag swap, so you get a U-perm afterwards, but if its not a diag swap then do a different alg(I'm thinking 2-gen mostly). 

anyway, here's another example solve of step 5 of Lewis Method.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 24, 2017)

38 move ZZ-Tri (NLS) speedsolve, had a ZBLL skip
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=B2_D-...
R2_U-_R-_U_R_U_R-_U-
U-_R2_D_R-_U_R_D-_R2
U-

Just something off the top of my head: why don't Meyer users do EO pairing and skip part of LSE?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 24, 2017)

EOpairing isn't all that good compared to 3-2-3.


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 24, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Just something off the top of my head: why don't Meyer users do EO pairing and skip part of LSE?


Because Eopairing sucks.


----------



## efattah (Feb 26, 2017)

Okay, I have received a number of requests for more information on the LMCF method so I posted a huge elaborate document in another thread:

Full LMCF 3x3 method now available


----------



## Neuro (Feb 27, 2017)

Anyone know of any good programs to generate 4x4 algs? Looking at ways to simplify K4 ELL


----------



## Sue Doenim (Feb 27, 2017)

In CFOP, would it be useful to orient E-slice edges while building the cross? It would force 
<R,U,L> F2L, and isn't too hard to do. This exists for ZZ (ZZ-top) but does not build a cross.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 27, 2017)

Just realized how easy it is to transfer LMCF into big cubes. Here's the first edition for a 4x4 method:

1: Solve all corners
2: Build preferred LR centers and place
3: Solve E2L using direct solving/commutators
4: Build L4C
5: Pair LSE (similar to Meyer)
6: Solve using L6E and fix parity

May not be good for anything over 4x4 due to reliance on M slices, but this could be good. @efattah what are your thoughts?


----------



## Cale S (Feb 27, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Just realized how easy it is to transfer LMCF into big cubes. Here's the first edition for a 4x4 method:
> 
> 1: Solve all corners
> 2: Build preferred LR centers and place
> ...



Doing first two centers before solving corners is objectively better than the other way around

don't know about the rest


----------



## Neuro (Feb 27, 2017)

37 move ZZ-Tri solve, NLS skip
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=D-_L2...U_R-
U2_y_L-_R_U2_R2_U-_R2_U-_R2_U-_L_U-_R_U-


----------



## efattah (Feb 27, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Just realized how easy it is to transfer LMCF into big cubes. Here's the first edition for a 4x4 method:
> 
> 1: Solve all corners
> 2: Build preferred LR centers and place
> ...



At first I agreed with Cale to build LR centers before the corners. Then you lose the 1-look possibility of the corners though. You would need to see almost the entire LR corners solve in the inspection. Either could work.

E2L might actually work really well for 4x4. I had never considered it. This method might be worth exploring. I'm not a 4x4 specialist though. Any 4x4 method that can efficiently direct-solve the pieces instead of first pair them then solve seems to have potential.

In my case solving blue-green on L and R in LMCF I know the colors of the E2L edges backwards and forwards and recognition should be a breeze for someone who is good at 3x3 LMCF. The E2L algorithms would need to be adjusted a bit though. Because there are more edges to solve (12 instead of 6), the chance of E2L triplets also goes up to the point where there would be at least one triplet every solve.

It does seem remarkably suited to 4x4 since the LR centers are never disturbed by any of the E2L algorithms. When solving the last E2L edges it might be possible to begin solving the last four centers at the same time.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 27, 2017)

I already basically use E2L on 4x4, with the Lewis method. the L5E uses the same technique for recognizing as E2L, and is just a bunch of comms. same Idea, I could probably sub-1:30 this with some practice.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 28, 2017)

Hey guys, was looking at squan stuff and stumbled across this. it actually looks really viable, and since I use R&S (started doing R&S then solving D layer than LL, so RBL), this looks really nice.






the steps are basically this:
-cubeshape (or CSP)
-roux F2B
-insert one of the D edges with an "M2"
-insert the last D edge and permute corners at the same time(6 algs)
-EPLL(and parity if you didnt do CSP)(4-5 algs)

this is much less algs than vandenbergh and I think that it can have some serious potential.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 28, 2017)

I think if we up the algs closer to the number that vandenbergh has:

CSP
F2B
DB + CLL
L5E (120 algorithms, 60 with parity)

This seems pretty strong.


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 28, 2017)

but still with 12 algs you can get fast


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 28, 2017)

Better idea:

CSP
F2B
CLL + DFDB (at max 3 * 12 = 36 algs)
EPLL

Not a method idea, but a hardware idea: is it illegal to attach little rubbers to the corners of your cube? I feel like that would give great advantage for table abuse OH (e.g. LSE)


----------



## Neuro (Feb 28, 2017)

I went through and did 12 speedsolves with ZZ-Tri, and my mean was about 48.92. However, I did have 2 solves that would be considered rare (both were in the 30's.) I still consider the average movecount to be between 50-55 moves, as 2/3rds of the solves fell into this range and is captured by a 95% confidence interval (38.45 - 59.38.) So I believe I was correct in my assumption that ZZ-Tri is in the same move range as ZZ-CT.


----------



## Teoidus (Feb 28, 2017)

Assuming a normal distribution, a 95% confidence interval (38.45, 59.38) gives an expected a mean movecount of (38.45 + 59.38) / 2 = 48.915. This is very close to your avg12 = 48.92.

Though it seems likely your distribution is more left-skewed, I would still be interested to see how avg movecount turns out given a larger sample size.

I'm tempted to think that NLS actually reduces to quite a friendly ZBLL subset (since there's a 1/2 * 2/3 = 1/3 chance of getting a pure commutator). You don't get pure sunes and such, but you get A9s, Niklases, sexysldg variants, etc.

Of course at the same time you get pure twists, so. It's hard to say.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 28, 2017)

What sample size would you reccomend? Simply go to n=30?


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 28, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Not a method idea, but a hardware idea: is it illegal to attach little rubbers to the corners of your cube? I feel like that would give great advantage for table abuse OH (e.g. LSE)


It might be if you make the rubber pieces the stickers themselves, and then color them. then they'd be like tiles, I think, to the WCA.


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 28, 2017)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kKIMOr6LSj7F_uxzmd2N077oc53lhQ3Ki0P6oO_Ojzs/edit?usp=drivesdk

For lin method (not mine)

Edit: changed link


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 28, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aTIOxIbhA6UdQqAGE3QRYErBsRNbt2g5DB5Ag4iXMv8/edit?usp=drivesdk
> 
> For lin method (not mine)


it doesn't let me access it. I want to look at it though, I like the Lin method a lot.


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 28, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> it doesn't let me access it. I want to look at it though, I like the Lin method a lot.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kKIMOr6LSj7F_uxzmd2N077oc53lhQ3Ki0P6oO_Ojzs/edit?usp=drivesdk


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 28, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kKIMOr6LSj7F_uxzmd2N077oc53lhQ3Ki0P6oO_Ojzs/edit?usp=drivesdk


thank you, this is totally worth it. who made this? 
Also I am just using the algs that were written in the description, they seem ok.


----------



## Y2k1 (Feb 28, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> thank you, this is totally worth it. who made this?
> Also I am just using the algs that were written in the description, they seem ok.


I actually heard about the method myself a couple months ago, and someone shared that doc when I was looking for the algs, but I dont remember who

Edit: it was Cale S


----------



## Shiv3r (Feb 28, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> I actually heard about the method myself a couple months ago, and someone shared that doc when I was looking for the algs, but I dont remember who
> 
> Edit: it was Cale S


Nice. I found a video describing it made in january, and so I looked at that and the algs.


----------



## efattah (Mar 1, 2017)

Expanded 31-page LMCF description now includes FULL modernized & optimized Waterman L6E, which I believe is the first true documentation that difficult last step. Of interest is that using Waterman L6E a Roux solver could theoretically leave any edge in the second block disoriented and it would be solved during the LSE phase.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kUmM0V2RTdWg1U2M


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 1, 2017)

Neuro said:


> What sample size would you reccomend? Simply go to n=30?



Yeah 30 or 40 would be nice


----------



## Calode (Mar 1, 2017)

I took some time to get started a ZZ-tripod spreadsheet that comes with NLS sheet and an excerpt of tripod zbll so people who don't know zbll (me) don't have to go scavenging for algs.

here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uZkgPNUNwMcyMN0xJtV8m7bxzhr1fQ1l9pYmdlzTeSk/edit?usp=sharing

@Neuro 
I notice numerous mistakes in NLS that you mentioned. I'm more than happy to help gen NLS stuff. PM me your email and I can add you as a contributor.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 1, 2017)

Calode said:


> I took some time to get started a ZZ-tripod spreadsheet that comes with NLS sheet and an excerpt of tripod zbll so people who don't know zbll (me) don't have to go scavenging for algs.
> 
> here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uZkgPNUNwMcyMN0xJtV8m7bxzhr1fQ1l9pYmdlzTeSk/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> ...


Thanks for the sheet, it should help a lot! Use [email protected] to contact. Unfortunately I don't have much experience in making "good" algs (simply use cube explorer and look for good cases), so this should help progress ZZ-Tri significantly.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 1, 2017)

JAcube is better than CE imo. 
Also, I have looked a little more at the Lin method. As a lot of people use Roux-n-screw for its lack of a lot of algs, I can see 2 ways to get fast at squan: go Vandenbergh, and learn algs all the way, or go R&S->RLBL(what Helmer Ewert uses: Roux F2B and then insert DF&DB and then LL) ->Lin->Lin w/CSP, or even Lin algs where you insert DF edge and solve parity at the same time might be nice.
I think that Lin w/ CSP has the possibility to be a major contender to Vandenbergh even with the low amount of algs relative to vandenbergh. 
Im halfway done with Learning DF+CLL algs, and my times have already improved.


----------



## Y2k1 (Mar 1, 2017)

Making another set that solves parity while inserting DB is a great idea, where are squan algs genned?


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 1, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> Making another set that solves parity while inserting DB is a great idea, where are squan algs genned?


https://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/square1.htm, there's an optimal squan solver you can download. I don't believe it allows you to ignore pieces however. I don't own any windows computers(its a .exe) so I will not be able to be of very much help. If you want to gen the algs though, be my guest.


----------



## efattah (Mar 2, 2017)

Here is LMCF revision 3, expanded to 38 pages, includes discussion on the beginner method and more discussion on advanced concepts and L6E comparison solves at the end:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kZ0NvaDM5SlphTjg

Here is a link to training sets & images you can run through any slide show to practice algorithms, or print out some of the sheets:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kdHNFT2FGcXRUaFE
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kdHNFT2FGcXRUaFE


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 2, 2017)

What's the total alg count for NLS+TELL(Tripod LL, Edges oriented, another name for Tripod ZBLL), and how does it compare to say COLL+EPLL, or phasing+ZZLL?

One thing: This is glorious. I did a solve, and Its muuuch better than the other LS methods, because you don't waste moves setting up the pair. my first solve was CE alg into a Pure flip which I already knew the alg for. Good thing about this, is that I probably know about 50% of the algs already becuz I can BS most of L3C with comms, and I know the pure flips, and PLL.

EDIT: did another solve, got a PLL. god, when will I ever get a ZBLL?


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 2, 2017)

I dont' think it'd be as good as Cardan


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 2, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I dont' think it'd be as good as Cardan


what's Cardan?


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 2, 2017)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/cardan-reduction-novel-ls-ll-approach.64042/


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 2, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/cardan-reduction-novel-ls-ll-approach.64042/


mmk. Trying the NLS though, It turns out I know a LOT of the TELL algs already, cuz I know all the :
-Pure flips
-L3C(Comms, lel)
-PLL

Also, NLs does not have the problems of other LS methods, as for those you need to set up the Pair. 
In fact, I can see why ZZ-CT is more Viable than the numerous ZZ-Ls methods out there(besides maybe ZZ-b): because the algs can easily be mirrored to any slot, which allows for freer blockbuilding, and since you solve the LS edge, then corner, you do not need to waste a look pairing up the pair, and also you do not use extra moves pairing it up.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 2, 2017)

Okay, so. Random Idea: 
Since a lot of ZZ users know Most of full COLL except for Sune/antisune, because of crappy recog, would it make sense to learn WV, but only the cases that with a normal insert would give you a sune? 

This stemmed from an Idea that I had for never ever getting an S/AS COLL, by using 1 or 2 algs for all the cases that would usually give you a sune with an (U) R U' R' insert. I called it *NICE*(*N*ever *I*nsert & get S/AS *C*OLL, *E*ver.)


----------



## Neuro (Mar 2, 2017)

NLS itself has 35 algs and TELL (MUCH better name than Tri ZBLL IMO) has 50 algs, total of 85 algs. But a lot of NLS can be done intuitively, and the LL recog isn't too bad.


----------



## Y2k1 (Mar 2, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Okay, so. Random Idea:
> Since a lot of ZZ users know Most of full COLL except for Sune/antisune, because of crappy recog, would it make sense to learn WV, but only the cases that with a normal insert would give you a sune?
> 
> This stemmed from an Idea that I had for never ever getting an S/AS COLL, by using 1 or 2 algs for all the cases that would usually give you a sune with an (U) R U' R' insert. I called it *NICE*(*N*ever *I*nsert & get S/AS *C*OLL, *E*ver.)


Or... Look up how to recog s/as and just git gud with full COLL (really though the algs are really nice, and the recog for me is faster than sune+pll) Look up 3 sticker sune recog by ceitical cubing


----------



## TDM (Mar 2, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Okay, so. Random Idea:
> Since a lot of ZZ users know Most of full COLL except for Sune/antisune, because of crappy recog, would it make sense to learn WV, but only the cases that with a normal insert would give you a sune?
> 
> This stemmed from an Idea that I had for never ever getting an S/AS COLL, by using 1 or 2 algs for all the cases that would usually give you a sune with an (U) R U' R' insert. I called it *NICE*(*N*ever *I*nsert & get S/AS *C*OLL, *E*ver.)


People don't dislike A/S COLLs because they're bad. They're not. It's just that for those cases, _OCLL->PLL is faster_. They're not slow; there's no need to avoid them!


----------



## efattah (Mar 2, 2017)

LMCF revision 4:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kNkpHSURSbzluc2s

I have added new L6E sets (pages 13-20), and of interest to Roux solvers is the move count comparison of the L6E sets (to solve UR/UL + orient midges):

*DFL set: 8.12*

*xDFL set: 9.00*

*rDFR set: 7.87*

*iDFR set: 8.50*

This is really interesting; it means that if you choose the 2-look method for L6E, you are better off solving one of UL/UR in the wrong (opposite) location and disoriented, resulting in the rDFR set which has an average move count of 7.87 (and one case that is only 3 moves). Compare this to if you actually SOLVE UR or UL, you end up with the DFL set (8.12). The other sets (xDFL and iDFR) are the situations where you place UR or UL in place but disoriented, or in the opposite spot but oriented.


----------



## Calode (Mar 3, 2017)

TDM said:


> People don't dislike A/S COLLs because they're bad. They're not. It's just that for those cases, _OCLL->PLL is faster_. They're not slow; there's no need to avoid them!


What if you avoided them to setup to a zbll assuming you knew full zbll - sunes?


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 3, 2017)

Calode said:


> What if you avoided them to setup to a zbll assuming you knew full zbll - sunes?


that may make sense. if you used the one where you learn the full WV case(by just looking would be about 8 cases if Im not wrong, 2 OCLL's * 4 AUF's, one of those cases is R U2 R')


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 4, 2017)

Calode said:


> What if you avoided them to setup to a zbll assuming you knew full zbll - sunes?


It would be better just to use phasing and ZZLL; you don't have to build the F2L pair, and there's less algs.
Also, wouldn't there just be two algs: insert normally or if doing so would give you a sune, insert with U2.
Also, what does sune mean? Is it named after someone like Niklas?


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 4, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> It would be better just to use phasing and ZZLL; you don't have to build the F2L pair, and there's less algs.
> Also, wouldn't there just be two algs: insert normally or if doing so would give you a sune, insert with U2.
> Also, what does sune mean? Is it named after someone like Niklas?


both were coined By lars petrus.
you can see them here. lar5.com/cube
also Niklas wasnt named after a dude.


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 4, 2017)

Hey guys, just found some algs I started generating last year for ECE. It's basically just CO of both layers whilst preserving the E-slice. Algs are actually really nice, anyone know how we could make use of this?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...764CGP4jgr8nBQjzbwWCkfiZ3Fo/edit?usp=drivesdk


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 4, 2017)

Guys, this has been my work in progress for a while now, here it is.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wyhyaUgKCZ7-bOrtdwgTQUlAHUPsN9zBLjhDvBG6VKY/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## efattah (Mar 4, 2017)

Interesting idea for a Roux-Waterman hybrid, where you can decide in the middle of the solve:

1. Solve a 2x3x1 left block just like in normal Roux.
2. Start solving the right block. If things are going well finish with Roux.
2B. If the second block is not favorable, put in the two bottom right corners and any edges that are easy & convenient, and ignore the rest of the block's edges.
3. CMLL.
4. If you chose (2B) you are now in Waterman's phase, you can finish the solve with Waterman or you can keyhole the last edge or two of the right block and finish with Roux LSE.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 5, 2017)

Continuing with efattah's post, I had this idea as a modifiation for Waterman, let me know your thoughts

1: FB// Same as Roux, place of left
2: DR// Solve a square in DR
3: L5C+// Solve L5C and last R edge. Many ways to do this, but I'd recommend having LRE on top and oriented while solving LDC and then using an as of now unnamed subset to solve LLC and LRE.

Zero rotations and makes it really easy to decide between Roux and Waterman to solve the puzzle. If RB is difficult then use Waterman and if it's easy use Roux. Only problem I see is the number of algs for L5C+, but it seems a lot better than the initial Waterman proposal. IDK about the efficiency though, I'd have to do some tests.


----------



## efattah (Mar 5, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Continuing with efattah's post, I had this idea as a modifiation for Waterman, let me know your thoughts
> 
> 1: FB// Same as Roux, place of left
> 2: DR// Solve a square in DR
> ...



I like this! I would suggest a further refinement:
1. FB on left
2. Solve a square on DR
3. Solve last 5 corners in one step (probably involves an AUF set up move) ignoring FR edge
4. Solve L7E (ordinary LSE slots + FR)

I am generating the L7E algorithms as we speak for the advanced section of the LMCF document and so far the L7E algorithms look amazing. Super ergonomic [R, r, U, M] and the movecount average is looking to be [0-3 setup]+[10.7 move algorithm to solve L/R and orient midges] + [4.5 to permute midges] = 16.7 moves for L7E.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 5, 2017)

efattah said:


> I like this! I would suggest a further refinement:
> 1. FB on left
> 2. Solve a square on DR
> 3. Solve last 5 corners in one step (probably involves an AUF set up move) ignoring FR edge
> ...


PM me and maybe we can make this a thing. I wasn't sure about what to do for L5C+ and I see that there's probably better ways to do it. Not sure about L7E but does sound feasible


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 6, 2017)

Quick idea: To lessen ZBLS alg count and improve ergonomics, orient last F2L edge during insertion of second-to-last F2L pair. Also, does anyone know where to find a set of algs for ZBLS other than Lars Vandenbergh's?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 6, 2017)

Random idea that was super easy to complete: ZZ-KA (Kristopher Asis.) Probably trash but it's interesting nonetheless

1: EO pseudo line: Line can either be solved OR be solvable w/D2
2: ZZF2L: Everyone knows this
3: COLL: Again, everyone knows this
4: EPLL/OCEPLL: Biggest difference: solves all edges including opposite DB/DF

Total of 51 algs, but probably only need to learn 5 (assuming full COLL/EPLL is known)

Helps in bad EO line cases (and OH if experienced w/ M slice), but probably not any more efficient than fixed COLL/EPLL. I already have a sheet with all of the algs. If nothing else, it's a printable COLL sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dZUdoMu27MP39NmQwBFUG6Xtg21AvHSkaXpvXvubJ0U/edit?usp=sharing

Credit to Kristopher Asis, he already had OC*E*LL algs made. Here's the website if interested: http://meep.cubing.net/about.html


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 7, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Random idea that was super easy to complete: ZZ-KA (Kristopher Asis.) Probably trash but it's interesting nonetheless
> 
> 1: EO pseudo line: Line can either be solved OR be solvable w/D2
> 2: ZZF2L: Everyone knows this
> ...


I actually had an idea very similar to this today, but with CFOP, where I think it would be more beneficial, due to having 4 cross edges instead of 2 line edges.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 7, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I actually had an idea very similar to this today, but with CFOP, where I think it would be more beneficial, due to having 4 cross edges instead of 2 line edges.


It's most beneficial for ZZ with COLL and <M, U> EPLLs because correcting the line edges can be cancelled into the every EPLL so they never take any extra moves.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 7, 2017)

guys so what I have been doing is playing around a LOT on 5x5. I have gone through a lot of methods, from K4(K5?) to OBLBL(one of my favorites still) to Hoya5(better than Yau5 imo), so even Lewis5(where in L5E you solve all the cedges first with L5EO and EPLL algs, then use comms on the wings). My favorite method so far is freeslice. However, when looking at this hoya variant, I think it could have serious potential.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 7, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> It's most beneficial for ZZ with COLL and <M, U> EPLLs because correcting the line edges can be cancelled into the every EPLL so they never take any extra moves.


but I think that the extra move makes it useful, as you can also cance _before_ doing LL by doing a D2 before ZZF2L. 5 or so algs to basically do a D2 which isn't too hard
but let's take this method Idea even further. 
it may be much much better if the two edges to be swapped are at FR and RB, because then you can make much more efficient pairs. And add another 4-5 algs, and you can do psuedopairs on both sides as well. come up with an acronym for this algset, and then there will be 2 sets: xyz-1, which solves EPLL with FR and BR swapped, and then xyz-2, which does it with both sides psuedo-pairs. Im calling it LELL for now, for *L*ewis fix *E*-slice edges & *E*dges(2 parts for one "E") of *LL*.

I happen to love psuedopairs, and I get them all the time in Roux solves, and theyre even easier to make in ZZ. the problem is fixing them. Alg count would be 4(EPLL)+ 5(LELL-1)+5(LELL-2, one of which is z U2 M2 U2 M2) = 14 algs, you should already know 5 of them so only 9 algs to learn for a faster and stronger ZZF2L, which is the weakest step in ZZ according to most ZZ solvers.

can Neuro help me(since he brought up ZZ-KA)?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 7, 2017)

I'll take a look at it and see. All the algs would be 2 gen and recog is the came as EPLL so it may be nice. But it'll take people a while to grasp being able to swap those 2 while solving. Just speculation though, it's probably not that big of a problem.


----------



## efattah (Mar 7, 2017)

Just to update, Neuro and I have been working the Roux-Waterman hybrid and it is looking amazingly promising and I don't say that lightly. Right now the sequence looks like this:
1. FB
2. 2x2 Block on back right (partial second block)
3. Insert the DFR corner in random orientation (0-4 moves ultra fast)
4. Solve the corners now with either CLL, TCLL+, TCLL- based on the DFR corner orientation
5. Based on the status of the last 7 edges, you finish the solve with a variable algorithm set based on your preference and how low move count you want
[option 1; solve FR intuitively then do Roux LSE]
[option 2; use Waterman L6E; all cases are listed in LMCF document PDF, revision 4.1 or greater]
[option 3; use expanded Waterman L7E, currently being generated]

Here is an example we made up:
https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=x2_D-_R...D2_U2_R-_D2_L2_R2_U-_F_L-_D_U2_F-_D2_L2_R_D2_

Scramble: B2 R F2 R2 D2 U2 R' D2 L2 R2 U' F L' D U2 F' D2 L2 R D2

x2 D' R2 B L' U x // first block
L2 D' L2 U' F' U' F r' // partial second block
R U R' U F' U2 F // TCLL-
U M U' M2 // solve UL edge
R U r' U M' U' r U' // Waterman L6E Set 1 case 7B
r' U2 M' U2 M2 // permute midges

Total 37 STM full step

This was a pretty favorable solve in terms of move count, I would expect the average to be higher but still lower than Roux.

It also works as a hybrid method where you can finish the second block Roux-style if the case is favorable, otherwise branch into the Waterman variant and insert the DFR corner in random orientation if the second block is unfavorable.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 7, 2017)

can you help me gen LELL algs neuro? I am busy and won't be able to be around a solver for a few weeks(travelling)


----------



## Neuro (Mar 7, 2017)

Once I'm done genning I'll PM you and if it's good then we can start optimizing.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 7, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Once I'm done genning I'll PM you and if it's good then we can start optimizing.



Hey, another Lewis method video.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 8, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> ZZF2L, which is the weakest step in ZZ according to most ZZ solvers.


According to which ZZ solvers exactly? Because to me ZZF2L is the strongest step in ZZ, and I think many ZZ solvers would agree with me.


----------



## Y2k1 (Mar 8, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> According to which ZZ solvers exactly? Because to me ZZF2L is the strongest step in ZZ, and I think many ZZ solvers would agree with me.


I second this, zzf2l is the main reason I use zz over cfop, misoriented edges suck to insert and pair in cfop


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 8, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> According to which ZZ solvers exactly? Because to me ZZF2L is the strongest step in ZZ, and I think many ZZ solvers would agree with me.





Y2k1 said:


> I second this, zzf2l is the main reason I use zz over cfop, misoriented edges suck to insert and pair in cfop


I said that because someone a few pages back said that the weakest part of ZZ is the ZZF2L. and then they said that the best way to make ZZ better would be to optimize the ZZF2L, the LL and the EOline are pretty good.

Also, if you use LELL then you get a much more efficient ZZF2L because the chance that you will get an unintentional pair is I believe Doubled if I'm not wrong.

Basically if you think ZZF2L is good, this makes it even better, and LELL is only a few algs. you only REALLY need to Learn LELL-1 if you're too lazy to learn all the algs, because for LELL-2 you can execute the EPLL, then do a z/z' and then M2 U2 M2.

I only have the face-turn algs right now, haven't looked at algs that involve the M-slice yet.


----------



## efattah (Mar 8, 2017)

Okay Neuro and I have officially named the Roux-Waterman hybrid as 'WaterRoux.' He is generating the TCMLL+/- algorithm set and I am generating the L7E set. We should have the algorithm sets done in a week or so. This could really be big.

I would add a wiki page if I knew the procedure...


----------



## Miro (Mar 8, 2017)

efattah said:


> I like this! I would suggest a further refinement:
> 1. FB on left
> 2. Solve a square on DR
> 3. Solve last 5 corners in one step (probably involves an AUF set up move) ignoring FR edge
> ...


Another idea for this method:
2. Solve square on DR + corner, with swapped corners (RFD, RBD)
3. Solve last 6 corners with EG1-style
4. Solve L7E (ordinary LSE slots + FR)

This way you can implement EG2-style too.

EG0, 1, 2 have better recognition than TCLL. But stranger second, or both blocks. All four D-corners can by freely permuted.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 9, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I said that because someone a few pages back said that the weakest part of ZZ is the ZZF2L. and then they said that the best way to make ZZ better would be to optimize the ZZF2L, the LL and the EOline are pretty good.
> 
> Also, if you use LELL then you get a much more efficient ZZF2L because the chance that you will get an unintentional pair is I believe Doubled if I'm not wrong.
> 
> ...


No, it doesn't make it better, because you're saving a handful of moves in F2L at the cost of adding them back later with worse recognition. The best approach to ZZF2L is free form block building. You need to be able to build the blocks as efficiently as possible, and sometimes that does involve having swapped edges for easy pseudo pairs. I do it when it makes sense, especially during the first block, when I can correct them easily with u2 R2 u2, but theres only a meaningful advantage to that when both pairs are already formed - and that happens maybe in 1 in 50 solves. Not to mention that if you're block building right, many of your pairs won't even involve E slice edges which already massively improves efficiency.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 9, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> No, it doesn't make it better, because you're saving a handful of moves in F2L at the cost of adding them back later with worse recognition. The best approach to ZZF2L is free form block building. You need to be able to build the blocks as efficiently as possible, and sometimes that does involve having swapped edges for easy pseudo pairs. I do it when it makes sense, especially during the first block, when I can correct them easily with u2 R2 u2, but theres only a meaningful advantage to that when both pairs are already formed - and that happens maybe in 1 in 50 solves. Not to mention that if you're block building right, many of your pairs won't even involve E slice edges which already massively improves efficiency.


In fact, I agree with you. I wanted to claim LELL as my own idea(and give it that stunningly amazing title lelelel). also this was mostly based on the Idea that I do psuedoblocks on roux sometimes, and I assumed it'd be easy to do with ZZ. for roux I just do D2 L2 D2 after FB, or for SB cancel into R2 U2 R2 U2 R2.


----------



## Shiv3r (Mar 9, 2017)

Hey, just came up with a method for 5x5+, maybe even 4x4 if you get really nice centers in inspection
I'm calling it gay Redux cuz it isnt _straight_ redux  (at least unofficially-- I'll probably give it a more politically correct name later)

so basically it lets you have the benefits of a Yaucross(thats the technical term, even if it's in Hoya, kind of like how FB is always roux FB no matter what method its in), but still the center freedom of straight redux. its probably a **** method, but maybe it can be useful. 
Here's the basic Idea when I came up with it:
-Centers
-pair edges and solve cross dedges, use freeslice
-F2L and then LL

There are two ways to go about with the cross dedges strategy. this is currently what I do:
-Pair up all 4 cross dedges and place them on the D face, try to permute as many of them as possible
-then fix the cross afterwards with R2 U/D R2 moves
-then finish freeslice+L4E like you would in Yau5 or something.


I think it is definitely worse than Straight redux, but I mean it works. I'm not sure if its better than Yau5 or Hoya5 on bugger cubes tho.(more like 6x6-7x7, Yau/Hoya can be decent on 5x5)


----------



## efattah (Mar 9, 2017)

I finished created the last 7 edges algorithm set for WaterRoux. You can find it in the WaterRoux thread:

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-waterroux-3x3-method-thread.64140/#post-1223644


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I'm not sure if its better than Yau5 or Hoya5 on bugger cubes tho.(more like 6x6-7x7, Yau/Hoya can be decent on 5x5)



Mattia Furlan seems to prefer forming white edges first on very big cubes, albeit without actually forming a cross. (video)

Humans are slow at decision-making, and the difference in efficiency between choosing any edge versus choosing only among white edges is reduced for larger cubes, so this might be a reasonable tradeoff.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Mar 10, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Mattia Furlan seems to prefer forming white edges first on very big cubes, albeit without actually forming a cross. (video)
> 
> Humans are slow at decision-making, and the difference in efficiency between choosing any edge versus choosing only among white edges is reduced for larger cubes, so this might be a reasonable tradeoff.


I think it is easier to find edges when you are color neutral. You have more options.


----------



## DELToS (Mar 12, 2017)

I've come up with a possible 3x3 method, but it's probably been done before. I haven't come up with a name yet.

Step 1: Solve 3/4 of a cross
Step 2: F2L (still excluding last cross edge)
Step 3: CELL (*C*orners of the *L*ast *L*ayer without regards to the last layer *E*dges, 42 cases, algs not generated)
Step 4: LE-OLL (Insert last cross edge while finishing OLL: *L*ast *E*dge + *OLL*, 14 cases. Algs: http://bit.ly/2mBdtAV)
Step 5: Edge PLL

Example solve (random scramble from csTimer):
D' F2 R U' L' U B L' D' F U F2 R2 D2 F2 D R2 B2 U' B2 U'

Step 1: x2 U2 L F'
Step 2:
- F2L 1: R2
- F2L 2: U L U2 L' U y L U L'
- F2L 3: Lw' U2 Lw Dw R U2 R' L U' L'
- F2L 4: R U R'
Step 3: U' F R U R' U' F'
Step 4: Dw' M' U2 M (easy case)
Step 5: U' R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'

48 moves (minus rotations), but this scramble probably could have been solved with much less because I'm not the best at F2L.

Method pros:
- Super easy crosses are pretty common
- Cross to F2L transition is a bit easier than CFOP
- LE-OLL cases are pretty easy to memorize and execute, and there are only 14 of them
- There's a bit more freedom with F2L I think
- Easy to switch from CFOP
- You can very commonly cancel moves while transitioning from LE-OLL to EPLL

Method cons:
- CELL may not be worth it to learn (again, algs haven't been made)
- I find that I rotate more than in CFOP
- I'm not sure how lookahead compares to CFOP

After doing an Average of 50 with this method, I got a 16.02 Mo3, 18.46 Ao5, 19.77 Ao12, 21.82 Ao50, and a 13.20 single! I think this may have a bit of potential.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 12, 2017)

DELToS said:


> I've come up with a possible 3x3 method, but it's probably been done before. I haven't come up with a name yet.
> 
> Step 1: Solve 3/4 of a cross
> Step 2: F2L (still excluding last cross edge)
> ...



This is essentially 3CFCE, which is okay-ish. I used to do something like that when I got weird pieces stuck in the cross, though now I just insert the correct cross piece as soon as I notice, rather than deferring it to the end of the solve.

You're trading off doing a full cross and 2LLL (OLL/PLL) for marginally (?) better F2L cases and 3LLL (CLL / 2-look L5E); it's hard to tell if this is a good trade-off or not. The added freedom during F2L from having a 3/4 cross seems difficult to exploit, and for maximum effect, you would have to learn how to make use of the "hole" in the cross from all four possible locations.

Full L5E has a lot of cases and is pretty hard to recognise, but if you use edge control (during F2L or CLL) to always force 0-flip or 4-flip cases, the case count drops to something reasonable to learn (~70 cases).


----------



## Neuro (Mar 12, 2017)

DELToS said:


> I've come up with a possible 3x3 method, but it's probably been done before. I haven't come up with a name yet.
> 
> Step 1: Solve 3/4 of a cross
> Step 2: F2L (still excluding last cross edge)
> ...


This reminds me a lot of Hawaiian Kociemba. HK goes a little something like this if you're not familiar already:

1: EO F2L edges and 3/4 cross (usually leave out R CE)
2: F2L (still w/o LCE)
3: HKOLL (orients all pieces w/o solving LCE)
4: HKPLL (permutes puzzle)

What I see happening is HK without EO and breaking HKOLL into 2 looks while solving corners, leading to an easier LL. Both are equally viable, so it's probably be personal preference from that point.

EDIT: Leaving out the last cross edge can make things MUCH more difficult if you get an F2L edge stuck there. I'd either force a LL edge into the slot or just use the LCE.


----------



## DELToS (Mar 12, 2017)

Neuro said:


> This reminds me a lot of Hawaiian Kociemba. HK goes a little something like this if you're not familiar already:
> 
> 1: EO F2L edges and 3/4 cross (usually leave out R CE)
> 2: F2L (still w/o LCE)
> ...


If there's an F2L edge in there, you can easily connect it to its corner with M' U M or something like that, it isn't really too inconvenient


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 12, 2017)

Neuro said:


> EDIT: Leaving out the last cross edge can make things MUCH more difficult if you get an F2L edge stuck there. I'd either force a LL edge into the slot or just use the LCE.



That's why I find leaving the front CE out is much better, since one can then easily just pair it up with M' U/U2/U' M. However HK isn't really that viable in my opinion since orientation of specific pieces in often times even more difficult or confusing than orienting them all, and just using plain old FreeFop is more efficient and flows a lot better.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 12, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> That's why I find leaving the front CE out is much better, since one can then easily just pair it up with M' U/U2/U' M. However HK isn't really that viable in my opinion since orientation of specific pieces in often times even more difficult or confusing than orienting them all, and just using plain old FreeFop is more efficient and flows a lot better.


I agree with your thoughts on HK. The way I see it, it should be a method with no EO whatsoever (doing EO is basically useless if you are just going to do F2L like in CFOP or don't use it to influence LL.)

To improve HK, I'd do this:

1: Arrow (Missing front CE)
2: F2L (Same as CFOP, use M to pair if necessary)
3: HKOLL (Same as OG, just with a rotation)
4: HKPLL (Same as OG, just with a rotation)

I think that the method that DELToS proposed is quite viable if used properly and this new variant of HK could be on an equal playing field.


----------



## DELToS (Mar 12, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I agree with your thoughts on HK. The way I see it, it should be a method with no EO whatsoever (doing EO is basically useless if you are just going to do F2L like in CFOP or don't use it to influence LL.)
> 
> To improve HK, I'd do this:
> 
> ...


Thanks! Any suggestions on how I could improve the method? Do you think it's alright enough to make a new thread for?


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 12, 2017)

DELToS said:


> Thanks! Any suggestions on how I could improve the method? Do you think it's alright enough to make a new thread for?


Absolutely not original enough for its own thread. I'm not saying it isn't good, but it just resembles too many other methods far too much for it to require its own thread. If you find something more unique to add on, it could qualify for its own thread.


----------



## DELToS (Mar 12, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Absolutely not original enough for its own thread. I'm not saying it isn't good, but it just resembles too many other methods far too much for it to require its own thread. If you find something more unique to add on, it could qualify for its own thread.


Okay, well I added a link a link to the LE-OLL algs onto my original post


----------



## Neuro (Mar 12, 2017)

DELToS said:


> Okay, well I added a link a link to the LE-OLL algs onto my original post


I don't see the link?


----------



## DELToS (Mar 12, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I don't see the link?


oops, added now


----------



## DELToS (Mar 12, 2017)

I'm also thinking of just combining steps 1 and 2 because there's so many ways to go about solving the F2L minus one cross piece. You can do 3/4 a cross and then the F2L, solve 2 Roux blocks and insert the last edge in the back, start by making a Petrus block, make a 2x2x2 block and expand upon that, etc.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 12, 2017)

DELToS said:


> I'm also thinking of just combining steps 1 and 2 because there's so many ways to go about solving the F2L minus one cross piece. You can do 3/4 a cross and then the F2L, solve 2 Roux blocks and insert the last edge in the back, start by making a Petrus block, make a 2x2x2 block and expand upon that, etc.


Check M-CELL in my sig.


----------



## DELToS (Mar 13, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Check M-CELL in my sig.


I read it over, but M-CELL doesn't seem to be identical to what I have, mine seems like a more simple approach (but possible not as effective) to what you have, if I'm reading it right


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 13, 2017)

An improvement on Waterman:

1. Solve a layer minus one cross edge (15 moves)
2. Solve the remaining corners with CxLL (9 moves)
3. Rotate the cube so D becomes L, with the missing edge at UL
4. Solve two redges with an E2L algorithm (6 moves)
5. WaterRoux-style L7E (15 moves)

I've found lookahead is pretty good, but this is SUPER alg Also heavy You could alternatively solve three redges one by one, which is a lot easier, and then just do LMCF L6E, which would give you around 50 moves as oppose to 45, but better lookahead beats lower movecount if you ask me.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 13, 2017)

I finished all of the TCMLL+/- algs and put in the CMLL algs for completion sake. Since I was using CubeExplorer, some of the algs are pretty nasty. If you have a better alg, please leave a comment and feel free to ask to become a contributor as well. Here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...GfvmTDta1tF5-u3VIM58yE5Gug/edit#gid=670959495

**the movecount formula used only works with OBTM, so algs using M will need to have the movecount manually entered

Looking at the above improvement on Waterman, the main thing that I was trying to avoid when I proposed the initial variant of WaterRoux to efattah was the built-in rotation that Waterman has. I also wanted to get away from building a face because of the number of pieces that one would have to find in inspection. So while I do view the above as a nice improvement on Waterman in and of itself, I fail to see how it's better than WaterRoux. But I'm probably just being closed minded, it looks like it could have potential. @crafto22 do you think you could do an example solve?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 13, 2017)

Also, here's a potential L2L variant that utilizes Petrus elements:

1: Roux FB placed on bottom
2: Finish 2x2x3 (pseudo or real, doesn't matter)
3: Petrus style EO
4: F2L but with ANY edges in E slice
5: COLL
6: L6EP (this is probably going to have a TON of algs)

It's probably trash and may be more suited as a ZZ variant, but let me know your thoughts


----------



## efattah (Mar 13, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> An improvement on Waterman:
> 
> 1. Solve a layer minus one cross edge (15 moves)
> 2. Solve the remaining corners with CxLL (9 moves)
> ...



I have considered all these variants and as far as a 'Modernized Waterman' goes, I think the best variant is the rotationless variant mentioned earlier:
1. Solve FB on the left (roux style)
2. Solve DFR and BDR corners in a random permutation
3. Execute an EG1-style or CMLL algorithm to solve the top corners and permute the bottom right corners
4. Solve two R-layer edges at once in a pair algorithm (LMCF style) or if possible solve a triplet (UL, and two redges)
5. Finish with L7E or Waterman L6E

This adds 42 EG1-style algorithms, 80 L7E algorithms and about 24 LMCF algorithms to the original Waterman, which was itself heavy in algorithms. I think it would be fast and quite fun though. It is quite similar to WaterRoux though. One could honestly call it a variant of WaterRoux.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 13, 2017)

efattah said:


> 1. Solve FB on the left (roux style)
> 2. Solve DFR and BDR corners in a random permutation
> 3. Execute an EG1-style or CMLL algorithm to solve the top corners and permute the bottom right corners
> 4. Solve two R-layer edges at once in a pair algorithm (LMCF style) or if possible solve a triplet (UL, and two redges)
> 5. Finish with L7E or Waterman L6E


I think that this would work if second block or DR square is absolutely terrible. If you can recognize that quickly enough, then this can help to still keep the solve going while also keeping movecount relatively low. I'd consider it a WaterRoux variant, but I'm sure that'll be debated on.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 13, 2017)

I apologize, someone brought to my attention that the last link I gave out for the TCMLL algs wasn't public. Here's the new one:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14o5y4Qcu2Q5PxutMOGfvmTDta1tF5-u3VIM58yE5Gug/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 13, 2017)

I've been using this, and have gotten sub-20 with minimal practice, and I think it could be good. the only downside, is that there are a lot of algs, though most can be done in two steps.

1. F2l-1: Solve however you like.
2. Insert corner and solve EO (33 algs) If F2L-1 was solved via petrus or ZZ, there should be no need for algs
3. COLL (42 Algs)
4. EOL5E (? algs)

Example solve: here
Scramble:
L B2 F2 L2 D2 L U2 R' F2 L F2 B R' U' B' F D' L' D B2 R2

x' r' F' D L2 D R' D2 L' R' U2 R U' R U R2 F R F' L U L F' L' F D L' U' L D' L' U L // F2L-1
y2 R U' R' U' F' U' F R U2 R' //EO+C
U R U2 R D R' U2 R D' R2 // COLL
R U R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 U' R' //L5E
67 HTM, but I'm am incredibly inefficient.
What do you guys think?


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 13, 2017)

efattah said:


> I have considered all these variants and as far as a 'Modernized Waterman' goes, I think the best variant is the rotationless variant mentioned earlier:
> 1. Solve FB on the left (roux style)
> 2. Solve DFR and BDR corners in a random permutation
> 3. Execute an EG1-style or CMLL algorithm to solve the top corners and permute the bottom right corners
> ...


Are these EG-1 algs available? I'd definitely consider learning them. I'm mainly using Roux as my main method atm (my sig has been irrelevant for months, I should really change it) and I'm really starting to get the hang of Waterman L6E and LMCF so I could potentially use this as my main method for a while and see how it goes. Also how many LMCF algs would be necessary?


----------



## efattah (Mar 13, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Are these EG-1 algs available? I'd definitely consider learning them. I'm mainly using Roux as my main method atm (my sig has been irrelevant for months, I should really change it) and I'm really starting to get the hang of Waterman L6E and LMCF so I could potentially use this as my main method for a while and see how it goes. Also how many LMCF algs would be necessary?



If we call this WaterRoux-EG, then you need to use LEG-1 algorithms which hold the bar on the left. The LEG-1 set has been generated for 2x2 here and the vast majority of them keep the Roux first block intact when used on 3x3:
http://www.cyotheking.com/leg1/

So only a few need to be regenerated with Cube Explorer.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 13, 2017)

So looking back a few posts ago on my Petrus/L2L variant, I realized that there's actually not nearly as many cases as I was expecting there to be. There'd only be 86 cases including EPLL, and a majority of the algs are just mirrors/inverses. THey're also pretty easy to recognize. And of course they're all 2-Gen, but some of the 2 gen algs are pretty long, so I may consider making a 3-Gen alg set for it and choose algs from there. I'll do an example solve later today and if it's good I'll post it.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 14, 2017)

I thought of a method that is a new version of ZZ. The main difference is the use of M-slices in EO. Almost all of the time, with x2 and y2 color neutrality, EO can be finished only <R,U,r,u,M>. This may seem cumbersome, and sometimes it is. The reason one would use it is this: if these are the only moves used, then CP does not have to be tracked, further than simply tracking the pieces to be swapped. Thus the needed swaps to solve CP can be tracked through. Now, we can simply finish the CP while placing the line edges. I don't know how difficult this would be, but I assume it is doable. It would be even easier if you placed one or both line edges while orienting edges. If you have any experience with Roux L6E, you should know how to help influence this. From there, you can do F2L and finish with 2GLL.

Example solve:
Scramble- D2 R D2 R' F2 L U2 R' B' F U' L B2 L F' D2 U R'
2GEO- r M' U R2 U2 M' U M' U M' U M' U u2 R U' R2 U' M' U M U2 M' U M -could definitely be more efficient
CPline- U2 M' U2 M2 U2 M' -pretend I did CP here, as I don't know how
Left block- R L' U L U' L2 U L' U2 L2 U2 L U2 L U L U L U L'
Right block- R' U' R' U2 R2 U R U2 R U R' U2 R U R'

Yeah, this is a bad idea. I'm not even going to finish the solve. I'll leave the concept for someone else to mold into something feasible. Honestly, you should probably use Briggs instead.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 14, 2017)

DELToS said:


> I read it over, but M-CELL doesn't seem to be identical to what I have, mine seems like a more simple approach (but possible not as effective) to what you have, if I'm reading it right


No I don't mean it's exactly the same just that I list quite a few ways of getting F2L-1 edge in the post.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Mar 14, 2017)

I made a new 4x4 direct solving method that is directed toward CFOP users. I got a 1:36 ao5 with it, and I average 1:17 with Hoya.

Step 1: Cross and centers
You can do this with Yau or Hoya, whichever you prefer.

Step 2: F3L
What you do is use F2L techniques to solve a corner and a wing, then solve the other wing using keyhole. If you cannot find the other wing, you can start solving another slot until you find it. For the last pair, you use a commutator to solve the last wing. Match it up with its center, hide it on the bottom layer using a slice move, do a sledgehammer, slice back up, and insert the pair.
EDIT: You can also insert a single wing, move it out of the way using a Uw of d move, and solve the rest of the slot using F2L techniques.

Step 3: CLL
You can use whatever OLLCP algs you want for this. The only things that matters is that you preserve the F3L and solve the last layer corners.

Step 4: ELL
You have to use commutators for this. A great way to do this is to solve 2 opposite edges, then solve the last 2 dedges with one algorithm (they can be found on the KBCM wiki page). Since I am not very good at 4x4 ELL, I solve one wing at a time using 2 simple commutators. When the top layer sticker is facing up, I do F R' F' r' F R F r. When the top layer sticker is facing to the side, I do x' r B' R B r' B' R' B. There are also cases that use flipping algs as insertions.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 14, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> I made a new 4x4 direct solving method that is directed toward CFOP users. I got a 1:36 ao5 with it, and I average 1:17 with Hoya.
> 
> Step 1: Cross and centers
> You can do this with Yau or Hoya, whichever you prefer.
> ...


This is literally K4 but using keyhole to solve F3L rather than "algs" and changing the center/edge building techniques


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Mar 14, 2017)

Neuro said:


> This is literally K4 but using keyhole to solve F3L rather than "algs" and changing the center/edge building techniques


It's still an improvement (I think).


----------



## Neuro (Mar 15, 2017)

I did a small test in regards to movecount and unfortunately it may not be as low as was predicted. It's still about the same as Roux though. Here is my rundown:

FB: 7 moves
Sq+C:11 moves (?)
TCMLL: 10 moves
Setup: 2 moves (?)
L7E: 15 moves (?)

So I'd estimate the average movecount to be 45 which is still excellent and in the range of Roux and ZZ-A, but unfortunately not as powerful as was expected. Correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't this about the same movecount projected in LMCF? I'm thinking that maybe 45 moves is about the est. average movecount that a human method can get right now but that may change in the future.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 16, 2017)

Hey I know it's been a while since Shiv3r or I have posted about it, but I just released a video detailing the newest version of the NS4 Method. Here's a link if you'd like to check it out:


----------



## Neuro (Mar 18, 2017)

So I have all of the algs generated for L6EP. It was originally concieved for my L2L variant (may continue work but it's not showing much promise), but it can be applied to ZZ/Petrus/CFOP quite easily. 

There are 86 cases that are (mostly) pretty easy to recognize once you get the hang of it, and the average and median is at 12 moves simply with the 2-Gen algs. It could be good for OH or to finish CP Redux. It also makes SB REALLY easy for ZZ. The only problem is the recog on some of the cases is kinda hard (especially on the last set. oh GOD), but this may have some potential for very fast OH solvers. Enough rambling, here are the algs so you can judge for yourself:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XSIM6KS0aNAMaVOQGScCCPGf_IhphhWzPbsDmyus0hE/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 18, 2017)

Hey guys, I wanna generate some algs for a new method idea I have (related to WaterRoux), however I am currently on vacation and do not have access to Cube Explorer (it's complicated, but basically my laptop is a work laptop which cannot download certain software). Does anyone know of any other solvers that are just as good, if not better? I've tried ACube but it's a little too complex for me, and I don't have the time to learn how to use it.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 18, 2017)

HARCS is nice


----------



## VenomCubing (Mar 18, 2017)

This method is dumb and probably won't work very well, but I have a new ZZ variant. 

Step 1: Eoline (obviously)
Step 2: solve all corners
Step 3: Using R And L moves and Epll algs, solve the R and L face edges, forcing a LL skip.

Advantages: Very intuitive, low algcount, easy to learn.

Disadvantages: A lot of M slices during last step, hard to optimize, not researched. (obviously)

Any ideas on how to improve this method, or is it just bad like I think it is?


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 18, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> Disadvantages: A lot of M slices during last step,


Why is this a disadvantage?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Mar 18, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> It's still an improvement (I think).


Yeah, but it's not new. People have been doing this variation of K4 for years, especially when CFOP solvers do K4 for fun.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Mar 18, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Yeah, but it's not new. People have been doing this variation of K4 for years, especially when CFOP solvers do K4 for fun.


Sorry. I didn't know that. I'm still thinking about using it because it's great


----------



## Neuro (Mar 18, 2017)

crafto and I are working on a potential way to do edges in WaterRoux that we could use some help on in making algs. Basically the DB and FR edges get solved while orienting the rest of the edges so it's possible to end in L5EP. The DB and FR edges get put in the redge slots with no regards to permutation/orientation. Anyone think they can help us out? Preferably keep the algs using M U and R/r moves. I know that the sets with both DB and FR oriented have 16 algs each and there'd be 8 sets so it's not a horribly large algset (120-130 is my guess)


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XSIM6KS0aNAMaVOQGScCCPGf_IhphhWzPbsDmyus0hE/edit?usp=sharing



I generated some algs for just the opp EPLL set a few months back. I think R' U R U' R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R U2 R2 (U2) is better for the adj case, but alg preferences are subjective anyway.

Do you know if there are any COLL cases that are faster if you don't have to preserve FR and BR?


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 19, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Do you know if there are any COLL cases that are faster if you don't have to preserve FR and BR?


Isn't that just CMLL? Or do you mean something that would preserve orientation but ignore permutation?


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 19, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Isn't that just CMLL? Or do you mean something that would preserve orientation but ignore permutation?



I mean something in between COLL and Waterman CLL; we preserve the first layer and the FL and BL edges, as well as edge orientation for the remaining six edges. For example, something like r U2 F R2 F' U2 r', which is three moves shorter than the optimal COLL alg for the same case (F U' R' U R U F' R' U2 R).


----------



## Neuro (Mar 19, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Do you know if there are any COLL cases that are faster if you don't have to preserve FR and BR?


I don't think any exist at the moment but I'd be happy to help generate them


----------



## efattah (Mar 19, 2017)

I reconstructed the 28-move LMCF speed solve from a few weeks ago:





Scramble: F2 L2 B2 U2 R' B2 L' U2 R2 F2 D2 B' L2 D R' U F' L2 B' D2 U2
z2 U R2 U l U' R' // green face and CLL skip
U M U2 M' // solve blue-red edge on U face
z F U' M U M' F' // E2L triplet
L2 R2 M F U' M2 U F' // E2L triplet
U2 M U2 M' // permute midges
// Total 28 STM


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 19, 2017)

Hi guys, I've been tinkering with a 4x4 method lately that I think is more efficient than K4 and comparable to Yau. Substeps are as follows (Haven't got a fancy name or anything, I've just been calling it CFCE):

1. *C*ross: Centers + cross dedges, identical to Yau
2. *F*3L. Two substeps:
2a. Using F2L techniques, solve the 1st layer + at least 1 E wing piece for each F3L slot
2b. Using K4 techniques, complete F3L.
3. *C*LL
4. *E*LL: Solve last 8 wing pieces, identical to K4

This must be more efficient than K4:
Cross will take slightly less moves than Layer;
During 2a, each "F2L pair" takes moves less than or equal to moves needed to insert a wing during K4 F2L; and
2b, CLL, ELL are same as in K4.

Efficiency is comparable to Yau:
CFCE contains: cross, 3x3 style F2L, half of K4 F3L, K4 LL
Yau contains: cross, 3-2-3, 3x3 style F2L, CFOP LL, 1/2 parities
Since both contain cross and 3x3 style F2L, we only need to compare movecounts of (half k4 F2L + k4 LL) vs (3-2-3 + CFOP LL + 1/2 parities).

CFCE: 4 wing pieces * 8 moves per wing + 9 moves CLL + 3 ELL comms * ~10 moves per comm = 71 moves
Yau: ~33 moves 3-2-3 (from some counting on cubesolv.es) + 10 OLL + 13 PLL + 1/2 * (7 PLL parity + 17 OLL parity) = 68 moves

On paper, F3L lookahead is much easier than 3-2-3 lookahead (in F3L, you're looking for any E wing, just like in F2L, while in 3-2-3 you look for specific wing pieces based on whatever's currently in the E slice). I think this more than compensates for the small increase in movecount, especially if there exist ways to bring down F3L movecount further with special tricks.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 20, 2017)

What if we were to get rid of the front cross edge and do the same thing but finish with Lewis style commutators rather than ELL? In my experience the Lewis method is significantly easier to use than K4 or this variant.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 20, 2017)

You have to make sure no E wings end up in that space, but I'm not sure leaving that space open for commutators makes the method any more efficient.

What makes K4/this variant more difficult for you than Lewis? I find them to be about the same, with lookahead being slightly worse in during the Roux-blocks for Lewis


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 20, 2017)

I just generated all the algs for COLLDS (COLL + FD and BD are swapped). I can share them if there's any interest. Here's an example solve:

F R2 F' R2 F' L2 R2 F R2 B U2 L' D' B F' D L' D L2 U

x2 U' R' F' L D U L2 // cross with FD and BD swapped
U L U' L2 U L // First pair
U' R U' R' U' L U L' // Second pair
U R U R' // Third pair
d' R U R' d' F U' R U' R' F' // Fourth pair + EOLL
U r' M U2 r2 R' U' L' U R' U' L U' R // COLLDS
U M2 U M U2 M' U M2 U' // EPLL

So basically just standard VH but you can afford to leave two edge pieces of the cross swapped, which means better lookahead for F2L and an easier/more efficient cross. If anyone wants these algs just say so and I'd be happy to share them.


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 20, 2017)

Hey who is good enough at math to figure out how many cases solving F2L pairs two at a time, but into random slots would have?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> You have to make sure no E wings end up in that space, but I'm not sure leaving that space open for commutators makes the method any more efficient.
> 
> What makes K4/this variant more difficult for you than Lewis? I find them to be about the same, with lookahead being slightly worse in during the Roux-blocks for Lewis


You can leave E wings in the open slot, just use r and l slices to pair with the corner or to remove from the space. 

The F3L is fine and so is the Yau cross+centers. I actually feel the same way about the Roux blocks, so keep the Yau+F3L. What I have a problem with is ELL. I have never found K4 LL to be particularly great and I think that the approach to it in Lewis is much better.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 20, 2017)

Neuro said:


> You can leave E wings in the open slot, just use r and l slices to pair with the corner or to remove from the space.



This becomes awkward unless you plan on using a rotationless method--but this is difficult to do when your'e solving pairs F2L-style. (imagine things like S U S' to pair edges with corners)



Neuro said:


> The F3L is fine and so is the Yau cross+centers. I actually feel the same way about the Roux blocks, so keep the Yau+F3L. What I have a problem with is ELL. I have never found K4 LL to be particularly great and I think that the approach to it in Lewis is much better.



What do you have against K4 LL? It's efficient and has been shown to be quite fast.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> What do you have against K4 LL? It's efficient and has been shown to be quite fast.


I always found it difficult to perform but it's probably due to my lack of experience. I never find it easy to recognize the steps or know what commutator to do quickly enough to get good times. Ergonomics are also pretty weird but then again most DS methods have that problem.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 20, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Hey who is good enough at math to figure out how many cases solving F2L pairs two at a time, but into random slots would have?



What do you mean by "into random slots"?


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> What do you mean by "into random slots"?


The FR pair doesn't have to go to the FR slot. You can solve any pair to any slot, it doesn't matter. The goal is simply to solve two pairs at once, but I'm thinking that could possibly have a huge number of cases, but if not I may have an idea that revolves around this.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 20, 2017)

Hm, well, then it should just be ~42 * 42 = 1764


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Hm, well, then it should just be ~42 * 42 = 1764


Damn is it really that high? Oh well.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 20, 2017)

I think so, yeah. What was your idea?


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I think so, yeah. What was your idea?


I thought maybe if there weren't too many cases (idk what I was thinking tbh) maybe we could do F2L super fast with algs, then fix F2L while solving PLL or something.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 20, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> I thought maybe if there weren't too many cases (idk what I was thinking tbh) maybe we could do F2L super fast with algs, then fix F2L while solving PLL or something.



Sounds a bit reminiscent of PEG: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PEG


----------



## NizzyGG (Mar 22, 2017)

Not sure if this counts as a method, but ZZ-CT is technically a method, so I guess this counts.

If you don't know what the columns method is, it basically works like this. (Skip down if you don't want to know.)

- 4 Pairs
- Last Layer Corners (CMLL or LBL LL)
- Insert Edges
- Orient Edges
- LL Edge PLL

My variation is quite odd, I'll explain how it goes, then into how to solve using this.

- 4 Pairs
- Last Layer Corners (CMLL)
- Insert Edges & Orient All Edges (Bad/Good edges at the same time.)
- EPLL.

So lets get into it.

- The first two steps, (Pairs + Corners Is quite easy, if you can solve of course.)
- Insert + Orient. (M' U2 M) (U M' U' M) (U' M' U M) Until the last edge.
Here's the algorithmic part of this step.
Using the Roux Good/Bad edge technique, we can ignore the final edge and just focus on making the edges good. (M' U' M) Know you're left with one edge left. Insert it. (M' U2 M) (U M' U' M) (U' M' U M)
- EPLL.
- AUF.

Done.

My PB with the method - 32.24 (I avg sub 25, I suck.)

Leave your suggestions, or I could just be plain stupid and wrote this entire thing and it's just a whole other method.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Mar 22, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Hi guys, I've been tinkering with a 4x4 method lately that I think is more efficient than K4 and comparable to Yau. Substeps are as follows (Haven't got a fancy name or anything, I've just been calling it CFCE):
> 
> 1. *C*ross: Centers + cross dedges, identical to Yau
> 2. *F*3L. Two substeps:
> ...


This is very similar to what I just proposed. Someone told me that people have been using it for years.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Mar 22, 2017)

NizzyGG said:


> Not sure if this counts as a method, but ZZ-CT is technically a method, so I guess this counts.
> 
> If you don't know what the columns method is, it basically works like this. (Skip down if you don't want to know.)
> 
> ...


I don't see the difference between this and PCMS.


----------



## NizzyGG (Mar 22, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> I don't see the difference between this and PCMS.


I changed it up a tad. It's hard to explain, i'd have to make a video tbh.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 23, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> This is very similar to what I just proposed. Someone told me that people have been using it for years.



Really? Can you show me where this happened?

I'm surprised I haven't heard more of it--it seems pretty competitive.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 23, 2017)

Neuro said:


> crafto and I are working on a potential way to do edges in WaterRoux that we could use some help on in making algs. Basically the DB and FR edges get solved while orienting the rest of the edges so it's possible to end in L5EP. The DB and FR edges get put in the redge slots with no regards to permutation/orientation. Anyone think they can help us out? Preferably keep the algs using M U and R/r moves. I know that the sets with both DB and FR oriented have 16 algs each and there'd be 8 sets so it's not a horribly large algset (120-130 is my guess)



Going along with many of the ideas posted here, maybe another variation of waterman similar to the one you just mentioned could go like this:

1. Solve every piece on a layer except one corner (12 moves)
2. Put the last corner in while orienting and permuting the u-layer corners (~10 moves, currently working on a 2×2 algset that does this)
3. Orient and pemute 3 edges on the u-layer, leaving only five unsolved edges left (~9 moves? not sure how this step works or how I'd generate algs for it, but there'd probably be around 100 algs and a lot of them already have all 3 edges in the u-layer)
4. Rotate the cube waterman style so that the "m-ring" and the FR edge are unsolved and use a last 5 edges algorithm (~9 moves, I'm pretty sure I saw someone somewhere create a set of algs for this, I would need the link to those)

All in all this method would be like 650 algorithms, but more than half come from the second step. To avoid learning those 350 second-step algs you could just insert the last corner and use a CMLL, which would only add on like 3 or 4 moves. I just need to finish generating the step 2 algs (~4 months?), figure out how to do step 3 and find the pdf that has the last 5 edges algorithms and this could be a seriously viable speedcubing method. If it all works out, the average movecount would 39-40 moves which is completely insane. What do you guys think?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 23, 2017)

@Thermex What I would do is build an entire face but you can have EG-1, EG-2, or CLL. From there, do a rotation and do modified LMCF E2L to get to L5E and solve as normal. It seems to me that you want to keep this as close to Waterman as possible so I kept the built in rotation but TBH I probably won't use it due to that and the lookahead for face would be bad.

I think that the next step for WaterRoux would be FB, SB corners (can be EG-1), solve all corners, do E2L to get to L6E, CL2E(that's the new algset that I'm working on w/ crafto), L5E, L7E, or to LSE depending on preference. I'd only do this if SB is so bad that it's hard to find BR square. Oh and CL2E has 114 algs so it's not too bad and all can be done w/M,U,R/r and should all be pretty short.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 24, 2017)

@Neuro the reason I thought of using a last 5 corners case is because when I averaged out the moves it was slightly less than solving a full side and using EG. It basically just cuts off like two moves per solve, but for people who don't feel like learning 350 algs they could easily just use EG and solve a full side instead. Also I thought about that same lookahead problem too, but I figured the solve would flow fairly well, here's my idea of how each step would kinda "flow" and how you would lookahead for it.

1. One-look the first block (just like a Roux solve) and try to see if you can look into the final corner-edge pair that goes in the D-layer.
2. Since you can one-look the first block and maybe even all 8 pieces that go on the D-layer, you can track your last D-layer corner and try to recognize your last 5 corners case as fast as you can. (The 2×2 last 5 corner algs I'm working on don't have great recognition, but I'm sure with LOTS of practice and some lookahead you could recognize the cases fairly quickly).
3. You would expect the hardest recognition to come in this step, but since you execute a corner-based algorithm and the edges don't move around a lot you could track the edges that would go on the U-layer while executing your last 5 corners algorithm. With practice this actually might flow pretty well.
4. I'm sure last 5 edges recognition isn't too bad, idk though I'd have to see the document with the algs and recognition.

Im really interested though in the LMCF E2L algs you mentioned for the three edges on u-layer step (from now on I'll abbreviate it to TEUL). So you're saying there's already algs for these cases? I kinda need some clarification on how E2L works (specifically how it would in this method) and also what the average movecount of an E2L alg would be in this method. WaterRoux still seems like a really good method and still probably close in movecount to this proposed method, but I feel like if the TEUL step works this method would probably be a little faster because TEUL would go faster than SB since it's algorithmic. Aside from that, whats CL2E? You didn't really explain what it was but it sounds interesting.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 24, 2017)

efattah has posts about LMCF all over the forums, I'm pretty sure he also has a thread dedicated to it so it shouldn't be too hard to find. The algs would probably need to be modified to preserve the face though. CL2E solves FR and DB while orienting all of the edges so you just get either an EPLL or L5EP case. The edges are forced into the redge slots in any orientation/permutation. The main thing that's different in setup from say L6E is that the M slice needs to be solved otherwise DB won't insert correctly. It won't work with pure Waterman though, because it won't preserve UL.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 24, 2017)

@Neuro oh ok I read that entire thread and closely reread his pdf, and now I understand this stuff a lot better. The E2L triplet stage solves the DF, UL, and UR edges, but I need to solve the UB, UL, and UR edges so I would need to generate my own algs for that. As for the L5E cases I was talking about, turns out about someone asked Efattah if he could generate those algs but he said it wouldnt work well with LMCF and that the recognition wouldnt be very good. I still think I might try to make the TEUL and L5E cases if I have time, but I'm pretty busy rn and don't know how Cube Explorer works. Do you think it's worth it to go on with this method? If not I still want to somehow contribute to some 3×3 method, I've been really interested in this stuff the last couple of weeks.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 25, 2017)

What if during a ZZ solve, you did F2L with the pieces in the correct sides (eg. R and L) but solved the corners right, did COLL, and used and algorithm to solve the rest. Actually, it might even be better if you did this style of F2L on just R, so the algs could be <R,U> or <R,r,U,M>, depending on preference. You could even mix this with ZZ-KA if you wanted (see post #3003).
Wait a second.
Actual new method time.
We could turn this into a sort of corners first method, but with EO first. So corners first but not actually.
I'm going to think about this and repost about it tomorrow.
Nobody post before then.
I want all the glory.
I should stop writing one sentence and starting a new paragraph.
But it helps establish the fact that I am having sudden epiphanies.
So I won't.


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 25, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> What if during a ZZ solve, you did F2L with the pieces in the correct sides (eg. R and L) but solved the corners right, did COLL, and used and algorithm to solve the rest. Actually, it might even be better if you did this style of F2L on just R, so the algs could be <R,U> or <R,r,U,M>, depending on preference. You could even mix this with ZZ-KA if you wanted (see post #3003).


I don't follow. Could you give an example solve?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 25, 2017)

2180161 said:


> I don't follow. Could you give an example solve?


I changed my mind about what to make the method, but here's an example solve anyway.
L B' D2 R F2 U' F R U F2 B2 L' F2 R U2 B2 L2 F2 U2 L2
x2
EOLine- R U B' L F R D' B2
Weird F2L- U2 R' L2 U' L' R' U R U' R' U' R U' R U2 R' U2 R U R' U R U R'
COLL- U2F R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' U' F'
Edge permutation- cube explorer couldn't find anything under 19 moves for this (L,U,R) so I won't even bother. Only doing this with right side would probably be better. There would only be 18 algs, I think.


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 25, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I changed my mind about what to make the method, but here's an example solve anyway.
> L B' D2 R F2 U' F R U F2 B2 L' F2 R U2 B2 L2 F2 U2 L2
> x2
> EOLine- R U B' L F R D' B2
> ...


There would be a decent number of algs with the first way. With the second, you would have less algs, but recognition would be trash (probably anyway)

What I like to do is:

Eoline
F2L-1E
COLL
L5E

There are ~160 algs to learn though, iirc. Although, some of them would just be conjugated PLL's.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 25, 2017)

I thought I was onto something huge with EO corners first, but I wasn't. This is the best I could come up with.
EOCF
1) EO
2) Build D face
3) Solve corners of U whilst permuting corners of D face keeping first face intact, basically EG
4) Permute D face edges and separate remaining edges into E slice or U face, this might be better after a z rotation, D, E, and U become L, M and R
5) Permute remaining edges

Sort of a Waterman variant. My second version would probably be better, and I thought of a new addition to it.
1) EOLine
2) Left block
3) Do the sort-of F2L, but you can ignore corners, just make sure the R face is solved








4) COLL and fix corners, again similar to EG (1)
5) Permute remaining edges- recognition wouldn't be bad, R face would just be solved, 3-cycle, other 3-cycle, opposite swap, adjacent, or other adjacent; U would just be Ua, Ub, H, Z, Opp, Adj, Oa, Ob, W, or solved.
There are 25 new cases, not including EPLL for the edge permutation, all of which are 2-gen.

During my search for an EOCF method, I thought of two things.
1- LMCF with EO- Would it have any effect? I don't know enough about the method to tell.
2- SSC is about as close to mixing EO and CF as you can get without sacrificing speed. My idea was when you have 3 white corners oriented on D, use TSLE to insert edge and then solve corners with one of I think 26 algs.


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 25, 2017)

Wait... Hexagonal Francisco is good?? Well, not quite, but if we change it up a bit it actually is:

1. Solve a 2x3x1 on DB, sorta like a Roux block but rotated to be on the D layer, plus one corner, ideally the DLF corner (10 moves)
2. Solve three E-slice edges. Super fast, awesome lookahead (12 moves)
3. Solve the last corner and edges of F2L (9 moves)
4. LL however you want. I'd just do OLL/PLL which would be ~24 moves.

Now I realize this isn't as efficient as many other methods in development right now, considering the average move count would be only slightly lower than ZZ (although still quite a bit lower than CFOP), but the true advantage of the method is how easy lookahead would be for the second step. If you one-look the first step, which is most certainly achievable, the rest of the solve is just fast recognition and spamming TPS. Additionally, the second step has no rotations and is entirely pseudo 2-gen. 
Here's the reconstruction of a 10.91 solve I got:

Scramble: F2 U2 B2 R' U2 L' F2 D2 B2 L2 B2 U' L2 B D L2 D L R B F2

x2 R' L' B F L D' L2 U D L y U2 R2 y // Super crappy FB+c (12/12)
r U r' u r U' M U' R' u2 // 3 E-slice edges (10/22)
U' R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U R' D2 // Last pair + OLL skip (13/35)
U R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R2 F' U F U // PLL (14/49)

Kinda lucky but still shows that this could have potential. I did sorta cheat by forcing that OLL skip and solving the last cross edge on purpose while inserting my third E-slice edge, but these are all things you could do using this method! I wasted like a solid 3 seconds being bad at FB so with practice that definitely could have been better.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 26, 2017)

Yeah, HXF is actually pretty decent. It's a joke method but it could certainly be good


----------



## Neuro (Mar 26, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, HXF is actually pretty decent. It's a joke method but it could certainly be good


One thing I just noticed about HF is that it's actually a really nice way to get to L5E or L5EP. If you think about it, you can solve F2L, do CLL, and L5E which is all pretty efficient. Even better probably would be to implement TCLL algs. You could even finish off a solve using HK if you were super dedicated to the method.

Oh and one quick question: Why don't most alg makers include median movecount into their statistics? It seems like it'd be at least as if not more valuble than the average movecount of the algs because it shows us what to expect for that step (at least in the realm of probability). Therefore, we get a more accurate representation as to what to expect from the algset.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 26, 2017)

Neuro said:


> One thing I just noticed about HF is that it's actually a really nice way to get to L5E or L5EP. If you think about it, you can solve F2L, do CLL, and L5E which is all pretty efficient. Even better probably would be to implement TCLL algs. You could even finish off a solve using HK if you were super dedicated to the method.



Yup, it's quite nice. You can also solve CP with a 3x1x1 line to start and build up from there, and that basically lets you do TCLL with much less algs.



Neuro said:


> Oh and one quick question: Why don't most alg makers include median movecount into their statistics? It seems like it'd be at least as if not more valuble than the average movecount of the algs because it shows us what to expect for that step (at least in the realm of probability). Therefore, we get a more accurate representation as to what to expect from the algset.



Yeah, ideally, you'd want to use the expected value. Basically people use the mean because they make the simplifying assumption that probability for each case is equal (not exactly accurate, but oh well). You can use the median to kinda compensate for this, since it's less sensitive to outliers, but it's still not quite exactly what you want.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 26, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah, ideally, you'd want to use the expected value. Basically people use the mean because they make the simplifying assumption that probability for each case is equal (not exactly accurate, but oh well). You can use the median to kinda compensate for this, since it's less sensitive to outliers, but it's still not quite exactly what you want.


That's about what I thought. One thing about the median that I personally don't like is if there's an equal amount of 2 movecounts (i.e. same amount of 7's as 9's) and you get a median movecount that doesn't exist. What would you want to do to fix the problems of median? Look at the pool of highest probability cases and see the median from there so it's more exact?


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 26, 2017)

Neuro said:


> That's about what I thought. One thing about the median that I personally don't like is if there's an equal amount of 2 movecounts (i.e. same amount of 7's as 9's) and you get a median movecount that doesn't exist. What would you want to do to fix the problems of median? Look at the pool of highest probability cases and see the median from there so it's more exact?



The most accurate way to go about it is to compute the expected value of the movecount. So basically, you want, for an algset of size N, expected movecount = sum(i = 1 to N) of p_i M_i, where M_i is the movecount of the ith case and p_i is the probability that it'll show up


----------



## Neuro (Mar 26, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> The most accurate way to go about it is to compute the expected value of the movecount. So basically, you want, for an algset of size N, expected movecount = sum(i = 1 to N) of p_i M_i, where M_i is the movecount of the ith case and p_i is the probability that it'll show up


Good to know, might start implementing this into my algsheets!


----------



## efattah (Mar 26, 2017)

A good example of algorithm move count average vs. weighted average is edge orientation of the M-slice when the L and R slices are solved. There are four algorithms, they take 0, 9, 9, 13 moves to solve. The average movecount is (0+9+9+13)/4 = 7.75. But if you weigh the averages by their probabilities:
1/8 * 0 + 4/8 * 9 + 2/8 *9 + 1/8 * 13 = 8.375.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 26, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Oh and one quick question: Why don't most alg makers include median movecount into their statistics? It seems like it'd be at least as if not more valuble than the average movecount of the algs because it shows us what to expect for that step (at least in the realm of probability). Therefore, we get a more accurate representation as to what to expect from the algset.


I don't think the median is a useful statistic at all. 

What you really want is what statisticians call the expected value, which, if the probability of each case is equal, then that is exactly equal to the mean. For most larger alg sets, the majority of cases have the same probability, and there are usually only a handful of cases that have a reduced probability (almost always due to some form of symmetry). Also, apart from the skip case (which usually has the maximum symmetry), the symmetric cases tend to have a similar movecount to the rest of the set. Therefore assuming equal probability for all cases is not an unreasonable approximation, and the mean is usually quite close to the expected value. Its probably worth noting that any alg at that solves cases that start with a only single piece of a certain type outside the layer in which it belongs cannot have any symmetry, and all such cases are guaranteed to have equal probability. 

For smaller alg sets, there's really no excuse not to work out the case probabilities and work out the actual expected movecount. Even for larger sets, it's not too difficult if you know how to use Excel, and if you know some programming, it's really really easy to do. 

I did it for TSLE (105 algs), and it only took about 10 minutes.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 27, 2017)

Hey I thought of a (potentially) new way to end CFOP with TTLL: Pair LE with any corner and perform VLS as a substititute to TSLE. Might be good for really advanced CFOP users.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 27, 2017)

@Neuro for a while I've been thinking of ways to 2-look the last slot+last layer in a CFOP solve, and I did think of the way you just said. But instead I thought maybe...

1. Insert your last corner and orient all the pieces
2. Insert your last edge and solve the rest of the cube

Not sure how many algs there would be here, but it seems like it would probably be A LOT and also would be really helpful in OH/big cubes.
Anybody have any idea how many algs there would be and how well this would work?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 27, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Neuro for a while I've been thinking of ways to 2-look the last slot+last layer in a CFOP solve, and I did think of the way you just said. But instead I thought maybe...
> 
> 1. Insert your last corner and orient all the pieces
> 2. Insert your last edge and solve the rest of the cube
> ...


You'd end up with more orientation algs than VLS because of the lack of a pre-oriented edge (432+), and the LE+LL edge is ZZ-HW. Chris claims it has 72 cases, but I'm not really sure b/c HKPLL (also inserts 1 edge) has over 100 algs. So yeah there'd be well over 500 cases.


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 27, 2017)

Is there a petrus style 4x4 method?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 27, 2017)

Not that I know of anyway, go for it!


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 27, 2017)

All right, so its kind of strange, but I just beat my PB AO5 with it (granted, I average about 1:40 on 4x4)

anyway....

1. 2 Opposite Centers

2. Build 3x3x1 squares in BDL and BDR

3. Finish Centers while solving BD edge

4. Finish Edge Pairing without disturbing the 3x3x4 block that is built

5. 3x3 finish

Now, in the example solve, please note that I am extremely inefficient, as I don't know how to notate single slice turns other than R r'.

Example Solve: here


Spoiler



Scramble: Fw2 B2 R B' F U' D' R' Fw L2 R2 Fw R Uw' R' L' B' D2 Uw' B' Uw' R Uw Rw F' L2 B2 U2 Uw2 R B' Rw2 Uw B2 F2 D U L' B' Uw'

z' u' B u' z' R2 u r U2 r' y' u2 U' l' U2 l // opposite centers

z L2 U' l' U L2 U' F' r' R'U R U' R' U2 B U R U r' U' R2 r' U' r U' R' U R U' R' U R // 2 Squares

m U m2 U r2 R2 F m U R2 r2 U2 R2 r2 m' R' r U' R r' m2 U2 m2 L l' U L' l // centers+ BD

F2 U' F R' F' R U2 u L F' L' F u' U L' U2 L U' u F' L F L' u' F U F' u' R U R' F R' F' R u // finish edge pairing

y' r2 B2 U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' B2 r2 R U R' U' y R U' R' y' U2 R U R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R' U' R' U R U R' U2 R U2 F R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' U' F' 2R2 U2 2R2 u2 2R2 2U2 R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'// 3x3 stage



Edit: Found out how at the end, was just too lazy to change the rest.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 28, 2017)

Neuro said:


> You'd end up with more orientation algs than VLS because of the lack of a pre-oriented edge (432+), and the LE+LL edge is ZZ-HW. Chris claims it has 72 cases, but I'm not really sure b/c HKPLL (also inserts 1 edge) has over 100 algs. So yeah there'd be well over 500 cases.


Actually I just figured this out, this is super cool. If you pretend the edge attached to the corner is a good edge (50% of the time it actually is) then you can just insert the corner using a VLS with slightly altered recognition. At this point you should have the corner in its slot and every piece on the top layer yellow (or whatever the u-layer color is) except one. Then you look at the RF edge. If the edge attatched to the corner was a good edge when you did your VLS, then RF should be facing towards you and all edges are oriented. Now just finish off the solve with a ZZ-HW (I never knew about ZZ-HW until you told me). If the edge attatched to the corner was bad when you did your VLS, then at this stage you should have all pieces oriented except two edges. This is easy to recognize because RF will be facing to the right. Now you can just do a y rotation and mirror your ZZ-HW case. Seems like that would work. The only algs that would have to be generated would be the irregular cases when your corner is either twisted in its slot (Twisty OLL?) or when the white sticker is facing up (assuming you start on white) and also when you get to ZZ-HW and you already have the edge in its slot but its flipped. Are there any documents with the ZZ-HW algs? I would need that to learn them and to be able to mirror the algs. In total this method would be slightly less algs then full ZB if you don't count the mirrors as new algorithms. It would also be slightly more efficient and easier than ZB since you wouldn't need to pair your last pair up.
On a side note, one alg set that I think definitely needs to exist for either of our methods to work is a set that solves VLS when the corner is on the left (this might already exist, ignore this statement if it does).

@2180161 that seems like a great idea for a method, especially if it was paired with my or someone elses 2-look last slot algs. But could you elaborate more on steps 2 and 3 more? I don't really get it.


----------



## 2180161 (Mar 28, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Actually I just figured this out, this is super cool. If you pretend the edge attached to the corner is a good edge (50% of the time it actually is) then you can just insert the corner using a VLS with slightly altered recognition. At this point you should have the corner in its slot and every piece on the top layer yellow (or whatever the u-layer color is) except one. Then you look at the RF edge. If the edge attatched to the corner was a good edge when you did your VLS, then RF should be facing towards you and all edges are oriented. Now just finish off the solve with a ZZ-HW (I never knew about ZZ-HW until you told me). If the edge attatched to the corner was bad when you did your VLS, then at this stage you should have all pieces oriented except two edges. This is easy to recognize because RF will be facing to the right. Now you can just do a y rotation and mirror your ZZ-HW case. Seems like that would work. The only algs that would have to be generated would be the irregular cases when your corner is either twisted in its slot (Twisty OLL?) or when the white sticker is facing up (assuming you start on white) and also when you get to ZZ-HW and you already have the edge in its slot but its flipped. Are there any documents with the ZZ-HW algs? I would need that to learn them and to be able to mirror the algs. In total this method would be slightly less algs then full ZB if you don't count the mirrors as new algorithms. It would also be slightly more efficient and easier than ZB since you wouldn't need to pair your last pair up.
> On a side note, one alg set that I think definitely needs to exist for either of our methods to work is a set that solves VLS when the corner is on the left (this might already exist, ignore this statement if it does).
> 
> @2180161 that seems like a great idea for a method, especially if it was paired with my or someone elses 2-look last slot algs. But could you elaborate more on steps 2 and 3 more? I don't really get it.



Basically, the second step is solving four of your edges, and two corners. forming almost Roux F2B, however, you are missing the FR and FL pairs. The third step is where because you have your L and R centers solved, and your blocks, you are solving your centers while also pairing the BD edge, as that completes your 3x3x4 once you place that edge. Then, you can finish pairing edges however you like, as you have 7. Once those seven are finished, you can finish as per CFOP, Petrus, or any method you choose (however due to the first few steps, ZZ would just be Petrus, unless you used the free F-face to solve EO,which may actually be good, and Roux would be inefficient if you were to disregard the M-slice.) If you look at the example solve, it should clear it up more.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 29, 2017)

Okay, here are all my method ideas in my head right now for each puzzle:

2×2 method- VL5C (V, last 5 corners)
1. Solve a "V" (full layer minus one corner) on the d-layer
2. Put the last corner in and solve CLL in one algorithm (L5C)
~11-12 moves HTM

3×3 method- Waterman VH (VH are my initials, this method is a variant of waterman)
1. Solve a "hexagon" (full layer minus one edge and one corner) on the d-layer
2. Insert the last corner and solve CMLL at the same time (L5C)
3. Solve three edges on the u-layer in one algorithm (TEUL)
4. Rotate the cube so that the "m-ring", UL and UR edges are unsolved and solve the last six edges (L6E). Finally, permute the midges
~39-40 STM

3×3 OH method (the reason I developed a seperate method for OH is because 1. I had another idea for a method, and 2. This method uses mostly R and U moves as opposed to my waterman varient that uses lots of M moves, which can be difficult in OH)
1. Do a regular CFOP solve until 3 F2L pairs are solved and your last F2L slot is open. Stop here
2. Insert your last corner into the last slot and orient all the pieces
3. Solve the rest of the cube by using 1 of 72 ZZ-HW algorithm (for a more detailed explanation of the full method, read my post about two posts above this one)
~46-48 HTM

Pyraminx method- L5E (last 5 edges)
1. Solve the centers and one edge on the d-layer
2. Solve the rest of the pyraminx in one algorithm (does anybody know how many algs there would be for this step?)
~11-12 moves HTM

Skewb method- TCLL (twisty complete last layer)
1. Solve 3 corners around their center
2. If the last corner is twisted in its place, solve the rest of the skewb using one algorithm. If not, insert the corner normally and proceed normally with Sarah's advanced method.
This is not a standalone method, but a method just like 2×2 TCLL that saves 4-5 moves per solve when the corner is twisted in place.

Square-1 method- OBL (orient both layers)
I know this already sort of exists, but I don't think anybody's actually generated algs for every case yet. Anyway:
1. Cubeshape
2. Orient both layers using one algorithm, opposed to the normal 2-look CO&EO strategy (can anobody calculate how many OBL cases there would be?)
3. Finish off the solve normally

Megaminx method- LSELL (last slot edges last layer)
1. Solve everything normally up until you have one last open slot without a solved F2L pair
2. Insert your last corner into themslot and orient all the edges (LCEO)
3. Insert your last edge into the slot and permute the remaining edges (L6E)
4. You should be left with all edges completely solved now. Solve the corners now (COLL) (How many COLL algs would there be on a megaminx? Are they already generated?)

An alternitive to this if there are WAY too many (>200) cases for COLL:

Megaminx alternate method- LSCLL (last slot corners last layer)
1. Insert the last corner and orient all the last layer corners (basically just WV on megaminx without the edge attached to your last corner)
2. Insert the last edge and solve corner permutation (LECP)
3. Finish off the solve with an ELL (only 40 algs)
Both these methods cut off ~15 moves from your last slot+last layer

Okay, so those are all of my ideas. Keep in mind these are all just ideas and I haven't generated algs or anything for any of these methods. How many of these seem like good methods that might work? What do you think is best idea here? Which could use the most revision/which one seems the least likely to work? Feedback would be greatly appreciated


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 29, 2017)

I'll comment on what I'm familiar with:

2x2 : This is a superset of TCLL. There will be a LOT of algorithms (42 * 3 if last corner in D layer + 27 * 6 * 3 if not = 612 total).

3x3 : On top of the algs as mentioned above, TEUL will also be a lot of algorithms ((8 nCr 3) * 8 = 2688. If you allow AUFs and AEFs then it will be less; i'm too lazy to do the math, but my hunch is the number will still be pretty big)

3x3 OH : Last corner + orient everything is a lot of algs (at least 3 times more than VLS, which I believe is already 432 algs). On top of that ZZ-HW is also a fair amount of algs (if you allow AUFs, 2 CP * 5!/2 = 120)

Square-1 OBL : This is already a thing. I can't remember the name off the top of my h ead, but it's mentioned in this video:


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 29, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Okay, here are all my method ideas in my head right now for each puzzle:
> 
> 2×2 method- VL5C (V, last 5 corners)
> 1. Solve a "V" (full layer minus one corner) on the d-layer
> ...


 This is VOP more or less with the last two step I one alg which will be a pretty big number and I think EG is still better.



> 3×3 method- Waterman VH (VH are my initials, this method is a variant of waterman)
> 1. Solve a "hexagon" (full layer minus one edge and one corner) on the d-layer
> 2. Insert the last corner and solve CMLL at the same time (L5C)
> 3. Solve three edges on the u-layer in one algorithm (TEUL)
> ...


Again, L5C has a lot of cases. Also, why not just solve the block on R and then not have to rotate?

I'm also quite skeptical of that movecount as well.



> 3×3 OH method (the reason I developed a seperate method for OH is because 1. I had another idea for a method, and 2. This method uses mostly R and U moves as opposed to my waterman varient that uses lots of M moves, which can be difficult in OH)
> 1. Do a regular CFOP solve until 3 F2L pairs are solved and your last F2L slot is open. Stop here
> 2. Insert your last corner into the last slot and orient all the pieces
> 3. Solve the rest of the cube by using 1 of 72 ZZ-HW algorithm (for a more detailed explanation of the full method, read my post about two posts above this one)
> ~46-48 HTM


This method would be reasonable where it not for the stupidly high alg count for the last step. Pretty sure it has more algs that ZBLL and gives a similar iF not slightly higher movecount with worse recognition and ergonomics.



> Pyraminx method- L5E (last 5 edges)
> 1. Solve the centers and one edge on the d-layer
> 2. Solve the rest of the pyraminx in one algorithm (does anybody know how many algs there would be for this step?)
> ~11-12 moves HTM


I think there are already people doing a variation of this one.



> Skewb method- TCLL (twisty complete last layer)
> 1. Solve 3 corners around their center
> 2. If the last corner is twisted in its place, solve the rest of the skewb using one algorithm. If not, insert the corner normally and proceed normally with Sarah's advanced method.
> This is not a standalone method, but a method just like 2×2 TCLL that saves 4-5 moves per solve when the corner is twisted in place.


I don't do skewb at all but this sounds a lot like what people are doing already (at least when they get really advanced).

Square-1 method- OBL (orient both layers)
I know this already sort of exists, but I don't think anybody's actually generated algs for every case yet. Anyway:
1. Cubeshape
2. Orient both layers using one algorithm, opposed to the normal 2-look CO&EO strategy (can anobody calculate how many OBL cases there would be?)
3. Finish off the solve normally[/quote]
There would be roughly 400 cases.



> Megaminx method- LSELL (last slot edges last layer)
> 1. Solve everything normally up until you have one last open slot without a solved F2L pair
> 2. Insert your last corner into themslot and orient all the edges (LCEO)
> 3. Insert your last edge into the slot and permute the remaining edges (L6E)
> 4. You should be left with all edges completely solved now. Solve the corners now (COLL) (How many COLL algs would there be on a megaminx? Are they already generated?)


 The recognition for the first step would suck and the second case has 5!*3^4= 1944 cases



> An alternitive to this if there are WAY too many (>200) cases for COLL:
> 
> Megaminx alternate method- LSCLL (last slot corners last layer)
> 1. Insert the last corner and orient all the last layer corners (basically just WV on megaminx without the edge attached to your last corner)
> ...


Again my main grip is recognition and alg count for the method (and personally corner comms are nicer than edge comms)



> Okay, so those are all of my ideas. Keep in mind these are all just ideas and I haven't generated algs or anything for any of these methods. How many of these seem like good methods that might work? What do you think is best idea here? Which could use the most revision/which one seems the least likely to work? Feedback would be greatly appreciated


Most of them aren't horrible ideas but the alg count for most of them is insanely high which is why they're not used. The most useful ones would probably be the skewb and Squan ideas though I think they are already a thing. The 3x3 method seems like it would be good if you find ways to reduce the alg count.


----------



## efattah (Mar 29, 2017)

I'd imagine L5C would have pretty bad recognition, which means it would be useful only as a 1-look solution to solve the corners only right off the inspection (which can't happen if you have to build a whole face first). Regardless, my personal opinion is that you would be better off with CLL, EG1, EG2, TCLL-, TCLL+, and TEG1. TEG1 has never been generated and has lots of algorithms (320), but the combination of all these (126+43+43+320=532) is still less than L5C (612). From my own experience it is easier to create a TEG1 face than three correct corners required for L5C. Considering that 2x2 experts can one look the 2x2 with just CLL/EG1/EG2, the added value of hundreds of extra algorithms seems questionable, although it is easier to one look if you know TCLL & TEG1.

For Waterman VH, the movecount would be higher than 39-40 for sure. I am open minded and there might be some potential to the method but some really new method would be needed to solve multiple U-layer edges. In LMCF I solve U-layer edges as I explain in my tutorial video, and indeed it is almost always possible to rapidly solve at least 2 U-layer edges; but there are some cases in which it is very difficult to do so quickly.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 29, 2017)

Okay, my responses to each one of you:

2×2 method (L5C)-
I completely screwed up my math here, I thought there would only be 162 cases because I heard Effatah say in his LMCF pdf "theres a 1 in 162 chance that you get a CMLL skip", which led me to think that there were only 162 new algs to add on to TCLL, CLL, and EG. I just realized then there would be the reflections for when the corner's on the left and the other cases when the corner is facing up in the u-layer. That's over 400 algs for a method that might not work anyway. As for TEG, I thought about that, but one of the main reasons I picked L5C over this was because it wouldn't work for my 3×3 method. But now that I think about it, I should probably generate algs for TEG before someone else does. Now one question I have about TEG is: wouldn't you have to create four different subsets of TEG, since the corner can be twisted one of two ways (+ or -) and you can also get adjaceant swaps in either the back or on the left?

3×3 method (Waterman VH)
Okay, so I'm really going to have to revise this method if L5C won't work, but could TEG work with this method? Would it be less moves than solving a hexagon? I really hope it is, because then this method definitely could be under 40 moves. Now I understand you guys are skeptical about that figure, but here's the original thought I had in my head:
1. Hexagon ~9 moves
2. L5C ~10 moves
So at this point we have two steps that can easily be done in under 20 moves, as long as the last half of the solve (solving the last 9 edges) can be done in under 20 moves, this would be sub 40. Okay, for TEUL, there would probably be lots of cases and I would need help with lots of it, but i seriously doubt it would anywhere around the ~2500 figure Teoidus provided. I thought TEUL could be divided into 4 different subsets:
1. All three edges on u-layer (only 60 algs)
2. Two edges on u-layer (I'm pretty sure there would be ~60 algorithms to solve the two edges alone, then if the E-layer edge can be in two different orientation when you move it to RF, and it can go in two different spots, I get the number 240 for this set, but I doubt that's exact)
3. One edge on u-layer (no idea how to calculate the number of cases here, but it would probably be inbetween the number for sets 1 and 2.)
4. No edges on u-layer (probably only like 100 cases or so)
Which means total I estimate there's about 550 cases, although this figure may be way off. This would definitely be the most alg heavy step of the method, as the last step is only about 90 cases.

Pyraminx method (L5E)
Who's working on this? I've never heard anything about it

Skewb method (TCLL)-
Again, who's working on this? I've never heard anyone mention it before.

Squan method (OBL)-
Yeah, I'd seen that seminar video before. I just wasn't sure if he'd actually generated all the cases yet.

Megaminx methods-
Are you sure about those numbers? 1944 cases seems like WAY too many cases just to permute 6 pre-oriented edges.

Hopefully my responses clear some things up, and thanks for the feedback.


----------



## efattah (Mar 29, 2017)

TEG1 is a useful set, useful both for 2x2 and for 3x3 LMCF. Its advantage is not so much in lower movecount but easier 1-look of the solution in 15 seconds. There are 8 sets, two twists of each of the 4 bottom corners. Before generating it I would calculate the average number of moves to create a TEG1 face. I believe for full EG the average is 3.8? If full EG plus TEG1 results in sub-3 average moves to make a face then it is worth it.


----------



## Karl Ferber (Mar 29, 2017)

So I was thinking about this new method. I ce across the idea when I messed up a Roux solve lol.

The general idea is like this:

Step one: Build a 1x2x3 block in the DL or DR area.

Step two: Build a 1x2x3 block in the UR or UL area (opposite to the first block but rotated 180° on the R/L layer.) 

Step three: Orient all edges in the M slice between the two blocks + permute the FM and BM edges in one algorithm.

Step four: Solve the rest of the cube in one alg (UL edge+corners, DL edge+corners)

Please let me know what you think about this, I am still figuring out algorithms and optimal ways to create blocks but I would really appreciate your opinions!
Peace out!


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 29, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Okay, my responses to each one of you:
> 3×3 method (Waterman VH)
> Okay, so I'm really going to have to revise this method if L5C won't work, but could TEG work with this method? Would it be less moves than solving a hexagon? I really hope it is, because then this method definitely could be under 40 moves. Now I understand you guys are skeptical about that figure, but here's the original thought I had in my head:
> 1. Hexagon ~9 moves
> ...


 The problen here is the L5C the movecounts for speed optimised algs will be far higher than the pure comms so the movecount will be closer to 15 than 10 I'm pretty sure


> .Okay, for TEUL, there would probably be lots of cases and I would need help with lots of it, but i seriously doubt it would anywhere around the ~2500 figure Teoidus provided. I thought TEUL could be divided into 4 different subsets:
> 1. All three edges on u-layer (only 60 algs)
> 2. Two edges on u-layer (I'm pretty sure there would be ~60 algorithms to solve the two edges alone, then if the E-layer edge can be in two different orientation when you move it to RF, and it can go in two different spots, I get the number 240 for this set, but I doubt that's exact)
> 3. One edge on u-layer (no idea how to calculate the number of cases here, but it would probably be inbetween the number for sets 1 and 2.)
> ...


There would be 
4!*2^3/4=48 cases for the first set,
(4!/2)*5*2^3= 480 cases for the second set,
4*5!/3!*2^3=640 cases for the third set and
5!/2*2^3=960 cases for the fourth set giving a naive total of 2128 though this would probably be reduced to something like 1500 cases so less but still quite lot.

Just so you know L5C has about 5!*3^4/4/2=~1000 cases.



> This would definitely be the most alg heavy step of the method, as the last step is only about 90 cases.


 Unless you do L6E LSE style, it will have 6!*2^5/4/2/2=1440 cases hence why roux solvers do not learn as most would if it was "only" 90 algs.



> Pyraminx method (L5E)
> Who's working on this? I've never heard anything about it


It was talked about for a bit a while back but was abandoned because other method were found to be better for one looking and stuff even if they were slightly less efficient. By all mean pursue it if you want though 



> Skewb method (TCLL)-
> Again, who's working on this? I've never heard anyone mention it before.


Basically all 2x2 methods have had people try to apply them so skewb with varying levels of success like skewb EG and stuff.

Btw, TCLL stands for Twisty Corner Last Layer not Twisty Complete Last Layer


> Megaminx methods-
> Are you sure about those numbers? 1944 cases seems like WAY too many cases just to permute 6 pre-oriented edges.


 I calculated the alg count for the COLL and that number of algs is why the best people learn EOLL/OCLL/PLL rather than EOLL/COLL/EPLL.

Incidentally, there would be 6!/5=144 cases for EPLS.


----------



## Cale S (Mar 30, 2017)

efattah said:


> TEG1 is a useful set, useful both for 2x2 and for 3x3 LMCF. Its advantage is not so much in lower movecount but easier 1-look of the solution in 15 seconds. There are 8 sets, two twists of each of the 4 bottom corners. Before generating it I would calculate the average number of moves to create a TEG1 face. I believe for full EG the average is 3.8? If full EG plus TEG1 results in sub-3 average moves to make a face then it is worth it.



I generated the algs for one set of TEG and a lot were pretty good, but it was the set where the layer can be solved with F R U' R'


----------



## Thermex (Mar 30, 2017)

@Cale S Oh hey do you want to split the workload and you could do the minus set and I do the plus set?

If we start on April 1st, split the work and we both do a set a day we could finish in a month. The only reason I'm willing to do this is cuz I have spring break coming up  if you're too busy we could do like a set every other day and then we'd still finish in two months.

Sound good? Oh yeah and what program are you using to generate the algs?

Also after doing 100 2×2 test solves, the average to solve a TEG face was 2.69 moves for me. On five different occasions the face was already solved and eleven times it was one move away.

@shadowslice e so..

2×2: abandoning L5C to work on TEG with someone after hearing your feedback. And you're right, not all algs would be sub 10 moves, but if you think about it, the average OLL is about 10 moves. However, VLS (inserting last pair+OLL, kinda similar to this) averages less than 10. Sometimes actually doing more than 2 things at once can reduce the movecount for a step, especially when you insert a pair/corner and solve something on the u-layer.

Moving on to the 3×3 method, I understand your concerns but I still want to pursue this idea. If I'm not going to use L5C algs, I'll take a step back to my original layout for the method, and you guys can tell me how you might execute this:
1. Blockbuild some shape on the D-layer
2. Do an algorithm to bring you to a point where you have three edges on the d-layer solved and all the corners solved (exactly like waterman)
3. Solve 2-3 edges somewhere on the cube, and finally
4. Solve rest of the edges in one algorithm, then permute midges.

I still think with AEFs and some setup TEUL could be cut down to around 500 algorithms all averaging under 10 moves. However, I'm still open to change on the last two step of this method. Oh yeah and when I said "solve the last six edges" I didn't mean solve em all at once, I meant solve the ledges/redges and orient the midges in one alg, then permute the midges in one alg like in LMCF.

Pyraminx: I'm still interested in this idea, but three questions:
1. Why did you abandon this method?
2. How many cases are there?
3. Would a better method be sloving the 1-flip top (~4 moves) and then solving the rest of the pyraminx in one algorithm? Has this been explored before?

Skewb: lol I probably should've realized someone would have thought of this before, but who, and also do you know where I could access the TCLL algs? Did the person succeed in making this method?
And the reason I said "complete last layer" instead of "corners last layer" was because this method on skewb not only solves corners but also edges.

Megaminx: I'll continue to explore 2-4 look last slot+last later options if my proposed methods are too many algorithms.

@Karl Ferber There's a Roux technique that works like this where you solve non-matching blocks, but you do the last two steps as CMLL and LSE like normal, and your method is the same but just the last two steps are different. I'm not sure if your method would be any better than the non-matching blocks technique in Roux, you need to elaborate a bit more on the last two steps (there's no such thing as "FM" edges since you can't have an "edge" in the "middle") but it could be decent.


----------



## efattah (Mar 30, 2017)

2.69 moves to create a TEG1 face is amazing, especially with 16% chance of 0-1 move face, that is 1 in 6 being 0-1 moves. Even the best 2x2 solvers like Lucas occasionally cannot 1-look the solve in 15 seconds but with TEG it becomes really easy. Worth generating. The biggest constraint is to allow freedom of the D face. For example some LEG1 are way better than their EG1 algs just because the bar is in a different spot. In those cases I prefer to start with a D move to put the bar in the LEG1 location and use the LEG1 alg instead of the EG1.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 30, 2017)

So using the latest scramble from the 3x3 example solve game I got a 39 move ZZ-Tri solve. I did the same solve with ZZ-CT and it ended up being 46 moves. Here are the two links:

ZZ-Tri:

ZZ-CT:

EDIT: Do any of you have any interest in developing stats on the probability of skipping NLS/TELL? I'm not very skilled with that sort of thing so I definitely need some help with it.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 30, 2017)

@efattah I did another 50 just to make I didn't get super super lucky, my results were

43 solves were either 2 or 3 moves, and overall I got a pretty good total average (I didn't count. As for very lucky/unlucky solves:
One solve was 4 moves, one solve was a skip and I had five 1-movers (surprising) one of those one movers was completely rediculous, it was one move from a checkerboard and I solved it using R' F2 R2 U2 lol

On a side note if this Cale S guy doesn't respond or declines my offer, you want to work on the method together? Like I said if I do minus and you do plus, we can fully finish the method in a month if we each generate a a set a day and two months if we each do a set every other day.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 30, 2017)

Hey guys, @TDM and I were discussing an idea earlier today which would basically be alternative CMLL sets for annoying LS cases. Essentially they solve CMLL + fix one twisted corner in the SB (since these tend to be the worst last pair cases), which lets you do something like r U r' instead of R U R' U' R U R' U' r U r'.

To be able to fix FR slot, you need 2 * 42 more algs (so this is basically the same number of algs as EG).

To be able to handle any orientation of the SB corners (which would allow for some pretty efficient pseudo-SBs but might yield bad algs), you need 9 * 42 = 378 algs.

Thoughts/help generating these algs?


----------



## IQubic (Mar 30, 2017)

So I've read a lot about NLS and how it is a great alternative to ZZ-CT that requires fewer algs and a different recognition method. However, I can't seem to find the original post for NLS. Can someone give me a link, or post number + thread, to the write-up NLS?


----------



## Cale S (Mar 30, 2017)

about TEG: yesterday I tried 50 scrambles and got a 2.41 avg50 for TEG face movecount, worst case was 3 moves 

I don't think I'll generate the algs because I would never use them and I haven't been cubing as much lately, there are so many cases


----------



## Thermex (Mar 30, 2017)

@Cale S that's fine, I understand there are a LOT of cases. Also you probably got a lower average than me because I'm a pretty inefficient solver.

@Teoidus I think I know what you mean. I don't think making all 372 is a good idea though, too many algorithms to save like 1-2 moves per solve, and most of the algs probably wouldn't be very ergonomic.
I'd be happy to generate the ones that only have one unoriented corner though, as we could just take TCLL sets and modify them so that they preserve the LR edges/e slice. How about starting April 1st (thats when spring break starts for me) I generate the plus set and you do the minus set, and if we each do two sets (ex. I do the gun and spaceship, next day I do hammer and pinwheel, etc.) a day then we'll be finished by next sunday. If you're too busy, you can extend the time it takes for us to generate these algs if you want, I have a lot of free time though because it's spring break. (Keep in mind you'll have to generate two different minus sets, one for when the twisted corner is in the FRONT and you need to preserved DL and DR, and one for when the corner is in the BACK and you need to preserve DF and DB).

@efattah so yeah do you want to generate the TEG algs together? You could do the plus set and I could do the minus set. If we each did one set a day (~5.5 algs per day), we would finish in a month, and if we each did a set every other day (~3 algs per day) we'd finish in two months. What would be a better schedule for you? (if you're able to do this of course, if not it's not a huge deal)


----------



## cuber314159 (Mar 30, 2017)

I just came up with FNPOLL on the 100 signs you have been cubing too long thread and thought i should post my ideas here 
so firstly as there are 2 different types of n perm it means that you only need to learn 1834 cases unlike the 3668 for 1 look last layer and seeing as everybody must like N-Perms???? and recognition should be the same as 1LLL


----------



## Neuro (Mar 30, 2017)

IQubic said:


> So I've read a lot about NLS and how it is a great alternative to ZZ-CT that requires fewer algs and a different recognition method. However, I can't seem to find the original post for NLS. Can someone give me a link, or post number + thread, to the write-up NLS?


I plan to make a tutorial for ZZ-Tri later this week so watch out for that. In the meantime, here's a link to the algsheet. So basically you get to F2L-1 and build a 1x2x2 block in UBR (making the tripod) and NLS is used to insert LS while preserving top block. From there you get an extremely small subset of ZBLL.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 30, 2017)

Okay, so I've been playing around with TCMLL and here are some examples to show how beneficial it can be:

39 STM TCMLL vs 41 Roux

40 STM TCMLL vs 48 Roux

44 STM TCMLL vs 49 Roux

42 STM TCMLL vs 44 Roux

Note: I didn't select times where TCMLL happened to get better movecounts than solving the pair and proceeding normally. These are every instance in which I thought (over the course of ~12 solves) TCMLL would be nice to have, and every time TCMLL yielded movecounts anywhere from 2-8 moves better than proceeding normally.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 31, 2017)

I got all TCMLL algs on one doc. Most of the algs aren't that great but here it is. Just comment if you want to contribute and I'll add you.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 31, 2017)

@Neuro I know this is probably a terrible idea but how many algs would there be for solving NLS and TELL in one algorithm?


----------



## Neuro (Mar 31, 2017)

No idea but it'd probably be ridiculously high and recog wouldn't be good either. What you might be able to do though is orient everything while inserting the edge and get a really small TTLL subset.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 31, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I got all TCMLL algs on one doc. Most of the algs aren't that great but here it is. Just comment if you want to contribute and I'll add you.



Thanks! I'll take a look to see if any can be improved. PMed you an email address to share with.


----------



## DELToS (Mar 31, 2017)

DELToS said:


> I've come up with a possible 3x3 method, but it's probably been done before. I haven't come up with a name yet.
> 
> Step 1: Solve 3/4 of a cross
> Step 2: F2L (still excluding last cross edge)
> ...



If anybody remembers when I posted this, I figured out how to combine the last 2 steps into one! For LE-OLL, instead of completely solving OLL, you do an alg to make it so the Last Edge just needs a U' M' U M to be solved, along with the rest of the OLL (most of the LE-OLL cases end with this anyway, so the algs would be shorter and faster!) Then you memorize 11 cases to always be able to cancel into EPLL while solving the last edge! So it wouldn't really be learning new algs, just knowing which case corresponds to which cancel. You would recognize the cases by looking at the top 3 stickers on R, The UB edge, and the FUL/FUR corner.

Here's an example:
setup: R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' M' U' M U

You would recognize that the headlights on R are the same color as the UB edge, and that the RU edge and FUR edge are opposites.

Alg: U' M' U M' U M U2 M' U M2 (Insert canceling into counterclockwise EPLL)

So I think if you memorize all 11 algs (22 if you want to learn the mirrors for the U M' U' M insert also), then it could be a bit faster than the standard version of this method.

I've also realized that you can solve everything up to LE-OLL in many different ways, including 3/4 cross + F2L, Roux + CMLL + BD edge, some sort of Petrus variant, etc.

I've decided to call this method *M3 *(because my initials, MM, plus "method" is 3 M's).


----------



## Thermex (Mar 31, 2017)

@DELToS that's basically just a more inefficient way of doing hawaiian kociemba.


----------



## TDM (Mar 31, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I got all TCMLL algs on one doc. Most of the algs aren't that great but here it is. Just comment if you want to contribute and I'll add you.


Please could you add me? I was probably going to gen algs some a bit later.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 31, 2017)

@TDM just PM me your email or comment on the doc and I'll add you. I'm sure that the algs can be better but all of the cases are there.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 31, 2017)

So does anybody want to work on the TEG algs with me? I think I'll do the minus set and whoever wants to jump in and generate algs for the plus set can work with me.
It would take us about a month if we each did a set a day (~5.5 algs per day) and it would take about two months if we each did a set every other day (~3 algs per day).
I'll accept anybody who's able to generate algorithms and knows what TEG is (twisty EG)


----------



## efattah (Apr 1, 2017)

Maybe for starting TEG1 we could at least have Cale post his set of algorithms? I'm interested in TEG1 and I think it has a real future but I don't have a ton of time in the next few weeks to generate algorithms. Maybe after though.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 1, 2017)

efattah said:


> Maybe for starting TEG1 we could at least have Cale post his set of algorithms? I'm interested in TEG1 and I think it has a real future but I don't have a ton of time in the next few weeks to generate algorithms. Maybe after though.


Oh sure. I'll try to get him to post his set. How long until you'll have enough free time to start working? If it's not over 1-2 months I could start working on them now but only do a set like every three days or something and then you'd eventually catch up with me if you were offset by a month or so.
Also what program do you recommend using/will use for making these algs? I've never made 2×2 algs before.


----------



## efattah (Apr 1, 2017)

I might have a little more time in 4 weeks but I can't make any promises. I use Cube Explorer to generate corner algorithms. They will work on either 2x2 or 3x3. Delete U/U'/U2 and D/D'/D2 at the end of any algorithm. Disable slice moves.

Edit: for fun I tried generating one algorithm, TEG1 (DLF-), spaceship, it turned out to be only 7 moves:
y' R2 U R2 U R' U R2 [7]


----------



## Thermex (Apr 1, 2017)

efattah said:


> I might have a little more time in 4 weeks but I can't make any promises. I use Cube Explorer to generate corner algorithms. They will work on either 2x2 or 3x3. Delete U/U'/U2 and D/D'/D2 at the end of any algorithm. Disable slice moves.
> 
> Edit: for fun I tried generating one algorithm, TEG1 (DLF-), spaceship, it turned out to be only 7 moves:
> y' R2 U R2 U R' U R2 [7]



Oh cool, I thought of the same idea for generating 2×2 algs too, I just wasn't sure it would work (idk why I thought that). Hopefully you have time soon to generate some algs. As for me:

This week (spring break) April 2-8:
Completely finish the FRONT adjaceant swap minus set (~5.5 algs a day, I have lots of time since its spring break)

The last three weeks of April (9-29):
Finish the RIGHT adjaceant swap minus set (~2 algs per day)

All of May (I'm super busy in May since I have like 20 exams)
Finish the BACK adjaceant swap minus set (~1.3 algs per day)

The first three weeks of June (4-24) (giving myself three weeks because school's out on the 24th for me and I'll be on vacation for the last week of June)
Finish the LEFT adjaceant swap minus set (~2 algs per day)

This way I'll finish the full minus set in 3 months. If you're offset by a month you can catch up with me by doing one plus set every other day (~3 algs per day). Hopefully you have time for that.

All sound good?


----------



## efattah (Apr 1, 2017)

I suggest a standardized naming system for TEG1

When DFR corner is twisted, facing you, it is TEG1 FR+.
When DFR corner is twisted, facing to the right, it is TEG1 FR-.
When DFL corner is twisted, facing you, it is TEG1 FL+.
When DFL corner is twisted, facing to the left, it is TEG1 FL-.

When BDR corner is twisted, facing away from you, it is TEG1 BR+.
When BDR corner is twisted, facing to the right, it is TEG1 BR-.
When BDL corner is twisted, facing away from you, it is TEG1 BL+.
When BDL corner is twisted, facing to the left, it is TEG1 BL-.

From the brief work I did it seems these algorithms are far easier to generate than anything involving slice moves. When I was generating Waterman optimization sets Cube Explorer would need to run for 12 hours to find one decent algorithm, most of these corner sets the solution is found in 3 seconds.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 1, 2017)

efattah said:


> I suggest a standardized naming system for TEG1
> 
> When DFR corner is twisted, facing you, it is TEG1 FR+.
> When DFR corner is twisted, facing to the right, it is TEG1 FR-.
> ...



I like that naming scheme. But 12 HOURS? For the three algorithms I've generated so far its taken my computer under a second to find the optimal solution. Heres the first 3 algs I made (these are DFR- hammer algs, the first three cases listed on cyotheking's TCLL- page)

R2 U' R' F' U' F' U' R2
(z) R' F R F2 R' F R F2
R2 U2 R' U2 R2' F R U' R'

So far I'm really liking this method.

Oh yeah is it okay if you give me your email? It's kind of a pain communicating through this thread.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

Is there any way we could implement L7EP in speedsolving? I just generated algs that solve FR + L6E in 16.43 moves on average. If there was some way to make this useful, that'd be cool, Also, "only" 53 algs.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

FML I just wasted an hour generating algs. Just realized L7EP can be solved in 15 moves or so _intuitively_...


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

Actually might be good cuz intuitive is closer to 18 moves and this only requires two looks as oppose to three.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

Okay so here's my idea for implementing L7EP.
1. FB (8 moves)
2. Corners (10 moves)
3. Two redges (7 moves)
4. L7EO (7 moves)
5. L7EP (16 moves)
Total: 50 STM

Not exactly the most efficient approach... Any other ideas?


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 3, 2017)

If you find a good way to do L7E, there is:

CPFB (11)
SBsq (7)
L5C (~10), 27 algs
L7E (X)

= X+28 avg movecount


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

Another way to go about it would be:
1. Orient everything and solve 3 E-slice edges (15 moves)
2. Separate and permute corners (12 moves)
3. Roux blocks (5 moves)
4. L7EP (16 moves)

Total: 48 STM


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> If you find a good way to do L7E, there is:
> 
> CPFB (11)
> SBsq (7)
> ...


That would be 23+28 = 51 avg movecount. What I am proposing is not ideal if orientation is not already solved.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

I was messing around with a non-matching LEG-1 WaterRoux variant and got this 24 STM solve. I lost the scramble, but since the solution was so short I still remember how it went:

"Scramble" generated by Cube Explorer: B2 R' D2 B2 R2 F2 D F2 U B' R' F' R2 B F U2 B' R' U'

y M' S U S' // FB (4/4)
R2 F' U2 F // Orient two R-layer corners at RD (4/8)
U' R2 U R' F R F' U R' // Non-matching LEG-1 + 3 accidentally solved redges (10/18)
M' U2 M' U M U r2 // LMCF L6E (6/24)

24 moves/13.689 seconds = 1.75 tps (im so fast lol)


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 3, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Is there any way we could implement L7EP in speedsolving? I just generated algs that solve FR + L6E in 16.43 moves on average. If there was some way to make this useful, that'd be cool, Also, "only" 53 algs.


With SSC?
EoEdge: 7
CO+belt: 9
CP+1 solved edge: 8
L7E: 16
40 movesish


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> With SSC?
> EoEdge: 7
> CO+belt: 9
> CP+1 solved edge: 8
> ...


Wait a minute this could be really really good.
EoEdge: Always closer to 6 for me
CO+Belt: 9
CP+1 edge: 8
Reduce to L5EP: 7
L5EP: 7
AUFs throughout the solve: 2
Sub-40 moves


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 3, 2017)

guys TEG seems like a decent Idea.


----------



## efattah (Apr 3, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> I was messing around with a non-matching LEG-1 WaterRoux variant and got this 24 STM solve. I lost the scramble, but since the solution was so short I still remember how it went:
> 
> "Scramble" generated by Cube Explorer: B2 R' D2 B2 R2 F2 D F2 U B' R' F' R2 B F U2 B' R' U'
> 
> ...



This is pretty insane!! FYI even during LMCF, starting with the corners, believe it or not I have had FIVE randomly solved L/R edges more times than I can remember, leaving either (A) one pair then L5E, or (B) one edge then L6E.

I re-did the above scramble using matching LEG-1 (more classic style), and the result was 41 STM
y M' S U S' // FB (4/4)
U' R U R2 U' // yellow corners
R2 U R' U' F R2 F' U R' U // LEG-1 L case
M U' M' U2 M U' // E2L pair
M' R' r' U2 r U' M' U R' U2 // Waterman Set 2
r' U2 M' U2 R L2 // permute midges
41 STM

(This version had only 1 randomly solved redge).


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

With all the talk of TEG1, I realized TLEG1 could be a game changer for WaterRoux. With TLEG1 it becomes possible on many solves to see the entire first block AND the corner solve in 1-look. It still takes an expert to do so, but this would finally resolve the last hurdle of Roux which is to put the CMLL recognition into the inspection phase; while still maintaining a lower move count than regular Roux, by a quite significant amount.

Better still, you don't need full TEG1 for WaterRoux since the left block is always solved, so you only need four TLEG1 sets, L+, L-, R+, and R-, as well as normal LEG1 and CMLL optimized for an unconstrained left block. So this would be 252 corner algorithms in order to be 'in range' of a 1-look solve of the left block and all the corners. An example:

Scramble: 
B2 R' D2 B2 R2 F2 D F2 U B' R' F' R2 B F U2 B' R' U'
y M' S U S' // FB (4/4)
R2 U' R' // yellow corners (or JUST R' if you solve the white corners)
// Now solve corners with TLEG1, L+ set
[I would comment that if you are good enough to solve with non-matching corner sets, it only takes 1 move to put the white corners in, meaning just 5 moves to 1-look the corners and first block]

In the above example we need to see 7 moves into the future in order to 1-look the yellow corners which is hard but within range of a master (or 5 moves to 1-look the yellow/white not matching corners). After that, there are just 5 L/R edges left, of which we need to solve 3 in order to reach LSE. However half the time one is already solved at random, meaning we are one E2L pair away from LSE. Allowing no constraints on where this pair is, sometimes this pair solves the UL slot and a random redge, putting us into a Waterman L6E situation. However, I have started optimizing the Waterman L6E sets, and Waterman Set 2 is the one that occurs most often by far, and I have so far optimized it to an amazing 9.4 moves while improving the speed and ergonomics of the algorithms. So even in the situation where you end up with UL solved, it means in most cases you can solve the last two redges and orient the midges in less than 10 moves, or 11 moves if you include 1 set up move.

If you 1-look the first block and corners, this is around 15-17 moves at essentially max TPS since you know exactly what to do; so this could be 1.7 seconds. Then you solve one E2L pair in 1 second, then you finish with either Roux EOLR, LMCF L6E, or Waterman L6E, the worst case being around 2 seconds for that operation. So a 1-look solve would be around 4.7 seconds for an expert.

As WaterRoux-TLEG1 cuts at least 1-2 more moves off the average move count, then it will be even lower than regular WaterRoux, which was already lower than Roux. But the bigger advantage is being able to 1-look the corners.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 4, 2017)

efattah said:


> With all the talk of TEG1, I realized TLEG1 could be a game changer for WaterRoux. With TLEG1 it becomes possible on many solves to see the entire first block AND the corner solve in 1-look. It still takes an expert to do so, but this would finally resolve the last hurdle of Roux which is to put the CMLL recognition into the inspection phase; while still maintaining a lower move count than regular Roux, by a quite significant amount.
> 
> Better still, you don't need full TEG1 for WaterRoux since the left block is always solved, so you only need four TLEG1 sets, L+, L-, R+, and R-, as well as normal LEG1 and CMLL optimized for an unconstrained left block. So this would be 252 corner algorithms in order to be 'in range' of a 1-look solve of the left block and all the corners. An example:
> 
> ...


I definitely agree that TLEG-1 is a great idea for WaterRoux, but imo we're still missing one thing that would make WaterRoux perfect: a good way to do L7E. If could get L7E to under 15 moves (I'm certain this is possible, the question is how), the entire solve would be:
FB+Corners: 17
E2L pair: 7
L7E: 14
Total: 38 STM


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

Well I created that L7E document which, to be fair, only solves the case where the last two redges are on the R layer already; but more recently I believe the best way to solve L7E is to solve one redge while orienting the other 6 edges; then you finish with the last two steps of Roux. Solving one redge while orienting the other 6 edges should not take hardly any more moves at all vs. orienting 6 edges, just as the L7E document showed that solving those cases did not take any more moves than solving the equivalent Waterman L6E cases.

The last thing that is needed is the ideal edge orientation recognition system. It is slightly more complicated than regular Roux but not much.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 4, 2017)

TLEG sounds good. What's surprising to me though is that the case count for all of the corner sets is 256 algs, still less than full ZBLL. One of the last 2 redges+orientation is pretty smart IMO, I just hope there isn't a ridiculous number of cases.

EDIT: 256 is only if in the twisty cases the front corner is the one twisted. If you have cases with the back twisted then alg count shoots to 428 (TCMLL+/- front/back, TLEG +/- front/back) which is about the same as ZBLL :/


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

For WaterRoux L7E, we try to solve UL + UR, all the midges, plus one other redge, either DR, FR, or BR.

In the first case none of those three edges have any L/R edges in them.
In the second case one of the redge slots is filled with another redge, either oriented or disoriented (3 cases as in Waterman Sets 1,2,3 except UL is also unsolved).

So there are four cases, and each of those cases we must orient the other 6 edges which has the same number of cases as Roux LSE.

So the total number of algorithms is 4 x 7 = 28. Mind you there are minor variants for the DR/BR cases but 28 main algorithms for this style of L7E.

EDIT: The approximate number is 28. For the case where FR is disoriented, there is the possibility of odd numbers of disoriented LSE edges.


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

I generated an example L7E orientation:
R U M U' R' U' M2 U [8]
This solves disoriented FR while orienting four bad edges on U and one bad edge on D.

To see the case it solves, execute the inverse: U' M2 U R U M' U' R' on a solved cube.


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

Another case L7E case:
F U' M2 U F' [5]
This solves disoriented FR while orienting one bad edge at UR.
Run the reverse to see the case: F U' M2 U F'.

Another case:
U M' U2 r U M2 U' r' U [9]

So it looks like most cases are 5-10 moves, plus 4.5 moves to permute the midges.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 4, 2017)

@crafto22 btw that solve you got was perfectly following the method I thought of a while ago.
1. FB
2. D-layer corners in random orientation and the TLEG
3. Solve 3 redges (you happened to get a skip here)
4. LMCF L6E

So yeah, I think to find the next great method both a faster way to do L7E and a way to solve 3 redges in an algorithm need to be generated.

@efattah btw I just finished my second TEG set today, It's going great so far. So far I've finished the DFR- hammer set and the DFR- spaceship set. The average alg is about 8.75 moves. Also the method you brought up earlier there was EXACTLY the same as the method I proposed on your LMCF thread.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 4, 2017)

I was just testing out my method here and got this absolutely rediculous solve, probably because I hand scrambled this though

FB on blue (8 moves):
M U' M' U2 M2 (z) (x') M' U M

Two corners on bottom in random orientation (2 moves):
U' R2'

TEG (8 moves)
(y) F R U R' U' R U' R' (I happened to get one of the hammer cases I generated yesterday)

Three edges on u-layer (8 moves):
U2 M' U M U2 M' U M (I got lucky and got an ELL for this step, this happens about 1 in 7 solves)

L6E (I did a z rotation so that the top layer edges+DF and DB were unsolved and finished off the solve with Roux LSE, 7 moves)
M' U' M U' M2 (EOLR) U (AUF) M2 (sort-of 4c skip)

Total was 31 moves without any real skips, I feel like this method might really work, although this is certainly not a normal solve.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 4, 2017)

efattah said:


> Another case L7E case:
> F U' M2 U F' [5]
> Run the reverse to see the case: F U' M2 U F'.


Lmao the alg and its inverse are the same XD


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I was just testing out my method here and got this absolutely rediculous solve, probably because I hand scrambled this though
> 
> FB on blue (8 moves):
> M U' M' U2 M2 (z) (x') M' U M
> ...



That doesn't really count as a lucky solve. A poor first block (8), ordinary TEG1, and solving three redges in 8 moves is pretty standard even with E2L triplet algorithms. The 4c skip almost made up for the poor first block. I'm telling you WaterRoux-TLEG1 has an insanely low move count with excellent ergonomics and no rotations if you use TLEG1, and this example solve at 31 moves is probably only slightly lower than average...


----------



## Thermex (Apr 4, 2017)

efattah said:


> That doesn't really count as a lucky solve. A poor first block (8), ordinary TEG1, and solving three redges in 8 moves is pretty standard even with E2L triplet algorithms. The 4c skip almost made up for the poor first block. I'm telling you WaterRoux-TLEG1 has an insanely low move count with excellent ergonomics and no rotations if you use TLEG1, and this example solve at 31 moves is probably only slightly lower than average...


The reason I considered this lucky was partly the L6E which was really easy, but also the fact that I happened to get one of the TEG algs I generated and also an ELL that I knew. But 8 moves is a poor first block? I thought that was like average (it's what I average anyway, but I've only been using Roux for a month or two). Also isn't the WaterRoux you guys are proposing here basically the same as the one I brought up in your LMCF thread? It's the same idea where you 1) solve a first block 2) put in a bar of corners+TLEG (that wasn't my original idea but it's what I started thinking about a few days ago) 3) L9E in two steps

And finally, do you think it's more efficient to do L9E by doing
A) Solve two redges, then finish off with L7E, or
B) Solve three redges, then finish off with LMCF L6E


----------



## efattah (Apr 4, 2017)

Thermex said:


> The reason I considered this lucky was partly the L6E which was really easy, but also the fact that I happened to get one of the TEG algs I generated and also an ELL that I knew. But 8 moves is a poor first block? I thought that was like average (it's what I average anyway, but I've only been using Roux for a month or two). Also isn't the WaterRoux you guys are proposing here basically the same as the one I brought up in your LMCF thread? It's the same idea where you 1) solve a first block 2) put in a bar of corners+TLEG (that wasn't my original idea but it's what I started thinking about a few days ago) 3) L9E in two steps
> 
> And finally, do you think it's more efficient to do L9E by doing
> A) Solve two redges, then finish off with L7E, or
> B) Solve three redges, then finish off with LMCF L6E



Indeed the method is generally similar to what you suggested with the important difference that as we have proposed it, it is rotationless and the two EG corners are solved on a different face, not the same face as the first block.

So the rotationless method:
FB on left
Twisty EG corners on lower right
Solve corners with twisty LEG1 rotationless
Now, based on what you see, either
(A) solve two redges at once then finish with 3-look L7E (solve one redge + orient midges, we calculated 39 algorithms)
or
(B) solve UL and two redges at once then finish with 2-look L5E
or 
(C) solve three redges at once (somrandomkidmike developed and used this in his waterman solves), then finish with either 2-look LMCF L6E or 3-look Roux LSE

We should really be moving this discussion into the WaterRoux thread...


----------



## Thermex (Apr 4, 2017)

@efattah you're totally right, that is the main difference to our methods. To test out which method of ours is better, I took the TEG hammer set I made yesterday and applied it to my method (preserving DL, DB and DR edges while solving corners) and your method (preserving FL, DL and BL while solving corners) to see if the cases would preserve our pre-solved edges. Only one or two TEG algs preserved the 3 ledges in your guys' method, and almost all of the TEG algs preserve the d-layer edges used in my method. My method is also almost completely rotationless if you solve FB on the d-layer (which is realy really easy) and use a TLEG alg+three u-layer edges. The only rotation would be a z rotation after these for L6E. I also feel like the third option you gave for L9E (three redges+LMCF L6E) is the best way to go until a better way of doing L7E is developed. Could you leave me a link to the place somerandomkidmike has these algorithms or talks about them? I'm very curious. And yes lets move this discussion over to the waterroux thread, you can write your reply to this post there. I posted this exact post there too, so you can see it and respond to it.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 4, 2017)

Hey, basically not related at all, but I think we should "gen" some algs for Oll Parity+CMLL for Meyer(this is basically going to end up being manipulating the corners around then doing a parity or souble parity alg then maybe some more setups, like POLL is). 
a few of us should collaborate and make an (atleast mostly) complete doc of OP+CMLL. Anyone want to help me?

also I think that if you know full EG, CLL, TCLL, and TEG, then the amount of moves needed for a face is something like 5 max. onelooking would be so insanely easy.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 4, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey, basically not related at all, but I think we should "gen" some algs for Oll Parity+CMLL for Meyer(this is basically going to end up being manipulating the corners around then doing a parity or souble parity alg then maybe some more setups, like POLL is).
> a few of us should collaborate and make an (atleast mostly) complete doc of OP+CMLL. Anyone want to help me?
> 
> also I think that if you know full EG, CLL, TCLL, and TEG, then the amount of moves needed for a face is something like 5 max. onelooking would be so insanely easy.



I'll join, although I don't know how to generate 4×4 algs yet. If you could show me how to do that I would definitely generate some algs for this, as it could be very useful. Maybe if we can get 7 people we could each do a set? Also with TEG, EG, TCLL and CLL I average around 2.5 moves for a face, and the maximum number of moves to solve a face is three. Btw I just finished my third TEG set today and now have DFR- hammer, spaceship and stollery done (yay)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 4, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I'll join, although I don't know how to generate 4×4 algs yet. If you could show me how to do that I would definitely generate some algs for this, as it could be very useful. Maybe if we can get 7 people we could each do a set? Also with TEG, EG, TCLL and CLL I average around 2.5 moves for a face, and the maximum number of moves to solve a face is three. Btw I just finished my third TEG set today and now have DFR- hammer, spaceship and stollery done (yay)


for most of OP+CMLL I don't expect you need to be able to gen algs, in fact I was going to intuitively come up with something like meep did for POLL. I need someone who is better at creating spreadsheets to help by creating it, then adding [email protected]


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 4, 2017)

Got bored today and decided to calculate some 2GR skip chances:

Let me know if any of them are incorrect

*1) LL skip*
P(LL skip) = 1 / (4 CP * 3^3 CO * 4!/2 EP / 4 AUF) = 1/324

Compare to LL skip chances for other methods:
CFOP: P(LL skip) = 1 / (4! CP * 3^3 CO * 4!/2 EP * 2^3 EO / 4 AUF) = 1/15552
ZZ: P(LL skip) = 1 / (4! CP * 3^3 CO * 4!/2 EP / 4 AUF) = 1/1944
ZZ-b: P(LL skip) = 1 / (4! CP * 3^3 CO * 4/2 EP / 4 AUF) = 1/324
ZZ-CT: P(LL skip) = 1 ayy lmao

So LL skip chance is equal to ZZ-b's skip chance, with ~half the algs (84 2gll vs 167 zzll).

*2) COLL skip*
P(COLL skip) = 1 / (3^3 CO) = 1/27.

Compare this to COLL skip chances for other methods:
CFOP: P(COLL skip) = 1 / (4! CP * 3^3 CO * 2^3 EO / 4 AUF) = 1/1296
ZZ: P(COLL skip) = 1 / (4! CP * 3^3 CO / 4 AUF) = 1/162
ZZ-b: P(COLL skip) = 1 / (4! CP * 3^3 CO / 4 AUF) = 1/162

This is pretty crazy if you think about it. The probability of COLL skip in 2GR is equal to the probability of an OLL skip in ZZ.

*3) Sune-solvability* (LL solvable by a single Sune, Sune', Backsune, or Backsune')
P(Sune-solvable) = P(Sune or Antisune OCLL) * P(solvable by sune variant | Sune OCLL) = 8/27 * 1/6 = 4/81 = 1/20.25

Compare this to sune-solvability for other methods:
ZZ: P(Sune-solvable) = P(CP solved) * P(Sune-solvable | CP solved) = 1/6 * 4/81 = 2/243 = 1/121.5
CFOP: P(EO solved) * P(Sune-solvable | EO solved) = 1/8 * 2/243 = 1/972

This is also pretty crazy--the probability that your LL ends up just being a 7 move sune variant + AUF is higher than the probability of an OLL skip in ZZ.

----------------------------------------------------------------

*Additional fun facts*
Let's look at the probability that at least one of your solves has a <= 9 move last layer in a standard competition avg5:
Let p = P(1 lucky LL) = P(LL skip or COLL skip or Sune-solvable) = 1/324 + 1/27 + 4/81 = 29/324 (~= 0.089, about 1 in 11)
P(Lucky LLs >= 1, n = 5) = (5 nCr 1) p (1-p)^4 + (5 nCr 2) p^2 (1-p)^3 + (5 nCr 3) p^3 (1-p)^2 + (5 nCr 4) p^4 (1-p) + (5 nCr 5) p^5 = _37.43% chance of getting at least 1 lucky LL in competition_

Or, let's look at the probability of at least one of your solves having a <= 9 move last layer if you just sat down and casually did an avg12:
P(Lucky LLs >= 1, n = 12) = sum (i = 1 .. 12) of (12 nCr i) p^i (1-p)^(12-i) = _67.5% chance of getting at least 1 lucky LL during an avg12
_
This is the entire last layer taking no more than 9 moves (!). Almost all of these solves will be in the range of 36-45 moves. When performed by an "expert" at 8 tps, these solves would be in the range of 4.5-5.6 seconds. This means that, every time he competes, an expert would have a 37.43% chance of getting a 4.5-5.6 second solve (I'm sure 8tps is a conservative estimate, given that many have reached 9-10 tps which would make times in 4.xx range or even sub-4 achievable, and this does not even take into account probabilities of getting lucky during prior steps).


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Apr 4, 2017)

I made a face first method a little while ago, but it had a very high alg count and awkward lookahead. I just changed it to fix those problems.

Original method: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/page-146

Step 1: face-1 corner

Step 2: keyhole 3 e-slice edge

Step 3: non-matching last slot

Step 4: COP; orient last layer corners while permuting first layer corners (23 algs)

Step 5: EOP; orient last layer edges while permuting first layer edges (29 algs)

Step 6: PLL (21 algs)

Total alg count: 73 (5 less than CFOP)

I took out the CP+last slot because that was awkward for recognition and lookahead. The method also went from ~330-370 algs to 73 algs


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2017)

okay guys made a sheet but it doesn't have anything really on it yet and needs major restructuring and stuff.
but comment on the one box and I'll add to edit
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cxz3Scm8WlMHIDLC7nzc0a8RQQCwn38v7G_bsfCySiY/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Hazel (Apr 5, 2017)

I came up with an idea but I'm not sure how good it would be, here it is:
Step 1) Petrus block + 1 F2L pair (see below)
Step 2) Insert 4th First Layer corner without regard to its orientation (making sure the edge that should go in FD isn't connected to it), then COLL/some 3x3 form of TCLL
Step 3) Insert 4th First Layer edge while solving the orientation 3-4 LL edges (number depends on location/orienta
Step 4) L5E (not sure how many algorithms there would be)

For step one, there's many ways to solve this, that's why I didn't separate it into multiple steps:
- Solve a Petrus-style 2x2x3 block, then insert 1 F2L pair
- Solve Roux-style 1x2x3 block on the left, then solve a 2x2x2 block in the back
- Solve CFOP-style cross (minus 1 edge), then 3 F2L pairs

For step 3, what I mean is this:
Say the bottom side is white. While solving the 4th white edge, all the yellow edges IN THE U LAYER would be oriented (unless the non white/yellow edge is in FR but oriented incorrectly, the only 3). I say in the U layer because most likely, there will be one in FR, and it's orientation doesn't matter right now, and there would also be a non-yellow edge in the U layer.

Here's an example solve if you still don't understand:
Scramble: B' L B2 U F2 R' U2 F D B D2 L F2 R2 B2 R' U2 R U2

Step 1) z2 R' F D' Rw' U' Rw U B F2 R M U' Rw R B U' B2 R B
Step 2) R U2 R' U R' U' R U' R' U2 R
Step 3) M' U' M
Step 4) U2 L F2 U F2 R F U F' U' R' U' F2 L'

yes I know my efficiency for step 1 was absolutely horrible, but I'm terrible at block-building. People who are pretty good at block-building could probably do that with MUCH less moves. I just wanted to get the point across of what the method is, if it's even viable.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 5, 2017)

@Aerma ideas like this have definitely been thought of before. This is basically petrus but with a few steps switched around. There are still some interesting ideas in there, but I don't really think your idea has any advantages over other top methods. Maybe a decent variant of this might be:

1) 2×2×3 block (~14 moves)
2) Put last two corners in a random orientation (~3 moves)
3. Twisty EG (~10 moves)
4. L7E (no idea how this step would work, but it would probably be done in two steps and come out to ~15 moves, maybe you could do L7E orientarion and then L7E permutation, or something like that)

This would come out to around 43 moves per solve which is around waterroux, tbh it doesn't seem that good and requires lots of algs but its the best variation of the your idea I could come up with.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 5, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> Step 5: EOP; orient last layer edges while permuting first layer edges (29 algs)


 Hey what if we used this in ECE? Same first 3 steps, then separate all edges onto their proper layers while ensuring orientation of D layer edges. From there we use this to orient the top and solve D layer so you end in EPLL


----------



## efattah (Apr 5, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Hey what if we used this in ECE? Same first 3 steps, then separate all edges onto their proper layers while ensuring orientation of D layer edges. From there we use this to orient the top and solve D layer so you end in EPLL



I used to be a big fan of ECE and its variants. However after practical experimentation I have great skepticism in any method that requires inspection of the D and U faces as you can never see both at once. Not necessarily a deal breaker though. A hurdle...


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 5, 2017)

The R2 heavy nature of ECE and SSC makes me abit wary of them


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2017)

Hey guys I need help making the rest of OP+CMLL. I have a few algs and stuff so far, just through experimentation. here's the link to it. there's a box if you comment on it I'll invite you to edit.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cxz3Scm8WlMHIDLC7nzc0a8RQQCwn38v7G_bsfCySiY/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 5, 2017)

efattah said:


> I used to be a big fan of ECE and its variants. However after practical experimentation I have great skepticism in any method that requires inspection of the D and U faces as you can never see both at once. Not necessarily a deal breaker though. A hurdle...


SSC doesn't need inspection of both faces normally.


Teoidus said:


> The R2 heavy nature of ECE and SSC makes me abit wary of them


Well the only step which is R2 heavy is the CP step otherwise it has basically no R2s. You could also do it like ZZ if you want to turn the R2s into U2s. I've been experimenting recently and it seems quite interesting though I need to look at non-slice variations of the L7E because I don't fancy doing a load of Es and Ss in a speedsolve.

Basically, it's the same(ish) steps but with an x rotation from normal. I've also been thinking about combining it with some of the watermannesque stuff for the last step.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> SSC doesn't need inspection of both faces normally.
> 
> Well the only step which is R2 heavy is the CP step otherwise it has basically no R2s. You could also do it like ZZ if you want to turn the R2s into U2s. I've been experimenting recently and it seems quite interesting though I need to look at non-slice variations of the L7E because I don't fancy doing a load of Es and Ss in a speedsolve.


SSC is an okay method, however we don't really have a very good algorithm-efficient and look-efficient way to do Last 8 edges. the best option I think at the moment for L8E would be edge separation in one alg, then doing EzD(and gen the parity edge cases). Idk how much edge separation cases that is, but I mean it doesn't seem like too many algs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 5, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> SSC is an okay method, however we don't really have a very good algorithm-efficient and look-efficient way to do Last 8 edges. the best option I think at the moment for L8E would be edge separation in one alg, then doing EzD(and gen the parity edge cases). Idk how much edge separation cases that is, but I mean it doesn't seem like too many algs.


Personally, I think that the rouxblocks way is best way that I've really looked into though I'm seeing how the LMCF edges can work with it and it seems promising so far. (there are also a few other things that I'm thinking about but I want to look into viability a bit more before discussing them).


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2017)

Anyway, Lolmethod time: K3
-D layer(easiest to build as Rouxblock->full layer)
-CLL
-F2L with K4 F3L comms
-ELL(I use K4 comms for this)


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 5, 2017)

Yeah, I think: belt+CO, Rouxblocks, CP+ULUR, 4c is probably the the best SSC variant atm


----------



## Neuro (Apr 5, 2017)

What if we build one Roux block while solving the columns (or as a separate step), and insert the edge of the second block while orienting all the edges so you get 4B/C?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2017)

Neuro said:


> What if we build one Roux block while solving the columns (or as a separate step), and insert the edge of the second block while orienting all the edges so you get 4B/C?


because SSC has EO solved already.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 5, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> because SSC has EO solved already.


Oh sorry, forgot to mention it was for ECE


----------



## Neuro (Apr 6, 2017)

So here's a quick example showing ECE into EO Roux blocks and doing 4B/C. 19 moves with an EO alg that probably could've been shorter and I believe that 3 is the max # of moves to insert the FB edge.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 7, 2017)

*2GR Method Text Tutorial 
*
Hey guys, it's actually sorta finished! Sorry this took so long; my procrastination level is 9000+ and schoolwork is hard.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> *2GR Method Text Tutorial
> *
> Hey guys, it's actually sorta finished! Sorry this took so long; my procrastination level is 9000+ and schoolwork is hard.


you have nothing on CPline, the actual hard part of the method to understand.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 7, 2017)

Click on CPLine


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 7, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Click on CPLine


there was nothing an hour ago, now there is.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 7, 2017)

Must be something on your end then, odd. Opened it on my friend's computer a couple minutes after posting and it was fine.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 7, 2017)

Anyway, guys I came up with a method a while back for 6x6+(5x5 sorta) and I made an overview of the method. please tell me what you think!


----------



## Thermex (Apr 8, 2017)

@Shiv3r Seems pretty good, but L4E edge pairing could obviously use some work. What if you only solved and placed three cross edges in their spots, finished paring the rest of your edges, used Hexagonal Fransisco-keyhole F2L and solved the last 10-11 pieces however you wanted to? Would that make L4E edge pairing easier? It seems decent. Also this seriously needs a different name lol


----------



## ThatCubeGuy51 (Apr 8, 2017)

Today I thought of a new method for 3x3.

The method is similar to corners first and is called FCL which stands for
1. First Layer (Build a first layer like you would in beginners method)
2. Corners (Orient and permute the corners in one step, similar to CLL on 2x2)
3. Last Eight Edges (Solve the edges in one step, 2 look and 1 look variations is available)

This is a graphic demonstration of what the cube should look like after each stage.

 After First Layer.
 After Corners.
 After L8E. Solved!

If anyone is good at making algs please help me create the algs for this method. Also tell me in the comment section if you think this method will be better than the beginners method or just how good it generally will be.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Apr 8, 2017)

A few of my freinds use that. It's a really bad method tho....


----------



## ThatCubeGuy51 (Apr 8, 2017)

Rcuber123 said:


> A few of my threads use that. It's a really bad method tho....


Ok, I'll try to make it as good as possible just so I have a method to my name. Thx for the quick reply.

With 2 algs only it might be quite fast...


----------



## Attila (Apr 8, 2017)

ThatCubeGuy51 said:


> Today I thought of a new method for 3x3.
> 
> The method is similar to corners first and is called FCL which stands for
> 1. First Layer (Build a first layer like you would in beginners method)
> ...


This is known, since 1982, as Waterman method.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 9, 2017)

Random probably bad method idea: New setup to Lewis Step 5
1: LR Centers
2: FB
3: D&B centers +DB edge
4: SB (K4/Edge pairing/Blockbuilding) + U&F Centers
5: Lewis Step 5


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 9, 2017)

5LS means 5-Look solve. And no there's 0.5 look. I won't argue about that here let's just say a look is 1 recog 1 alg.

So CFOP is 7 Looks:
1 Cross
4 F2L
1 OLL
1 PLL

Roux is 7:
1 FB (You should be)
2 SB
1 CMLL
3 LSE

Petrus is 6:
2 2x2x3
1 EO
2 F2L
1 LL

ZZ is 6:
1 EOLine
4 F2L
1 LL

Even with 1LLL CFOP has 6 looks.
The lowest we got is 6. That's because our LSLL is always a 2 Look. CT reminds be of CFOP PLL/OLL. It's a 2LSLL just like how OP is a 2LLL. ZZ was a genius by doing EO and that drastically reduced ~4k algs into ~500 algs.
Now what can we do to reduced 1LSLL so that's it's manageable? Sure 1LLL is great and all but it only achieved a 6LS. We don't need to be restricted to LSLL we should be creative about this and not restrict ourselves. What can we do like how ZZ did EOLine to reduce the cases, what can we do to reduce the cases for LSLL so we can achieve 5LS?!

Edit: I did it. I made a 5LS or 5-Look Solve method. Whether you're interested oe just want to see how it works just go find the post 1LLSLL System that has 500 less algs than 1LLL. It's not. I've fixed my math. It's 4339 algs.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 9, 2017)

1. XCross
2. F2L-2
3. F2L-3+EO
4. WV-ish
5. PLL

done

or

1. XCross
2. F2L-2
3. F2L-3
4. ZBLS
5. ZBLL


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 9, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Random probably bad method idea: New setup to Lewis Step 5
> 1: LR Centers
> 2: FB
> 3: D&B centers +DB edge
> ...


This is similar to something I made for 4x4 a while ago. I did LR centers, then 3x3 blocks on like the squares for roux, then BD edge and D&B centers. Then, Centers, 323 and F2L. So, different finish, but similar way building up to it.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 9, 2017)

So here's a lucky solve using beginners variant for WaterRoux, got really lucky with LSE. 42 STM, almost entirely intuitive.


----------



## cuber314159 (Apr 9, 2017)

I think that the top cubers lookahead means they can 1look two F2L pairs at a time so a solve could potentially go like this:

1. Xcross
2. F2L 2+3
3. VLS/ZBLS
4. ZBLL/PLL


----------



## uyneb2000 (Apr 9, 2017)

To begin, I'm assuming you mean "recognition" as recognizing a specific case with an algorithm commonly designated to it. I think the categorization of "look" in F2L is a bit murky due to lookahead. For example, if we can plan out the first one or two pairs in inspection? Shouldn't we count that planning as 1-look? In addition, what if we are able to plan our solution for an F2L pair without even having to recognizing the pair? To elaborate, once you get decent at lookahead, you should be able to track the following F2L pair as you are solving the current one. What this will do is allow you to find the pieces quicker, thus reducing pauses. What it won't necessarily do is allow you to recognize the case significantly quicker, at least in my experience. As I was learning to do lookahead, I could track the pieces, but I still paused just a bit to recognize the case I had. I had to recognize the case and execute the algorithm, your definition of a "look". However, once you get to a certain speed, you don't even need to track necessarily. You just see the positions of the pieces and work out what the next part of your solution without really having to necessarily track the pieces. Most notably, I'd say this can happen when either a corner or edge is in its right place. There's no point in tracking, you just *know* what's going to happen. You're not exactly "recognizing a case", so is it a "look"? In addition, what if you can predict PLL based on the OLL? Is it a look still? What if someone performed a cancellation in a transition between pairs? Is that still 2 looks, or just 1 look. There's so many algorithm/lookahead recognition strategies nowadays that it seems very difficult to really be able to categorize something as a "look".

For clarification, I'm putting your definition of "recognition" and adding "at-the-time recognition", which is what I interpreted it as. This basically means that it requires you to recognize the case when you see it. Some examples of how it could go in CFOP could be down to its greatest reduction:

1. Cross+F2L-1
2. Rest of F2L done via lookahead, no at-the-time recognition required
3. OLL
4. PLL

or even:

1. All of F2L done incredibly fluidly with lookahead. As you solve a pair, you are able to plan the next pair solution without having to do "at-the-time" recognition.
2. OLL
3. PLL

and to it's very limits:

1. All of F2L done via fluid lookahead.
2. 1LLL/ZBLL, as you said.

For elite speedcubers, I'd argue that with lookahead they are probably around the 4/3-look solve right now. Their F2L is so fluid and lacking recog pause that it seems like they just *know* *the moves* to do next, and there's no need to recognize a case, because it's just muscle memory after so much practice. I know I can do that sometimes.

Overall, my point is that what a "look" is nowadays has a ton of gray matter, and it's difficult to really discern what is considered a "look" in a solve anymore, especially on an elite level. That being said, I believe a complete 1LLL set would be interesting to develop, though I believe there'd be little following for it.

But then again, there's always Jabari...


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 9, 2017)

uyneb2000 said:


> To begin, I'm assuming you mean "recognition" as recognizing a specific case with an algorithm commonly designated to it. I think the categorization of "look" in F2L is a bit murky due to lookahead. For example, if we can plan out the first one or two pairs in inspection? Shouldn't we count that planning as 1-look? In addition, what if we are able to plan our solution for an F2L pair without even having to recognizing the pair? To elaborate, once you get decent at lookahead, you should be able to track the following F2L pair as you are solving the current one. What this will do is allow you to find the pieces quicker, thus reducing pauses. What it won't necessarily do is allow you to recognize the case significantly quicker, at least in my experience. As I was learning to do lookahead, I could track the pieces, but I still paused just a bit to recognize the case I had. I had to recognize the case and execute the algorithm, your definition of a "look". However, once you get to a certain speed, you don't even need to track necessarily. You just see the positions of the pieces and work out what the next part of your solution without really having to necessarily track the pieces. Most notably, I'd say this can happen when either a corner or edge is in its right place. There's no point in tracking, you just *know* what's going to happen. You're not exactly "recognizing a case", so is it a "look"? In addition, what if you can predict PLL based on the OLL? Is it a look still? What if someone performed a cancellation in a transition between pairs? Is that still 2 looks, or just 1 look. There's so many algorithm/lookahead recognition strategies nowadays that it seems very difficult to really be able to categorize something as a "look".
> 
> For clarification, I'm putting your definition of "recognition" and adding "at-the-time recognition", which is what I interpreted it as. This basically means that it requires you to recognize the case when you see it. Some examples of how it could go in CFOP could be down to its greatest reduction:
> 
> ...



Yes if you can plan something out like a solution to 2 pairs with just I recog that is 1 Look. F2L in it's most "beginner form" is 4 Looks. You are correct to say that elite speedcubers have reduced some F2L case from 4 to 3 or even to 2 looks.

Just like how LL at its "basic form" is a 2 Look. We need some way to optimise F2L as it is still somewhat "4 looks".

What I define a look is 1 recog and 1 alg.

What the hell does an alg means since we solve some OLLs with a combination of 2 algs? It's kind of hard to explain this like how Sune F sexy F' is better than a 2 looking an OLL.

Okay let's say 1 look is when you recognize then you execute an alg until you can't recognize the next moves anymore. Lookahead does "skip" looks.

Let's say a look is like how many moves you do can blind before you need to stop and check the cube.
Technically SpeedBLD is a 1LS.

Predicting PLL is from OLL is a 1 Look! Because you can execute that algs w/o looking. But it's 2 algs?! Actually the term alg is more of the gray matter here. Tbh we're just solving the cube w/ 1 hell of a long alg.

To summarize a look is you recognize and the moves you execute w/o looking until you need to recognize.

Lookahead is a great "cheat" since we, well, LOOKAHEAD. Think about looking looking ahead in 5LS Method.


----------



## TDM (Apr 9, 2017)

This is assuming no lookahead. In reality, counting the number of "looks" is absolutely pointless, since people aren't going to be pausing 4 times during F2L. In fact many people don't usually pause once during F2L. Counting pauses makes far more sense:

CFOP: 2 pauses (OLL recog, PLL recog)
Roux: 1 pause (CMLL recog)
ZZ: 1-2 pauses depending on LSLL variant

(this is assuming an intermediate level of solving, not including tricks like OLL/PLL/CMLL prediction. Many advanced solvers may not even need to pause at all)


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 9, 2017)

Here's a crazy, not-quite-woken-up-yet-this-morning idea:
1. EOLine
2. Corners (this wouldn't need to be split in two, would it?)
3. L10E. This is the tricky one. The simple way would be use 3-gen setup moves to place 3 or 4 edges with U, H, or Z perms. That would essentially make this step 3 looks, for a total of 5, unless you get a skip. I haven't figured out the move count or even the alg count to do, for example, DR, DL, FR, and FL edges in one alg, then do an x' or y2 rotation and finish L6E in another single alg. I'm not at all convinced about the usefulness of this method as a speedsolving method, but it could meet the goal of 5 looks or less. You would be giving up a lot by being forced to solve the corners with RUL to preserve EOLine.


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 9, 2017)

TDM said:


> This is assuming no lookahead. In reality, counting the number of "looks" is absolutely pointless, since people aren't going to be pausing 4 times during F2L. In fact many people don't usually pause once during F2L. Counting pauses makes far more sense:
> 
> CFOP: 2 pauses (OLL recog, PLL recog)
> Roux: 1 pause (CMLL recog)
> ...



Look is how much you can do brain dead that's why less looks can be "good". *Look is so arbirtrary and everyone seems to have diff
meanings. Let's just it's how much you do brain dead with one look at the cube. A literal look, how much can you discern from that info and how can you get while doing brain dead. That's why lookahead is great since we start looking to something else that's why less looks can be efficient(assuming you use an optimal alg). Looks can be sort of thought like a step. LIKE ONE. So the less of it is great. Like how 2Ling and 2x2 "is" less better than 1Ling it.


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 9, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> Here's a crazy, not-quite-woken-up-yet-this-morning idea:
> 1. EOLine
> 2. Corners (this wouldn't need to be split in two, would it?)
> 3. L10E. This is the tricky one. The simple way would be use 3-gen setup moves to place 3 or 4 edges with U, H, or Z perms. That would essentially make this step 3 looks, for a total of 5, unless you get a skip. I haven't figured out the move count or even the alg count to do, for example, DR, DL, FR, and FL edges in one alg, then do an x' or y2 rotation and finish L6E in another single alg. I'm not at all convinced about the usefulness of this method as a speedsolving method, but it could meet the goal of 5 looks or less. You would be giving up a lot by being forced to solve the corners with RUL to preserve EOLine.



Corners can be 1Looked but since edges parity are not solve there's 8! x 3^7 cases.

We also want method feasible. But that many algs just to master that method will take too long. Even if you did reduce the case during EOLine but I may be wrong.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 9, 2017)

LexCubing said:


> Corners can be 1Looked but since edges parity are not solve there's 8! x 3^7 cases.
> 
> We also want method feasible. But that many algs just to master that method will take too long. Even if you did reduce the case during EOLine but I may be wrong.


L10E would almost certainly need to be split. I'm not much for cube math, but I'm certain that you would drastically reduce the number of cases by EO, and if you could do it in 2 looks, which I think is possible, that's still a total of 4 looks.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 9, 2017)

LexCubing said:


> The lowest we got is 6.


The lowest we've actually got is 1 look for the entire solve. It's just a lot more difficult.


Spoiler: 1 look 3x3 solves


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 9, 2017)

3 ideas:
CP with TSLE- use a TSLE tree (see below) to get to one of the 3 move cases and finish TSLE and CP with one alg.
http://gyroninja.net/files/tsle.pdf
Improved Hexagonal Francisco
1) CP and Hexagon- possible, but a stretch. My idea is to build the 1x2x3 on D at the back and insert DLF like in 2-gen redux
2a) 3 belt edges
2b) Insert last edge whilst forcing arrow 4-flip case (like BLS, optional)
3) L5C
4) L5E
Francisco style big cube method 
I don't know if or how this would work.


----------



## One Wheel (Apr 10, 2017)

Slightly off topic, but this is the thread that got me thinking about it. If you ignore setup moves the following are possibilities for solving up to 10 oriented edges:
3 edges: 3-cycle
A: cw
B: ccw
4: double swap
5: 5-cycle
A: 1 space cw
B: 2 spaces cw
C: 3 spaces
D: 2 spaces ccw
E: 1 space ccw
6: 2 3-cycles
7: a 7-cycle (7 possibilities, similar to a 5-cycle)
Or
A 3-cycle and a double swap
8: a 5-cycle and a 3-cycle
Or
2 double swaps 
9: a 9-cycle (9 possible)
Or
A double swap and a 5-cycle
Or
3 3-cycles
10: 2 5-cycles
Or
2 3-cycles and a double swap
Or
A 3-cycle and a 7-cycle

That's 23 algs and an excellent understanding of commutators to make my method work. And recognition that would make Feliks squirm. Piece of cake. Never more than 3 algs to solve the L10E.


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 10, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> The lowest we've actually got is 1 look for the entire solve. It's just a lot more difficult.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 1 look 3x3 solves



Yup we already did, I even said SpeedBLD is 1Look.


Can someone calculate how many Unique LSLL cases if the F2L corner is already in, CO is not solved but EO is solved and CP as well. I think I've finally thought of a method:


First is EOS (EOLine Setup)
Training to 1L this will be hard but it will be great. You solve the EOLine while putting the DFR and DBR in their respective places ignoring orientation. Note this step must be EOS not EOLine+S like how EOLine vs EO+Line.

Next you solve the LBD square, if the edges are stuck where is the DR corners are just do an alg. That's just 3 x 12 algs.

Next solve the final left pair with an alg that solves CP and preserves the DR corners if the edge needed is stuck there. Note: DR corners just need need to stay where they are, no need to preserve orientation. This is 21 F2L cases x 6 CP cases + (6 x 6) cases wherein the edge is stuck. Someone help developing a better CP recog.

Next solve the back right square with alg that preserves DFR corner. 3 x 12 cases since the edge can be AUF if it's at the top. (Edge is stuck) There's 9 cases if one edge is stuck, just AUF the free edge. And 9 more cases if both are free thanks to AUF.

Last step is to solve LSLL.

# of Looks:
1 EOS
1 BL Square
1 CP2S
1 BR Square
1 LSLL

5!


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 10, 2017)

A better 5 look method:

X-cross
F2L Pair
F2L Pair
ZBLS
ZBLL
Or even better:

EOLine and plan pair
First block
Square
Finish F2L
ZBLL


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 10, 2017)

you cited petrus 3x2x2 as 2 looks, when it could actually be only 1 look, which satisfies your 5-look requirement


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 10, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> you cited petrus 3x2x2 as 2 looks, wq hen it could actually be only 1 look, which satisfies your 5-look requirement



Imagine doing that with a 5LS, effectively making it a 4LS.

Do you know how many LSLL cases are there if the F2L corner is in (its orientation can be any of the 3 states) and EO and CP is solved?


----------



## Hazel (Apr 10, 2017)

I thought about a Last Slot subset that's a combination of Magic Wondeful (that's how it's spelled, no R) and Tripod, where you insert the Last Slot and solve Last Layer at the same time if there's a solved 2x2x1 block anywhere on the top layer.

Example setup: R2 D R' U R2 D2 F D F2 R F
Solving algorithm: F' R' F2 D' F' D2 R2 U' R D' R2

Anyone know how many algorithms this would be?


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 10, 2017)

I think this is called tripod


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I thought about a Last Slot subset that's a combination of Magic Wondeful (that's how it's spelled, no R) and Tripod, where you insert the Last Slot and solve Last Layer at the same time if there's a solved 2x2x1 block anywhere on the top layer.
> 
> Example setup: R2 D R' U R2 D2 F D F2 R F
> Solving algorithm: F' R' F2 D' F' D2 R2 U' R D' R2
> ...


a lot. look at NLS, that is 12 algs and then like 60 in 2 looks with edges oriented at least 12*60 algs.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> 3 ideas:
> CP with TSLE- use a TSLE tree (see below) to get to one of the 3 move cases and finish TSLE and CP with one alg.
> http://gyroninja.net/files/tsle.pdf
> Improved Hexagonal Francisco
> ...


Francisco big cube method, there are two:
1.Meyer variant, where after edge pairing you complete the hexagon and then do HF
2.HF-4, a variant by me. Basically you do a Roux block, then insert the DFL corner, then insert 1 wing edge int each F3L slot, insert the last D corner, then finish with K4 F3L, then CLL and L5E(Last 5 edges or Lewis 5 edges)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Random probably bad method idea: New setup to Lewis Step 5
> 1: LR Centers
> 2: FB
> 3: D&B centers +DB edge
> ...


 Lemme try a few solves with this. It may have potential, especially since right now I am playing around with K4 a lot and have fallen in love with F3L.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 10, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I think this is called tripod



I'm pretty sure Tripod is where it's just the last layer (with the 2x2x1 block), this is turning it into a LSLL subset


----------



## Hazel (Apr 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> a lot. look at NLS, that is 12 algs and then like 60 in 2 looks with edges oriented at least 12*60 algs.


What is NLS? I can't find it on the Speedsolving wiki or anywhere else on Google.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2017)

Aerma said:


> What is NLS? I can't find it on the Speedsolving wiki or anywhere else on Google.


Ask Neuro. its also called ZZ-tripod, invented a few months ago by Neuro.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Ask Neuro. its also called ZZ-tripod, invented a few months ago by Neuro.


It sounds different from I'm proposing. ZZ-tripod preserves the 2x2x1 block while inserting the F2L pair, then uses an alg to solve Last Layer, but what I'm saying is solving Last Layer (with the 2x2x1) WHILE inserting the pair. I wouldn't think it would be too many algs because excluding the F2L pair, there's only 5 scrambled pieces.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2017)

Aerma said:


> It sounds different from I'm proposing. ZZ-tripod preserves the 2x2x1 block while inserting the F2L pair, then uses an alg to solve Last Layer, but what I'm saying is solving Last Layer (with the 2x2x1) WHILE inserting the pair. I wouldn't think it would be too many algs because excluding the F2L pair, there's only 5 scrambled pieces.


with just the LL, there are 85 or so algs for tripod. It may be the same for the LS idea, but I doubt it. so the minimum number is 85 algs.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 10, 2017)

@Aerma I should probably make an official thread for ZZ-Tripod, I've gotten quite a few questions on it. But basically you do ZZ until F2L-1, and form a 2x2x1 on the top, forming the tripod. From there, you use one of 35 algs to solve LS while preserving top block (NLS) and then use one of 50 ZBLL's (subset called TELL) and it's mostly made for people wanting to learn ZBLL. 80 algs where 5 of the TELL's are PLL's, and NLS uses a lot of common triggers/algs similar to TSLE. Here's an example solve, and here's the algsheet. Looking to get better algs and hopefully generate stats on probabilities of skipping steps.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 10, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Lemme try a few solves with this. It may have potential, especially since right now I am playing around with K4 a lot and have fallen in love with F3L.


Looking back on it that proposal was just as I predicted: bad. What I'd probably do is L/R centers, FB, centers+DB, then F3L or otherwise to solve the rest of the F2L so you can use Lewis step 5. However, I'd say that unless you really want to do this variant, you'd probably be better off doing a Yau/Hoya variant where you leave out FD and then do F3L while still getting to Lewis Step 5.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Looking back on it that proposal was just as I predicted: bad. What I'd probably do is L/R centers, FB, centers+DB, then F3L or otherwise to solve the rest of the F2L so you can use Lewis step 5. However, I'd say that unless you really want to do this variant, you'd probably be better off doing a Yau/Hoya variant where you leave out FD and then do F3L while still getting to Lewis Step 5.


becuz Lewis step 5 is fun. and the F3L thing you are talking about is HF-4, but that's K4 with leaving one edge out.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> here's the algsheet. Looking to get better algs



Some alternative algs (not necessarily better):

C3: (U2) L' U R' U' (L R) U2 R' U' R
(just the inverse of the one you have in the spreadsheet at a different angle)

E4: R U R' L' U2 R U' R' U' R U' M' x'

G11: (U) R (U D') R U R' D R2 U' R U R2 U2 R'
(actually a conjugated J perm)

G12: (U) x' U' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R U x
(it's a V perm!)


----------



## Thermex (Apr 11, 2017)

Hey I just finished the DFR- set for TEG today! The link to the PDF is at the bottom of this post.
I'm pretty lazy/busy so there's no pictures or anything, just the names of the cases and the algorithms. The algorithms are in the same order as the cases in cyotheking's TCLL- doc, so open that if you want to see the case that corresponds with the alg: http://www.cyotheking.com/tcll-1/
I'm pretty sure there are no mistakes in any of the algs, but if you find any, tell me (I kinda doubt anybody's gonna actually go through all of them though). anyway the algs turned out really well for my second or third time generating algorithms, I'm pretty sure the cases averaged around 8.6 moves or something, but about a fourth of them had a y' rotation in them because a lot of cases could be solved quicker that way. There were also a lot of 2-gen algs (~15% of them were 2-gen), and only 2 or 3 algs included L moves and were 4-gen. I found all of the cases to be pretty fast and easy, although there are a couple of algs in the gun set that really suck, maybe someone could help with those. Otherwise I can EASILY sub 2 all of these and pretty easily sub 1.5 most of them. Only 3 more TEG sets left and TEG- is done  Also when there's an "a" alg and a "b" alg side-by-side, they're two decently equal algs that both work for one case.

@Shiv3r I've been experimenting with different ways of doing Fransisco on big cubes and many of them seem to have potential. This is my favorite idea so far for 5-7:

1. Centers
2. Solve a 1×2×3 roux-style block on the d-layer, leaving the FD edge unsolved
3. Finish pairing 7 more edges (all edges but two u-layer edges)
4. Add the DFL corner to your 1×2×3 block, creating a "hexagon"
4. Solve three e-layer edges with HF F2L
5. Do two algorithms that solve the rest of the pieces (everything except for the two unpaired edges)
6. Solve the last two edges with some alg/commutator. This step might suck/have way too many algorithms, and in that case you could just pair all the remaining edges in step 2 and solve step 5 like normal HF.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 11, 2017)

Theory: There are some Roux solvers who can plan out FB and DR edge. That's solving 6 pieces. Most can plan out FB, which is 5. In Petrus, you solve 4 and then 3, so 7. What if instead of extending 2x2x2 to a 2x2x3 in Petrus, your first step solved 2x2x2+1 cross edge? Theoretically you could plan it in inspection, as it's 5 pieces being solved (hence Roux FB) And from there you can finish the solve in a ton of different ways while improving the ergonomics of Petrus. Here's a solve of it. Any thoughts? (Used OLLCP because it was nice)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2017)

Neuro said:


> or you could just use petrus-ish theory


pootris is better tbh. Pootris is FB->DFDB+centers, and while solving DFDB if you can solve EO sometimes, thats great. But at least tracking DFDB is super easy.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 12, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Theory: There are some Roux solvers who can plan out FB and DR edge. That's solving 6 pieces. Most can plan out FB, which is 5. In Petrus, you solve 4 and then 3, so 7. What if instead of extending 2x2x2 to a 2x2x3 in Petrus, your first step solved 2x2x2+1 cross edge? Theoretically you could plan it in inspection, as it's 5 pieces being solved (hence Roux FB) And from there you can finish the solve in a ton of different ways while improving the ergonomics of Petrus. Here's a solve of it. Any thoughts? (Used OLLCP because it was nice)


There are a handful of people who can plan the entire 2x2x3, but what I think some Petrus solvers do after planning the 2x2x2 is to trace the corners and predict where useful pairs will land up (possibly inserting moves or adapting the 2x2x2 solution to make it easier). This leaves just one edge to find and insert to finish the 2x2x3.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2017)

Hey guys. Here are some things I am working on right now. Most of these are for big cubes.
1.(4x4)I am working on a Spreadsheet of CMLL while solving OLL parity at the same time for Meyer. all of the algs so far(and most of the algs overall probably) Are in the form _*setup* Lucasparity/Pure Parity *postmoves*_, where either the setup or the postmoves are optional. the solves where I use the OP+CMLL I have learned so far are usually my faster parity solves.  description and rant about it here
2.(4x4) just a random headcannon, but @Teoidus among others use CF3L, doing Hoyacross then insert corners and F3L is fun.
3.(5x5) This is something I am totally using right now. I call it Yau5 Shiv3r's variation. Basically after doing L4C instead of solving the 4th cross edge, then after freestyle first 4 edges and then some weird insert 2 edges and then do AvG, like you do in Yau5, you go straight into edge pairing after the L4C with only 3 cross dedges. Place the first or second cross tredge you solve in the cross slot using these two algs(missing spot at DR):
tredge in FR: R U R U' R2
tredge in RB: R' U R' U' R2
then when you get to L4E, you can do the same L4E in the M slice as you would Freeslice, by bringing up edges with U2's(in this variant of YAu5 you gotta bring it up to the missing cross tredge spot first). Then you solve the 4th cross tredge(finding it when finishing up L4E is nice), then do CFOP. here's a video explaining it
4.(Skewb) This "corners first" method is a convenience method like TCLL for 2x2, where you use it only when useful. basically you solve 4 corners relative to each other, then do Sarah's intermediate(make sure the center isn't in the D layer) then do L5C(I 2look it, but probably a good Idea to learn the L5C)

EDIT: please tell me what you think of all of these things.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 12, 2017)

Weird idea: HF for OH? It actually doesn't seem too bad. Roux solvers won't have a problem making the hexagon, and F2L is pseudo 2 gen. The only thing from there is how to finish the solve. Maybe Hexagon, F2L -1, insert last cross edge while orienting all other edges (pseudo 2 gen or MU), TSLE and TTLL?

EDIT: Here's a solve I did. I am a right handed OH solver. Probably could've been more efficient but it should give you the idea. Algs for EO+DF need to be made, on this solve I just inserted and used an OLLCP. Another thing you can do is insert LS+DF and finish with OLL/PLL. I'd probably do the OG variant because it won't mess with 2 gen solves, is theoretically better to fingertrick, and should have zero rotations.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 13, 2017)

I feel like this would be a SUPER good replacement to ZBLL for people who dont want to learn 500 algs, it uses only a little over 100 algs and you can 3-look the last slot+last layer in about 25-26 moves with way better regocnition than ZBLL.

1. Insert your last slot corner in a random orientation and orient the edges (~6 moves with about 16 algs)
2. Twist the corner in it's slot so that it's solved and orient the rest of the corners (~8 moves with about 16 algs)
3. ZZ-HW last layer (~11-12 moves with 72 algorithms)

I really think this has potential, but hopefully someone out there has a document of ZZ-HW algs, that would help a lot. This could also have lots of potential for HF OH:

1. Hexagon+3 e-layer edges (every e-layer edge-FR)
2. Orient all six remaining edges while putting the LS corner in its slot in a random orientation (probably around 20-30 algs)
3. Permute the last 5 corners (TCOLL, only 86 additional algs)
4. L6EP (completely 2-gen, 86 algorithms)

I feel like this method has serious potential, anyone want to work with me on it/give some feedback on what I just said?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 13, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I feel like this would be a SUPER good replacement to ZBLL for people who dont want to learn 500 algs, it uses only a little over 100 algs and you can 3-look the last slot+last layer in about 25-26 moves with way better regocnition than ZBLL.
> 
> 1. Insert your last slot corner in a random orientation and orient the edges (~7 moves with about 24 algs)
> 2. Twist the corner in it's slot so that it's solved and orient the rest of the edges (~8 moves with about 16 algs)
> ...


ZZ-HW was the precursor to ZZ-CT, and is much more inefficient alg-wise iirc.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 13, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I feel like this would be a SUPER good replacement to ZBLL for people who dont want to learn 500 algs, it uses only a little over 100 algs and you can 3-look the last slot+last layer in about 25-26 moves with way better regocnition than ZBLL.
> 
> 1. Insert your last slot corner in a random orientation and orient the edges (~7 moves with about 24 algs)
> 2. Twist the corner in it's slot so that it's solved and orient the rest of the edges (~8 moves with about 16 algs)
> ...


1st proposal:I assume this is used with HF? And in step 2 the orientation shouldn't be necessary b/c it was done in step1? ZZ-HW as far as I know has no official documentation, and I think that it had a few really bad cases along with poor recog so you may not wish to pursue it.
2nd proposal:Orienting all edges doesn't have that many cases, but I'd recommend a specified place for your corner to go. Assuming you keep the corner in a constant spot, you'd only have 32 cases. Also, TCOLL would have far more than 42 algs assuming I am reading it correctly. COLL has 42, TCLL+/- have 43 each. L6EP won't have 86 algs though, it'd only have like 18. You'd only have the 7 EPLL's and 11 L5EP's.

Oh and for DF+EO, if you keep the edge in a specific slot (preferrably in FL/R), it takes ~3 moves to set up and case recog improves drastically. Alternatively you can hold it in DF/DB, but it may increase movecount. Not sure though, still need to gen algs.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 14, 2017)

Neuro said:


> 1st proposal:I assume this is used with HF? And in step 2 the orientation shouldn't be necessary b/c it was done in step1? ZZ-HW as far as I know has no official documentation, and I think that it had a few really bad cases along with poor recog so you may not wish to pursue it.
> 2nd proposal:Orienting all edges doesn't have that many cases, but I'd recommend a specified place for your corner to go. Assuming you keep the corner in a constant spot, you'd only have 32 cases. Also, TCOLL would have far more than 42 algs assuming I am reading it correctly. COLL has 42, TCLL+/- have 43 each. L6EP won't have 86 algs though, it'd only have like 18. You'd only have the 7 EPLL's and 11 L5EP's.
> 
> Oh and for DF+EO, if you keep the edge in a specific slot (preferrably in FL/R), it takes ~3 moves to set up and case recog improves drastically. Alternatively you can hold it in DF/DB, but it may increase movecount. Not sure though, still need to gen algs.



I screwed up a lot of stuff there, step 2 I meant to say orient the rest of the corners, also TCOLL is 125 if you include COLL with it. I was also thinking all of this would be done with the FR slot. Wait but why would L6EP only be 18 algs now? That doesn't make sense. I also think ZZHW should be explored more for this to work.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 14, 2017)

Oh wait I'm sorry! I forgot that DF isn't solved! So yes, it's still the normal L6EP alg count. As for ZZHW, you'd need to make the algs for that as I don't think any of the algs were released. You should probably start with the conjugated PLL's though.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 14, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Oh wait I'm sorry! I forgot that DF isn't solved! So yes, it's still the normal L6EP alg count. As for ZZHW, you'd need to make the algs for that as I don't think any of the algs were released. You should probably start with the conjugated PLL's though.


I know I'm gonna sound really stupid but I kinda don't get what a conjugated PLL is ;( also Im gonna need some help generating HW cases, I'm already pretty busy with the TEG algs.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 14, 2017)

Ok so basically it'll look something like this. It's an EPLL, but you start off by doing a "setup" move (let's call this move "A"). From there, you perform an alg (let's call this "B") and finally, you reverse your setup move and you should be able to solve the rest very easily. Basically if we look at it from the letter standpoint, it looks something like this: A, B, A'; where A' represents a reversal of the initial A move/setup. You can do multiple moves to setup, but starting with those that only have 1 move will be a lot easier overall.

It gets a little more complicated than this, but this should at least give you a basic idea of how it works. Ryan Heise has a lot of good information on commutators/conjugates on his website.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 14, 2017)

Oh ok thats really simple, I do that all the time, I just didn't know what it's called. I'll start making those.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 14, 2017)

Here's a solve proving the true potential of WaterRoux. The solve was fairly average and still got under 40 moves while over half of the solve was pseudo 2 gen and over 75% of the solve was simply algorithmic and/or intuitive.
U R' D2 L B L' y//FB (6/6)
R2 U y' U R' U2 R' F R F' R y//Corners (10/16)
M U2 M2 U R2 U M2 U'//ERL (8/24)
r U' M U R2 M U M U2 M U' M2 U2 R'//L7E (14/38)


----------



## Zanaso (Apr 14, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Here's a solve proving the true potential of WaterRoux. The solve was fairly average and still got under 40 moves while over half of the solve was pseudo 2 gen and over 75% of the solve was simply algorithmic and/or intuitive.
> U R' D2 L B L' y//FB (6/6)
> R2 U y' U R' U2 R' F R F' R y//Corners (10/16)
> M U2 M2 U R2 U M2 U'//ERL (8/24)
> r U' M U R2 M U M U2 M U' M2 U2 R'//L7E (14/38)


wtf is the other 25%? surely 100% of all solves are intuitive and algorithmic?


----------



## Thermex (Apr 14, 2017)

Zanaso said:


> wtf is the other 25%? surely 100% of all solves are intuitive and algorithmic?


Lol I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I read that


----------



## Gold Cuber (Apr 14, 2017)

i did once create a corners first method, but it takes about 10 minutes to solve. if you want to see how to do it, (2 algs) reply telling me


----------



## Neuro (Apr 14, 2017)

Alright alright I misspoke  over 75% was algorithmic


----------



## Thermex (Apr 14, 2017)

@Neuro that was a pretty funny mistake, it's fine though  for WaterRoux L9E do you think there could be some way of solving the last 9 edges similar to Crafto's method? Also I still like the idea for HF I came up with and think it's the best way to end an HF solve invented so far, but I was thinking for CFOP maybe another ZBLL replacement could be:

1. Cross+1 corner (adds one or two additional moves to the cross and forms a fish shape on the d-layer)
2. Last 3 pairs
3. Holding the unsolved slot in front, do a step where you orient all pieces including the edge in the slot with the corner you solved with the cross (114 algorithms since FR edge can be flipped one of two ways and there are 57 OLL cases)
4. ZZ-HW last layer (again, algorithms need to be generated for this and it would probably be ~12 moves per alg)


----------



## Hazel (Apr 14, 2017)

New way to solve AUFs:
Once you solve PLL, if you have any AUF, just do this until the AUF is solved:
Y perm, E perm, Ua perm
Much better than regular AUF methods


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 14, 2017)

Serious suggestion?


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 14, 2017)

why dont u do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move in the PLL?

and then you can do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move of the Y perm, E perm, Ua perm

and then you can do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move of the Y perm, E perm, Ua perm

and then you can do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move of the Y perm, E perm, Ua perm

and then you can do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move of the Y perm, E perm, Ua perm

and then you can do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move of the Y perm, E perm, Ua perm

and then you can do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move of the Y perm, E perm, Ua perm

and then you can do Y perm, E perm, Ua perm for every single move of the Y perm, E perm, Ua perm


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 14, 2017)

Don't have much time to elaborate on this idea atm, I'll be back soon to explain some more but basically I was bored during a lecture and came up with this:
1. FB (8/8)
2. Belt + CO (9/17)
3. CP, details coming soon, 18 algs (6/23)
4. DR edge + influence L6E (4/27)
5. L6E (12/39)


----------



## Neuro (Apr 14, 2017)

Wait how exactly are you influencing L6E? It seem like L6E should take more moves than that.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 14, 2017)

Probably getting a favorable EOLR case.

Though, I think his movecounts are a little optimistic


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Probably getting a favorable EOLR case.
> 
> Though, I think his movecounts are a little optimistic


Ya I think I'm pushing it a little when it comes to move count. Idk tho, a lot of the CP cases would be as little as 3 moves... Any other parts that may be unrealistic?


----------



## Hazel (Apr 15, 2017)

An idea I came up with (probably really bad):
1) Solve Roux 1x2x3 block on left
2) Solve remaining 6 corners
3) L9E (many cases)

You could also decrease the amount of L9E algorithms/cases to an extent by solving any D layer edges that can be solved with just M and U moves in between steps 2 and 3 (because total L9E cases - all L9E cases where there's an unsolved D layer edge that can be solved with M and U moves = a slightly smaller number of L9E cases).

Pros:
- Uses 3 looks total at least, more if you can't one-look the Roux block, the corners, and L9E
- According to my one example solve, it doesn't use too many moves if you're really efficient

Cons:
- Quite a bit of L9E cases
- taking advantage of the pros of this method requires a lot of skill

Example solve:
Scramble: F2 L B2 L R' B R' B2 F U L' F2 D2 L R2 F U' B R2

1) z2 U R' B2 U2 F D F D2 (8/37)
2) U F R' F2 U' F R U2 R2 U (10/37)
2.5) M' U2 M U2 (4/37)
3) y R F U F2 U D R' D' F' U' F U' F U R' (15/37)


----------



## Thermex (Apr 15, 2017)

Aerma said:


> An idea I came up with (probably really bad):
> 1) Solve Roux 1x2x3 block on left
> 2) Solve remaining 6 corners
> 3) L9E (many cases)
> ...


@Aerma This is EXACTLY what everyone here was been working on for the past couple of weeks. It's been determined for L6C the fastest way is TEG (Twisty EG) but we're still working on ways of solving L9E. (Btw in case you didn't know this method is called WaterRoux).


----------



## Hazel (Apr 15, 2017)

Oh sorry, I thought WaterRoux was something different!
Every time I come up with some method idea, it's either taken, really bad, or not original enough :/


----------



## Neuro (Apr 15, 2017)

I'm working on the DF+EO algs right now, if anyone want to help out PM me your email. Here's the sheet, note that DF is in the FR slot. I'd like to keep all the algs using <R,r,U,> if possible.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 15, 2017)

Is this new?:
1) Solve Petrus block + 1x1x3 bar connected to it
2) Solve remaining 4 corners
3) L6E

Kinda similar to WaterRoux, but instead of a Roux block it's a Petrus block (+ a bit more), meaning a longer first step but only L6E instead of L9E/L7E, and a lot less corner cases with this, too, only 42!

I was also thinking of a variant where it's a Petrus block + ONE edge instead of a whole 1x1x3 block, so the first step wouldn't take quite as long, but you need to solve 6 corners as opposed to 4.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 15, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Oh sorry, I thought WaterRoux was something different!
> Every time I come up with some method idea, it's either taken, really bad, or not original enough :/


Hey being the creator of WaterRoux, NLS, and one of the creators of NS4, I can honestly say that good ideas are fairly rare even for the best method designers. All of us have had our duds, my first proposals were absolutely awful (ZZ with UL/UR in the line to do LSE and an awful WVCP-based method) and most ideas don't get very far. The key is to always keep trying. If you push through all of the failed attempts, you'll find what works and what doesn't, and be able to use that knowledge to create something great. It's all about tenacity and learning from your mistakes. So don't worry, you'll probably come up with something good in time!

EDIT: Aerma, here are the official steps to WaterRoux

1-FB
2-Corners
3-ERL: Solve 2 or more R layer edges (Edged of Right Layer)
4-LxE: The highest possible amount of edges is 7, but L6 and L5 edges is common

There seems to be a misconception that it's L9E. It kinda is, but it's in 2 sections and is not truly L9E.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2017)

Another method I thought might be good:
1. FB (8/8)
2. Orient the remaining E-slice edges and orient the edges at DF and DB (4/12)
3. Solve the E-slice and orient the rest of the D-layer (9/21)
4. OLL, lower move count due to not having to preserve F2L (7/28)
5. CP (6/34)
6. L7EP (12/46)

Easy recog, more algs tho (57 for OLL + 18 for CP)


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 15, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Ya I think I'm pushing it a little when it comes to move count. Idk tho, a lot of the CP cases would be as little as 3 moves... Any other parts that may be unrealistic?


I'm skeptical of the CP, belt+CO, and DR+influence estimates

Though, I could still see it getting movecounts comparable to roux


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I'm skeptical of the CP, belt+CO, and DR+influence estimates
> 
> Though, I could still see it getting movecounts comparable to roux


Ya I tried generating algs and I was totally off in terms of CP. The algs are bad and so is recog, I'm scrapping the whole idea.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 16, 2017)

So I had the idea of trying to find a bunch of Last Layer cases that could be solved with one look by using 2 easy OLL cases instead of OLL then PLL, and have easy recognition. I think Kirjava proposed something like this before, but I don't remember it fully; I think his version didn't have any algorithms or something? Anyway, I found 2 already, if anyone wants to comment on them.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 16, 2017)

Hey guys I'm trying to find a good way of implementing Guimond (2x2 method) into something for 3x3. Any suggestions?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 16, 2017)

Something like this possibly:
1. Three E-slice edges and three oriented corners on D (8 moves)
2. CO (around 4 moves, according to the Guimond wiki page)
3. Corner separation (3 moves average according to the Guimond wiki)
4. CP + DL edge (8.5 moves)
5. L7E (17 moves)
Total: 39.5 moves on average. Did I get anything wrong?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 16, 2017)

Sorry I did get something wrong, it's an L8E finish, probably closer to 42 moves total. Still good I guess. Not the sub-40 I was looking for.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 16, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Something like this possibly:
> 1. Three E-slice edges and three oriented corners on D (8 moves)
> 2. CO (around 4 moves, according to the Guimond wiki page)
> 3. Corner separation (3 moves average according to the Guimond wiki)
> ...


Hm, I'm not sure if corner separation in 3 moves is possible while preserving the E slice.

Also, having generated random CP algs in the past I'm tempted to say CP + DL will be more around 10-11 moves. That's just a guess though.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 16, 2017)

Okay guys, I have already converted some Freeslice Users to this big cube method I call 3dux (Threedux) .
Basically it's a variation of Yaudux(I used to call "Gay redux" turns out it has already been named), and I suggest using it on 6x6+ however you can do it on 5x5.(I main it on 6x6 but not 5x5).
so here are the steps:
1.Centers
2.with freeslice, pair up 3 cross edges and place them correctly
3.freeslice 5 more edges, and place the first edge you solve on the D layer with the intuitive 5-move Shiv3r's variation algs I posted earlier
4. A modified M-slice Freeslice L4E, where when you need to "flip" two pieces with a U2, adjust with a big wide move so you don't disturb the 3 cross dedges and do a U2. besides that it's basically normal Freeslice L4E
5. Solve 3x3, by first solving the 4th cross edge. You can usually track the cross dedge's position while finishing L4E.

any Questions/Critique? Me and Pedro Seca are the only people who I know who main this method at the moment.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 17, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Hm, I'm not sure if corner separation in 3 moves is possible while preserving the E slice.
> 
> Also, having generated random CP algs in the past I'm tempted to say CP + DL will be more around 10-11 moves. That's just a guess though.


Even whilst preserving the E-slice it's 4 moves at most, and that's including AUF. The idea was bad though, so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 17, 2017)

New LSLL idea:
1. Orient three U-layer corners, intuitive (4/4)
2. Finish F2L and solve CP, 36 cases with good recog, same as TTLL for the corners (8/12)
3. ELL, 29 cases (9/21)

Compared to regular LSLL:
1. Finish F2L (7/7)
2. OLL (9/16)
3. PLL (12/28)

Saves 7 moves and only requires 65 algs compared to CFOP's 78


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 18, 2017)

Neuro said:


> ". . . my first proposals were absolutely awful (ZZ with UL/UR in the line to do LSE . . ."


Why is this bad? It's just ZZ-L6E. I found out about it a little while ago and have used it over ZZ-VH since (I switch methods incessantly). Are you just talking about in terms of compared to ZZ-CT and such? Also, I'm planning on learning WVCP (and probably SVCP) for the R U' R' (and R U R') case(s) to increase COLL skips from 1/162 to 1/27 (I use way too many parentheses).


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 18, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Why is this bad? It's just ZZ-L6E. I found out about it a little while ago and have used it over ZZ-VH since (I switch methods incessantly). Are you just talking about in terms of compared to ZZ-CT and such? Also, I'm planning on learning WVCP (and probably SVCP) for the R U' R' (and R U R') case(s) to increase COLL skips from 1/162 to 1/27 (I use way too many parentheses).


Yeah honestly ZZ-L6E seems pretty good. L6EP is like 9 moves, only a bit higher than EPLL which is like 7.5, so why not?


----------



## Thermex (Apr 18, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> New LSLL idea:
> 1. Orient three U-layer corners, intuitive (4/4)
> 2. Finish F2L and solve CP, 36 cases with good recog, same as TTLL for the corners (8/12)
> 3. ELL, 29 cases (9/21)
> ...



I like this idea, but are you sure about the alg count and recogniton for step 2? It seems a bit off to me (I might be wrong). You might want to check that out.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 18, 2017)

Okay so I was looking into L5C and stuff and basically here's what I came up with:

1) F2L-1. Anywhere from 18 to 30 moves depending on the method.

1.5) If edges are not already oriented, orient them whilst inserting the FR edge. 3 moves at most for Heise, ZZ, Petrus, etc. Around 6 moves for non-EO first methods.

2) Orient three U-layer corners. 7 moves, mostly intuitive.

3) Solve the corners. 9 moves, 16 cases.

4. EPLL. About 7 moves, 4 easy cases.

This would give a 26 move LSLL (versus 23 for pair + COLL + EPLL) for EO first methods, or 29 (versus 28 for pair + OLL + PLL) for non-EO first methods. This is done with only 20 algs and produces solutions that are only very slightly less efficient than regular LSLL.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 18, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I like this idea, but are you sure about the alg count and recogniton for step 2? It seems a bit off to me (I might be wrong). You might want to check that out.


No worries, I have all the cases generated already, only 36 surprisingly. And recog is the same as TTLL for corners since the only one that is twisted on the U-layer is the DFR corner (not necessary for recog) and identifying the location of the edge is instant.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 18, 2017)

so I will post again, however no one seems interested very much in what I am working on right now.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 18, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> No worries, I have all the cases generated already, only 36 surprisingly. And recog is the same as TTLL for corners since the only one that is twisted on the U-layer is the DFR corner (not necessary for recog) and identifying the location of the edge is instant.


Oh you never specified the DFR corner was the one twisted, so I thought it would be way more algs. Could you show us the algs? (Im pretty interested).


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 18, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Oh you never specified the DFR corner was the one twisted, so I thought it would be way more algs. Could you show us the algs? (Im pretty interested).


Yep, I'm actually leaving for class right now but I'll share the document when I get back!


----------



## Neuro (Apr 18, 2017)

@crafto22 you may be interested in the VOP method (2x2) Here's a link to the wiki page and here's a solve


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 19, 2017)

Yea so VOP is sorta like the equivalent of what I'm doing except for 2x2. Also, I'm making better algs, I'll post them in a separate thread once I'm done.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 19, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Okay so I was looking into L5C and stuff and basically here's what I came up with:
> 
> 1) F2L-1. Anywhere from 18 to 30 moves depending on the method.
> 
> ...


I had a similar idea to this, it went:

F2l-1
Insert FR corner while orienting edges
COLL
L5E
I think it could work though.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> @crafto22 you may be interested in the VOP method (2x2) Here's a link to the wiki page and here's a solve


If you think about it, VOP is ZZ-CT for 2x2.
What if you mixed this with an EG-style V? You would only need 26 algs, I think. Making the V is really easy, I'm not sure it can even be over 2 moves. With ~4 moves for orientation, all that's left is permutation.
Method
1) Match 3 stickers on a face, ~1.5 moves (can someone explain what the movecount things in brackets are, and how to get them?)
2) Orientation ~4 moves
3) Permutation -I don't know, I'll generate some algs


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 19, 2017)

2180161 said:


> I had a similar idea to this, it went:
> 
> F2l-1
> Insert FR corner while orienting edges
> ...


Your movecount would be roughly:
DFR + EO: 5
COLL: 10
L5EP: ~11 (according to this)
Total is 26.

This method would have 54 algs. Although you might as well use VH:
VHLS: 9
COLL: 10
EPLL: 7
Total is 26 too, but only 46 algs.

My method's (estimated) stats:
Orient 3 U-layer corners: 4
CP + FR: 9
ELL: 9
Total is 22, 65 algs.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 19, 2017)

Example solve, EG VOP
Scramble: R2 F R2 F R U' F2 R2 F'
x y'
V: R'
Orientation: U R F R F' R'
I guess these will be longer than I thought because the V has to be preserved.
Permutation: (U D) R2 U R2 U'
13 moves total. EG's average is 12.35 moves.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 19, 2017)

You mean what these mean? --> (x/y)
x is the number of moves required for the step.
y is the total number of moves so far after this step.

That 2x2 method looks phenomenal!! I strongly recommend you develop it! I would definitely use it.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 19, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> If you think about it, VOP is ZZ-CT for 2x2


No ZZ-CT is VOP for 3x3.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 19, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> No ZZ-CT is VOP for 3x3.


 Agreed. VOP was made before ZZ-CT (or at minimum completed before)


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 19, 2017)

Weird megaminx last layer method I came up with and am using, loosely based on fish and chips:

EO (I use Petrus, so it's not technically part of the last layer)

Create an edge-corner-edge block (at most three sunes needed, but most cases need only one or two)
Edges

L4C
Spending an extra sune to force a solved corner (to get L4C instead of L5C) seems to be worth it, and it also greatly increases the chance of having just three corners left, which can be done with a single "intuitive" commutator.

Doing step 2 in one look might work; I estimate that there would be around 20-30 essential cases. Forcing an additional corner in step 3 could be feasible too.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 19, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Weird megaminx last layer method I came up with and am using, loosely based on fish and chips:
> 
> EO (I use Petrus, so it's not technically part of the last layer)
> 
> ...


This looks like a mini-tripod thing I proposed a while back and still use though I'm only about average at mega (somewhere in the range of 1:20 to 1:30) and I mostly use it because I was too lazy to learn all the algs needed for standard 4lll so idk if it's actually better than standard 4lll (or 3lll if you're a bit more dedicated).


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 19, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> This looks like a mini-tripod thing I proposed a while back and still use though I'm only about average at mega (somewhere in the range of 1:20 to 1:30) and I mostly use it because I was too lazy to learn all the algs needed for standard 4lll so idk if it's actually better than standard 4lll (or 3lll if you're a bit more dedicated).



Got a link?

I'm pretty slow at megaminx (averaging barely sub-2:30) if you consider your timings average, heh. I think this has the potential to have a lower average move count than OLL + 2-look PLL, but maybe I'm just saying that because I'm also too lazy to learn the algs for standard 4LLL (3LLL excluding EO).


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 19, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Got a link?
> 
> I'm pretty slow at megaminx (averaging barely sub-2:30) if you consider your timings average, heh. I think this has the potential to have a lower average move count than OLL + 2-look PLL, but maybe I'm just saying that because I'm also too lazy to learn the algs for standard 4LLL (3LLL excluding EO).


https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...oncept-idea-thread.40975/page-59#post-1106551
Never really went anywhere but I still use it. there's a small progression and stuff but I think I calculated case count wrong for the last method (somewhat ironically )


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 19, 2017)

for 6x6 and 7x7, are there any methods besides freeslice that are actually viable?


----------



## Neuro (Apr 19, 2017)

Hey so for EG VOP there's a possibility of 6 cases (normal VOP, FVEG, LVEG, BVEG, RVEG, and VEG2) and 6 permutation cases each gives only 36 algs. Also, PBL and normal PLL are possibilities, so only like 7 more cases if you didn't already know them. IDK the number of orientation algs, but the method looks really promising


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Hey so for EG VOP there's a possibility of 6 cases (normal VOP, FVEG, LVEG, BVEG, RVEG, and VEG2) and 6 permutation cases each gives only 36 algs. Also, PBL and normal PLL are possibilities, so only like 7 more cases if you didn't already know them. IDK the number of orientation algs, but the method looks really promising


15 orientation algs, same a guimond. we should start a spreadsheet and make the PLL algs


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 19, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Example solve, EG VOP
> Scramble: R2 F R2 F R U' F2 R2 F'
> x y'
> V: R'
> ...



Also, I would love to help with VOP-EG.  in fact, here's a 2x2 alg generator that runs in browser. Sue, if you want to make Permutation algs I can probably scratch out some orientation algs. In fact, I thik this method may be easy enough to look ahead into the second step, orientation, that it can be a 2-look method much easier than Ortega or LBL or something like that can.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 19, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Also, I would love to help with VOP-EG.  in fact, here's a 2x2 alg generator that runs in browser. Sue, if you want to make Permutation algs I can probably scratch out some orientation algs. In fact, I thik this method may be easy enough to look ahead into the second step, orientation, that it can be a 2-look method much easier than Ortega or LBL or something like that can.


I'm working on some base permutation algs rn, they all look pretty good. Here's an alg sheet, PM me and I'll add you @Sue Doenim. Will look at the alg generator, should be helpful. And yes, completely agree on look ahead into orientation. I think that even though 1 look may not be possible, this will be a really good method for people who don't want to learn a lot of algs or don't have much interest in 2x2 (i'm in 2nd category lel)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I'm working on some base permutation algs rn, they all look pretty good. Here's an alg sheet, PM me and I'll add you @Sue Doenim. Will look at the alg generator, should be helpful. And yes, completely agree on look ahead into orientation. I think that even though 1 look may not be possible, this will be a really good method for people who don't want to learn a lot of algs or don't have much interest in 2x2 (i'm in 2nd category lel)


add me pls. 
also there are some VOP PLFC algs already on the wiki.
since lookahead will be easier if the algs don't disturb the V, I think that we could probably just look at all of the available Guimond orientation algs and find the ones that don't disturb the V(the 2x2 alg genner can't ignore pieces.)


----------



## Neuro (Apr 20, 2017)

Alright sounds good. Just added you Shiv3r. I know a few pages with Guimond algs so I can look at those and see.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 20, 2017)

Alright guys the first gen of the EG VOP permutation algs have been made! The average movecount (-AUF's) is ~7 moves. Recognition is basically the same on all sets so it's really nice.

NOTE: The F, L, etc by each of the case names indicates where the solved bar/corner is. So in BEG, the solved bar is in the back. The case can be seen during inspection super easily. Just determine how to build the V and see what the case is. Should still give you enough time to determine orientation. Once that's done, you just have easy recognition for permutation. Very good method IMO, GJ Sue!

EDIT: Bumping the link


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 20, 2017)

I need some help generating algs for my LLS (Leighton's Last Slot) method. Anyone willing?


----------



## weatherman223 (Apr 20, 2017)

Hey, I've been thinking of a new subset.

I was thinking about it, and I thought, maybe I could combine Winter Variation and COLL, to cause a last layer skip as a whole. 

Is this possible? If so, could anyone help me get algs for this subset?


----------



## Thermex (Apr 20, 2017)

@weatherman223 these algs have already been generated. Check out the WV+CP thread.

@crafto22 I'd be willing to help but what is Leighton's last slot?


----------



## Hazel (Apr 20, 2017)

How about a 2 look LSLL where you first insert the last F2L edge while solving the LL edges, then solve the last 5 corners in one alg? I'm getting the feeling though that this has been done before.


----------



## weatherman223 (Apr 20, 2017)

Oh. well, thanks, lol. Didn't know.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 20, 2017)

@Thermex I'll PM you a bit later with the details. Leighton is just my middle name


----------



## Thermex (Apr 20, 2017)

Aerma said:


> How about a 2 look LSLL where you first insert the last F2L edge while solving the LL edges, then solve the last 5 corners in one alg? I'm getting the feeling though that this has been done before.


 
@Aerma the L5C cases would suck and have WAY to many algorithms.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 20, 2017)

So about the VOP EG-ish method(I suggest changing the name tbh, to like SOP), I don't know the average movecount for the V, but whenever I try making a v the average movecount is something like 1.2 or something like that. I think the highest movecount for a V may be 3 moves, however even then looking ahead into orientation will be incredibly easy, and by recognizing the VOP-EG Permutation set you have in inspection, the only 3 pieces you need to look at are in the top layer.

so basically, this is a less algorithm intensive 2.1 look method, and EG is like a 1.5-look method. if we get the algs generated, I will definitely start learning this method.

EDIT: looks like the permutation algs are done, who wants to help with orientation algs?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 20, 2017)

sorry for double post, but I have a random Idea I've been playing with for 4x4. this can be applied to Yau, Hoya, even Meyer.
So It is a way to avoid parity. 
So the basic Idea is to not solve 2 edges, then executing an L2E at the end of the solve to fix parity at the same time.
in practice, this becomes really only a good idea if you get 3-2-3 edge pairing and your last cycle is only 2 edges. 
what you do is Just solve the cue with 2 edges unpaired, and then use setups to L2E to fix them at the end. It is just a totally random Idea, and I doubt it has any merit whatsoever. but please, tell me what you think. I know all the L2E algs from Lewis already, so this was pretty easy for me to do.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 20, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> So about the VOP EG-ish method(I suggest changing the name tbh, to like SOP), I don't know the average movecount for the V, but whenever I try making a v the average movecount is something like 1.2 or something like that. I think the highest movecount for a V may be 3 moves, however even then looking ahead into orientation will be incredibly easy, and by recognizing the VOP-EG Permutation set you have in inspection, the only 3 pieces you need to look at are in the top layer.
> 
> so basically, this is a less algorithm intensive 2.1 look method, and EG is like a 1.5-look method. if we get the algs generated, I will definitely start learning this method.
> 
> EDIT: looks like the permutation algs are done, who wants to help with orientation algs?


I can always get a V made in 2 moves or less (I'm color neutral so that may be why) Haven't tested it in inspection time, but I can almost always lookahead into orientation while knowing my permutation case then recog for permutation is super easy. So if you get really good with it it's a 2 look method. Some of the algs are long but the short nature of the first step should give you an average movecount of ~14-15, barely over that of EG (12.5) and with much less algs. Perfect for me bc I don't care enough about 2x2 to put a lot of time into it, but still want to be decently fast. I think you could get sub 3 with it relatively easily. I think the three of us should discuss a name, I'll start a chat.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 20, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> sorry for double post, but I have a random Idea I've been playing with for 4x4. this can be applied to Yau, Hoya, even Meyer.
> So It is a way to avoid parity.
> So the basic Idea is to not solve 2 edges, then executing an L2E at the end of the solve to fix parity at the same time.
> in practice, this becomes really only a good idea if you get 3-2-3 edge pairing and your last cycle is only 2 edges.
> what you do is Just solve the cue with 2 edges unpaired, and then use setups to L2E to fix them at the end. It is just a totally random Idea, and I doubt it has any merit whatsoever. but please, tell me what you think. I know all the L2E algs from Lewis already, so this was pretty easy for me to do.


ZZ based methods will benefit and so will CFOP based if people can recognize parity early enough. And I think it should be used interchangeably w/ OP+CMLL for Meyer (more options=better efficiency)


----------



## Hazel (Apr 20, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Aerma the L5C cases would suck and have WAY to many algorithms.


Oh, what about if you did corners first (insertion + some form of CLL), then L5E?


----------



## Thermex (Apr 20, 2017)

@Neuro UGHH I had the idea for VOP EG for so long, and I thought it was a terrible idea so I never said anything about it. I really really wish I had mentioned something ;(

@Aerma that's a pretty decent way of doing LS+LL, I've thought about that before, you could do VOP L5C and then L5E in one look and probably get pretty fast, but L5E with RF unsolved would need to be looked into more (it might have some nasty recog)


----------



## Hazel (Apr 21, 2017)

I came up with a blockbuilding-oriented 3x3 method, but it may only be good for people who like having to think a lot during solves:
1) solve 2x2x2 block in back-right-bottom + FL edge
2) solve two 2x2x1 blocks: one in the front-right-bottom and one in the top-back-left.
3) last 9 pieces

I'm not sure what the best way to go about doing L9P would be, one idea would be to solve FDL corner and FR edge and do something from there, but I don't know.
Here's an example solve up to L9P:

U2 R2 D2 B2 U2 B' U2 F' U2 R2 F2 U R' D U F2 R D U' F D (random scramble from CSTimer)
1) x2 L2 U D2 F' B U F (7 moves)
2)
front-right-bottom block: R U2 R' B U B' (6 moves)
top-back-left block: U R U B U B' U' R' (8 moves)

A possible approach to L9P would be to do R' F' R F to solve the FDL corner and F' U F U' to solve the FR edge, but I'm not sure what you could do from there. But the first 2 steps in this solve were only 21 moves total, so I think that's pretty good.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2017)

Aerma said:


> _basically a crappier petrus_



or you could just use petrus.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 21, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Neuro UGHH I had the idea for VOP EG for so long, and I thought it was a terrible idea so I never said anything about it. I really really wish I had mentioned something ;(


 Well as soon as I heard of ZZ-CT i thought about transposing it to 2x2. But then I discovered VOP so I didn't look any further into progressing it b/c I didn't think of adding EG. But then Sue came up with it and tbh it's pretty genius. Good ideas that look bad happen relatively often so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Thermex (Apr 21, 2017)

@Neuro Oh I wish I could take some credit for this idea.... i discovered VOP a long long time ago and just thought it was a random garbage method.... but then I found EG-VOP and thought "hey, this might be decent!". But once me and Efattah came up with TEG I just thought there was no point in pursuing it and never posted about it again. A couple weeks later Sue starts posting about it and I started realizing it's actually a really good method ;(
Well... I still want to somehow contribute to it even if I'm not considered the creator of it... are there any algs I could help generate for EG-VOP that have not been generated yet?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Neuro Oh I wish I could take some credit for this idea.... i discovered VOP a long long time ago and just thought it was a random garbage method.... but then I fonof EG-VOP and thought "hey, this might be decent!". But once me and Efattah came up with TEG I just thought there was no point in pursuing it and never posted about it again. A couple weeks later someone posts about it and I started realizing it's actually a really good method ;(
> Well... I still want to somehow contribute to it even if I'm not considered the creator of it... are there any algs I could help generate for the method that have not been generated yet?


A lot of the orientation algs haven't been found yet. We need orientation algs like Guimond but that preserve the V.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 21, 2017)

@Shiv3r are you guys looking for algs that preserve the permutation of the V? Because it you are, you can just use the regular VOP orientation algs but if you're not I could generate some.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 21, 2017)

Hi all,
I'd just like to let everyone know that something personal has come up recently and I will be unable to make any sort of progress in any methods. I will no longer be replying to PMs either or to any of the threads. I should be back soon


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2017)

t


Thermex said:


> @Shiv3r are you guys looking for algs that preserve the permutation of the V? Because it you are, you can just use the regular VOP orientation algs but if you're not I could generate some.


There are no VOP orientation algs. look at the wiki page, there are zero.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 21, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> t
> 
> There are no VOP orientation algs. look at the wiki page, there are zero.


okay, I never noticed that. So should I make algs that ignore the permutation of the V or ones that preserve it?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 21, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Neuro Oh I wish I could take some credit for this idea.... i discovered VOP a long long time ago and just thought it was a random garbage method.... but then I fonof EG-VOP and thought "hey, this might be decent!". But once me and Efattah came up with TEG I just thought there was no point in pursuing it and never posted about it again. A couple weeks later Sue starts posting about it and I started realizing it's actually a really good method ;(
> Well... I still want to somehow contribute to it even if I'm not considered the creator of it... are there any algs I could help generate for EG-VOP that have not been generated yet?


Welcome to my life.

Though I don't often think that what I dismiss will end up any good.


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 21, 2017)

Back in my old thread people are just being dicks arguing that the methods are already below 5LS because of their own definition of a look or whatever. Let us not talk about what a look mean and this this is what I mean by 1LLSLL: Think 1LLLL vs 2LLLL.

We did it! We have achieved 1LLLL by combining OLL and PLL together to form 1LLLL! But it was ~4k algs long so ZZ and Bruchem reduced it to ~700 algs and took it further to reduce it to 493 algs! From 4k to 493 is alot! Hell we got even further by doing phasing/CP we reduced to around 200+ algs(depends whether you use phasing or CP)! 4Humphrey got it to 200 algs! Imagine how far we have gone.

Chris Chan did make a LL skip method but the LSLL is still 2 looks. TSLE + TTLL. ZBLL is also 2LLSLL: F2L+1LLLL.

Remember the OP in CFOP? OLL+PLL got turn into ZBLL(Not really but you know I mean) Look at TSLE and TTLL, they're like OP now we need to combine those to make a 1LLSLL.

There are 423 possible permutations of LSLL and we have 3*3 x 2*4 orientations of LSLL. We need to reduce this number!

Here is one method I thought of.
Let us do ZZ and finish 1 block. Put either the Cross or F2L edge in. Finish the square while orienting all the corner. The last step is PLSLL( Permutation of the Last Layer and Last slot). Since everything is oriented the cases drop down to 401 LSLL cases + 21 PLLs but to do the first step has too many algs. Since we have one more corner to orient there are more cases than ZZ-c. We did do the LSLL in one look yah but was it efficient? Is it better than ZBLL even if we 3Look the first step to make it easy?

Insert an edge and solve a pseudo pair so we finish the square using ZZ-c but is it efficient? Got a better method?

TL;DR
We are not doing 5LS anymore. Just make a method that solves the LSLL in one look.
Think: 1LLLL vs 2LLLL so do not a say a method is already whatever looks. Predicting PLL while solving OLL is inefficient. Do not say predict the LL while doing LS so it is one look.

edit:
I said LSLL so if you say Roux or something I am talking about a method where it has LSLL.
Edit: I did it. I made a 1LLSLL Method. Whether you're interested or just want to see how it works go to find the post 1LLSLL System that has 500 less algs than 1LLL. It's not. I've fixed my math it's 4339 algs.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 21, 2017)

Update on movecount for making the V in EG-VOP (still not an official name for it )

I've done around 100 solves to test the movecount of the V and the average was 1.06 or something. I did discover that 3 move V's are actually a possibility. However, 1 move is the most common, taking ~90% of the solves. 2 moves is next highest, probably ~5%, and 0 moves is actually more common than a 3 move V, where 0 moves is ~3.5% and 3 is the least common, ~1.5%. 

Note that my test was performed with full color neutrality, so it will probably change if you keep 1 color. But honestly, color neutrality is pretty easy with the method and 2x2 in general so I don't think we need to do non-CN tests.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 21, 2017)

Spoiler: stuff



The closest I Ever got was M-CELL or Immune System but no one ever really uses that term and the techique was similar to Hawaiian Kociemba or Hexagonal Fransisco though it predated both.

1) Solve F2L without one cross edge or D layer corner (I detail many mays of doing this in the original post)
2) Recognise L5E and L5C cases.
3) execute both one after the other with no recog pause.
It has a huge number of algs (more than ZBLL) though less than if it was all one alg.

There are alternatives to reduce it depending on how much you control such as EO, CO CP etc but essentially to get it down to a reasonable number of algs you start controlling so much the benefit is minimal. What you get to after a while of improving while trying to control as little as you can is either SSC, Roux, ZZ-CT (which it actually predates) or someting like that. In addition, many corner algs which leave edges intact can suck if they affect more than a 3 cycle or 2 2 swap. 

Thus unless you can find some way of 2 algs at once for corners (which would bump up the movecount), this method is only viable for those who memorise many many algs (like approaching jabari level).



TL;DR, the only way to really make this viable with current techique is a 2+ alg, 1 look system and really stretching the definition of a look and LSLL. So find some new techniques.


----------



## cuber314159 (Apr 21, 2017)

We do not just reduce the number of cases, zbll is not really 1lll as it requires a pre-1lll setup to solve in one look meaning last slot takes longer, if someone knew full 1lll that would still be around 4000 algs


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2017)

Thermex said:


> okay, I never noticed that. So should I make algs that ignore the permutation of the V or ones that preserve it?


preserve it. Give me your email and I'll add you to the EG VOP doc.(we're considering calling it SuNe method, becase *Su*e *Ne*uro)


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 21, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> (we're considering calling it SuNe method, becase *Su*e *Ne*uro)



Please don't give new methods confusing names. That's just silly.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 21, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Please don't give new methods confusing names. That's just silly.


Agreed. We'll most likely call this method something else like "VS" or something like that.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 22, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Update on movecount for making the V in EG-VOP (still not an official name for it )
> 
> I've done around 100 solves to test the movecount of the V and the average was 1.06 or something. I did discover that 3 move V's are actually a possibility. However, 1 move is the most common, taking ~90% of the solves. 2 moves is next highest, probably ~5%, and 0 moves is actually more common than a 3 move V, where 0 moves is ~3.5% and 3 is the least common, ~1.5%.
> 
> Note that my test was performed with full color neutrality, so it will probably change if you keep 1 color. But honestly, color neutrality is pretty easy with the method and 2x2 in general so I don't think we need to do non-CN tests.


What would be a 3-move V?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 22, 2017)

Wait . . . (Z)Zeroing at last? When inserting F2L pairs, use phasing algs to force nicer cases for next pair. However, BSLL, it seems, is, and always will be, BS.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 22, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> What would be a 3-move V?


Well I got a couple of 3 move V's (one eexample is where a bar can me made in 1 moves but another corner requires 2 moves to insert) but I may have made mistakes on those solves and simply just not recognized 2 move cases. Sometimes the 2 move cases can take a while to spot so I may have just missed them in the 3 move solves I did. I will be doing another test tomorrow to double-check


----------



## Thermex (Apr 22, 2017)

@Neuro it has been 100% confirmed that it can take 3 moves to make a guimond face (3/4 face with opposite colors) and since this is technically harder to make (the 3/4 of the face needs to include the SAME colors) it should be possible that there are 3 move HD faces.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 22, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> sorry for double post, but I have a random Idea I've been playing with for 4x4. this can be applied to Yau, Hoya, even Meyer.
> So It is a way to avoid parity.
> So the basic Idea is to not solve 2 edges, then executing an L2E at the end of the solve to fix parity at the same time.
> in practice, this becomes really only a good idea if you get 3-2-3 edge pairing and your last cycle is only 2 edges.
> what you do is Just solve the cue with 2 edges unpaired, and then use setups to L2E to fix them at the end. It is just a totally random Idea, and I doubt it has any merit whatsoever. but please, tell me what you think. I know all the L2E algs from Lewis already, so this was pretty easy for me to do.


@Shiv3r wow I've had this idea forever! I always thought this would work great on really big cubes (5 and 6) as it would be around 50 algs and could allow a 2 look last slot for CFOP or something like that. I'll PM you about this tomorrow once I'm done with the HD orientation algs and maybe we could brainstorm some ideas.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Shiv3r wow I've had this idea forever! I always thought this would work great on really big cubes (5 and 6) as it would be around 50 algs and could allow a 2 look last slot for CFOP or something like that. I'll PM you about this tomorrow once I'm done with the HD orientation algs and maybe we could brainstorm some ideas.


It's not as fast as just doing lucasparity.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 22, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> It's not as fast as just doing lucasparity.


Yeah but you get to skip L2E and also your last slot can be 2-looked since you can completely ignore two edges.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 22, 2017)

Possible ZZ/Waterman hybrid:

1) EOLine + DR and DL edges (basically cross + EO)
2) Corners
3) L8E (not sure how this would work, but it's less cases than regular L8E because the edges are oriented)


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 22, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Possible ZZ/Waterman hybrid:
> 
> 1) EOLine + DR and DR edges (basically cross + EO)
> 2) Corners
> 3) L8E (not sure how this would work, but it's less cases than regular L8E because the edges are oriented)


Sounds like L2L4. If you can to do all the edges at the same time you still have at least 1000 cases as 8!/4/4/2=2520


----------



## Hazel (Apr 22, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Sounds like L2L4. If you can to do all the edges at the same time you still have at least 1000 cases as 8!/4/4/2=2520



What if you did an alg to bring all the LL edges to U (while preserving all edge orientation), then did EPLL -> Roux-style L4E (or vice versa, or both at the same time)?


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 22, 2017)

Aerma said:


> What if you did an alg to bring all the LL edges to U (while preserving all edge orientation), then did EPLL -> Roux-style L4E (or vice versa, or both at the same time)?



14 cases for separating the edges into their correct layers, 50 cases for E-slice + EPLL (up to AUF and y rotation).

Algs for E-slice+EPLL probably(?) won't be much better than just doing them separately.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 22, 2017)

Now that HD is almost finished (I only have a few more orientation cases to check over), I had an idea for another VOP-styled 2×2 method, and I call it "BOP" (Bar, Orientation, Permutation) or "V2" (I was thinking of calling the orientation and permutation stages VOLL and VPLL, which makes up two Vs) (V is my first initial):

1. 2×1×1 bar (done for you 50% of the time, would probably average around 1/2 a move and the max is 2 moves I think)
2. VOLL (43 pure 2-gen algs, 7 of which are the already-known OLLs)
3. VPLL (solves the rest of the cube, not sure how many cases there are here but there's probably not that many, plus many of them are <5 moves)

This method would make one-looking really really easy as long as you memorized how VOLL affected the pieces, there'd probably be ~80 algs (same amount as EG-1+CLL), the average movecount would probably be somewhere in the ballpark of 12-13 moves, and other than the rare one or two moves to make a bar the ENTIRE method is algorithmic making it really easy to spam TPS, plus you could probably get a pure 2-gen solve every one in ten scrambles or so. This is just an optimistic idea but I could see it being extremely useful for WaterRoux as a super-efficient sub-12 move way to solve the last 6 corners with less than 100 algorithms. Feedback?


----------



## efattah (Apr 23, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Now that HD is almost finished (I only have a few more orientation cases to check over), I had an idea for another VOP-styled 2×2 method, and I call it "BOP" (Bar, Orientation, Permutation) or "V2" (I was thinking of calling the orientation and permutation stages VOLL and VPLL, which makes up two Vs) (V is my first initial):
> 
> 1. 2×1×1 bar (done for you 50% of the time, would probably average around 1/2 a move and the max is 2 moves I think)
> 2. VOLL (43 pure 2-gen algs, 7 of which are the already-known OLLs)
> ...



This seems like an awesome method but please clarify a few things:
1. You solve a bar of a single color, but is this a real bar of adjacent true corners or is it a 'face bar' where just the face stickers form a bar? I assume the latter.
2. When you execute the orientation, the other two corners on the bar face can be any color, not the same as the bar? It might be worth looking into forcing them to the same color as the bar since that would leave ordinary ortega PBL as the last step? This might make recognition easier? Not sure how easy recognition is in the color freedom version.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 23, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> 14 cases for separating the edges into their correct layers, 50 cases for E-slice + EPLL (up to AUF and y rotation).
> 
> Algs for E-slice+EPLL probably(?) won't be much better than just doing them separately.


would this method be at all viable? would it be better if while separating the edges into their correct layer you solve the U layer? I've tried it and it isn't too difficult.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 23, 2017)

efattah said:


> This seems like an awesome method but please clarify a few things:
> 1. You solve a bar of a single color, but is this a real bar of adjacent true corners or is it a 'face bar' where just the face stickers form a bar? I assume the latter.
> 2. When you execute the orientation, the other two corners on the bar face can be any color, not the same as the bar? It might be worth looking into forcing them to the same color as the bar since that would leave ordinary ortega PBL as the last step? This might make recognition easier? Not sure how easy recognition is in the color freedom version.


I was actually thinking of having a 2×1×1 bar that formed half of a layer, but the second option you mentioned might work. It's pretty much the same amount of work to create half a layer as opposed to half a face, plus the last step is half as many algs and more ergonomic if you have half a layer. And yes, the orientation step does NOT force the d-face to be solved, as PBL algs are kinda meh and it would be a LOT easier if you solve those two pieces during permutation.

@Aerma I don't think the method you came up with was really viable, but some of the ideas you came up with actually could be really good in WaterRoux: (keep in mind for my example here the three solved edges are DB, DR and DL and we are trying to solve L9E)

1. Solve the DF edge and seperate the edges into their correct layers.
2. Solve the four u-layer edges whilst orienting the midges.
3. Do a Z rotation and finally permute the midges.

This idea seems decent and is most likely less algorithms than Three U-layer edges then L6E, but some of the recogniton might suck and the algs might not be very ergonomic. If this idea seems to have any potential I'd be willing to work on it with you.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 23, 2017)

If I'm understanding VPLL right, it's basically L6C with orientation already done?

If so, there should be around (6 nCr 2) * (4!/4) = 30 * 6 = 180 cases


----------



## Thermex (Apr 23, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> If I'm understanding VPLL right, it's basically L6C with orientation already done?
> 
> If so, there should be around (6 nCr 2) * (4!/4) = 30 * 6 = 180 cases


Yes, VPLL is just permuting the pre-orieting corners on the R and U faces. Does the figure you showed include AUFs? If not, how many algs could AUFs reduce that number to?


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 23, 2017)

Yeah that's with AUFs. Without AUFs, it should be 6! = 720.

If I'm understanding it right, then VOLL is orienting the 6 corners <R,U>? If so, I feel like that figure is a bit more difficult to calculate because symmetries are weirder with CO, but it should be around 9 * (3^3) = 243 without AUFs, and has a lower bound of 243/4 = 60.75 with AUFs


----------



## Thermex (Apr 23, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah that's with AUFs. Without AUFs, it should be 6! = 720.
> 
> If I'm understanding it right, then VOLL is orienting the 6 corners <R,U>? If so, I feel like that figure is a bit more difficult to calculate because symmetries are weirder with CO, but it should be around 9 * (3^3) = 243 without AUFs, and has a lower bound of 243/4 = 60.75 with AUFs


VOLL is not 243 algs, it is exactly 53 because it's the same step as the SOAP method's orientation stage (53 algs) but the permutation of the d-layer corners doesn't matter, meaning your second number was almost correct. I'm skeptical that VPLL is anywhere near the figure you gave but it would need to be explored more if we want to get the exact number.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 23, 2017)

Hm, the only way I could see VOLL being that small is if you count both AUFs and ARFs. If so, then you have ~ 3^5/8 = lower bound of 30.375. I'm not sure hwo the SOAP inventor got 53 though, since he also has to preserve corner separation

VOLL isn't 243 algs, but there must be 243 unique cases without AUF. Maybe I got my lowerbound math wrong, but I'm not sure why: 9 orientations for the D layer corners * 3^3 orientations for the U layer corners / at most 4 AUF possibilities for each U layer corner state = 60.75

Perhaps @xyzzy can help with this, he's better at this kind of stuff.

I would still say VPLL is going to be quite large, as your corners can be in any of 6! = 720 permutations. Even if you include AUFs, this will bring down the number of algorithms you need to 6!/4 = 180. If you include both AUFs and ARFs, then every case has 8 possible adjustments -> 6! / 8 = 90 algorithms.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 23, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Perhaps @xyzzy can help with this, he's better at this kind of stuff.



lol



Thermex said:


> VOLL is not 243 algs, it is exactly 53 because it's the same step as the SOAP method's orientation stage (53 algs) but the permutation of the d-layer corners doesn't matter, meaning your second number was almost correct.



I initially thought SOAP orientation would be 56 cases, but I overcounted two cases. There are essentially seven possibilities for the D layer: solved, U, T, one twisted cw, one twisted ccw, two twisted cw, two twisted ccw. Each of these contributes eight cases for the CO on the U layer, but this would double-count the solved-U and solved-T cases, so there are really only 54 cases. The skip case doesn't need an alg, so that's 53 algs. (This is up to AUF, ADF and x2 rotation.)

VPLL is probably not that large if I'm counting it right:

D solved: 3 cases
DFR-DRB swap: 3 cases
U corner in DFR: 6 cases (same as U corner in DRB up to rotation)
U corner in DFR, DFR in DRB: 6 cases
U corner in DRB, DRB in DFR: 6 cases
Adjacent colours on DR: 6 cases
Headlights on DR: 6 cases
Opposite colours on DR: 6 cases

42 cases, one of which is a skip. This is assuming the first step is actually forming a block (half a layer), and not just a bar (half a face).


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 23, 2017)

I've had a feeling for quite a while that 223+F2L pair -> stuff has potential to be nice, not really sure why though. Never looked into it, but I randomly had a fun (almost certainly bad) idea for it yesterday, posting in case it gives someone a good idea.

1) 223 + F2L pair (blockbuilding, which I'm bad at)
2) EO + remaining F2L edges
3) Insert last F2L corner and force a nice ZBLL (oriented/T/L/U I guess?)
4) ZBLL

In theory, if you can get step 2 to end <M,U>, you have great lookahead into last two steps, and you can start recognising ZBLL during step 3. It's a very rough idea and it would probably have to try to avoid bad cases for step 3 somehow, but maybe there's some potential.



Spoiler: Rough example solves



F2 L2 R2 D' R2 B2 L2 U F2 D B' R2 U R B2 U' L2 F2 U' B

z2 D2 R' U2 L' y' L U L'
R2' U R U' R' U' R
U' F' U2 L' U' L
U' R' F R F' M' U M
U D R D R' U2 R D' R' D'
U R U L' R' U2 R U M' x' z R U' R U R'


F U2 L2 B U2 L2 F L2 B L2 F R B2 U' R U' R2 B' D' U' F

y D' L' U R' D' L
R2 u U2 R U' R' D'
y R' F2 R F
U r U' r' U F R' F' R2 U' R'
D R D R' U' R D' R' D'
U' F R U R' U' R' F' R U2 R U2' R' U


U2 F L2 R2 F D2 B L2 U2 B' L2 D L R2 F' L B2 D F2 U2

z2 D' F' R' U R' U' R'
y U2 R y R' U' R
L' U' L
r U' r' U F' L' U2 L F
U D R D R' U R D' R' u'
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'


----------



## Thermex (Apr 23, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> I initially thought SOAP orientation would be 56 cases, but I overcounted two cases. There are essentially seven possibilities for the D layer: solved, U, T, one twisted cw, one twisted ccw, two twisted cw, two twisted ccw. Each of these contributes eight cases for the CO on the U layer, but this would double-count the solved-U and solved-T cases, so there are really only 54 cases. The skip case doesn't need an alg, so that's 53 algs. (This is up to AUF, ADF and x2 rotation.)
> 
> VPLL is probably not that large if I'm counting it right:
> 
> ...


Yeah I was thinking some of the exact same numbers, my estimate for the permutation was really close to what you provided. I actually think I might start generating algs for this method since it's sub-100 algs and the algs would be really short. And yes, the first step is forming half a LAYER. If anyone wants to work on this with me tell me, I would do it all by myself but I'm SUPER busy with TEG and exams rn.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 23, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Yeah I was thinking some of the exact same numbers, my estimate for the permutation was really close to what you provided. I actually think I might start generating algs for this method since it's sub-100 algs and the algs would be really short.



Actually, I missed this earlier because I wasn't paying too much attention. 

VOLL has more cases than SOAP's orientation step, because for VOLL, the solved-U and U-solved cases are distinct, as are the solved-T and T-solved cases. Furthermore, for the one-corner-twisted cases, it matters whether the twisted corner is in the front or the back. In total, there should be 72 cases (71 algs) for VOLL.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 23, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Actually, I missed this earlier because I wasn't paying too much attention.
> 
> VOLL has more cases than SOAP's orientation step, because for VOLL, the solved-U and U-solved cases are distinct, as are the solved-T and T-solved cases. Furthermore, for the one-corner-twisted cases, it matters whether the twisted corner is in the front or the back. In total, there should be 72 cases (71 algs) for VOLL.


Lol could you reword that so it makes sense....


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 23, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Lol could you reword that so it makes sense....



D oriented (8 cases, one of which is a skip)

DFR twisted cw (8 cases)
DFR twisted ccw (8 cases)
DRB twisted cw (8 cases)
DRB twisted ccw (8 cases)
DFR, DRB twisted cw (8 cases)
DFR, DRB twisted ccw (8 cases)
DFR cw, DRB ccw (8 cases)
DFR ccw, DRB cw (8 cases)
With SOAP, #2 and #4 collapse into a single category, as do #3 and #5, because you're free to ADF the misoriented corner wherever. This is not the case with VOLL, because you have a block that defines a fixed reference. So that's a total of 72 cases.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 23, 2017)

@xyzzy Okay I see what you mean, I actually thought about that before but forgot you would need differemt algorithms to preserve the DRB corner so I thought you could just use a y rotation. But now that I think about it, couldn't you drastically limit the number of algs in the method with ARFs? Since you can lookahead to your VOLL case without any effort during inspection, if you got one of those back-corner-twisted front-corner-solved cases you could just do an ARF to avoid learning like 18 not-2-gen algorithms.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 24, 2017)

Roux and Screw (square 1) variant: 
1) Cubeshape (obviously, parity simultaneously would be better)
2) First block
3) Solve second block, but leave it on left of U-layer
4) Solve CP and connect DB to it's corresponding spot on either block: use one of 6 algs to permute corners; DB can be simultaneously placed by using 1 moves to offset blocks, similar to how EP is influenced during CP in Vandenburg
5) Place second block while flipping equator to it's correct orientation: just insert block with either (6,0)/ or /(6,0)/ to flip equator correctly
6) (Parity) L5E: 16 cases including EPLL, 32 with parity if not finished (I think), make sure algs don't flip equator
Looks pretty nice. I don't think step 4 is infallible if done the way I explained it. 


Spoiler: Step 4 algs



I'll just use 2x2 pictures for the cases





Skip 




(3,0)/(3,-3)/(3,0)/(-3,0)/(0,3)/(-3,0)/




(0,-3)/(3,-3)/(0,-3)/(0,3)/(-3,0)/(0,3)/




(3,-3)/(-3,0)/(3,3)/(0,-3)/(-3,3)




NOTE: you MUST offest the algorithm by (1,0) OR (0,-1) before execution or cubeshape will be messed up
(3,-3)/(3,0)/(0,-3)/(0,3)/(0,-3)/(3,0)/(6,0)




Same rule as above applies
U D R2 D R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2 D2 
(3,3)/(0,3)/(-3,0)/(3,0),(-3,0)/(0,3)/(0,6)


I don't have L5E algs.

ZZ variant: 
1) EOline
2) ZZF2L, but ignore cross pieces
3) COLL
4) y rotation, L6E
This was kind of a random bad idea until I started writing it, got to step 4, and realized it could be done as L6E instead of an <R,U,L> EPLL style algorithm. Now, it has the potential to compete with ZZ-VH, maybe even better methods.
Example solve:
Scramble: D2 R2 F2 R2 U2 B2 D' F2 U' R2 B U' B' L U B' U2 R2 U2 F
EOline: x2 D2 L' U L B D R D
ZZF2L: R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 L' U L' U2 L U2 L' U' L U' L' U' L R U R' U R U' R' U R
COLL: U' R2 D' R U R' D R U R U' R' U' R
L6E: y M' U2 M U M2 U M2 U'


----------



## Thermex (Apr 24, 2017)

@Sue Doenim I had the exact same idea for that ZZ variant, the problem with it is that when you do the y rotation the pre-oriented good edges all become bad edges. Lol I've never solved a square-1 before but your method sounds pretty interesting. Once I learn how to solve one I think I'll look into to some Roux n Screw variants as its pretty much impossible to optimize anything in the Lars Vandenbergh method.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 24, 2017)

It should be alright actually since E slice edges are solved, so the y rotation won't change any orientations. However I'm not sure it's worth it


----------



## Neuro (Apr 24, 2017)

Honestly I think that a modified Lin method would be better. Something like this:

Cubeshape
FB
SB
1 D layer edge +CP (algs exist via current Lin method but can now be more efficient due to not having to preserve a dedge)
L5E

The proposed ZZ variant *may* be better if you force either both cross pieces, ULUR, or UFUB edges into the cross slots so you can move directly into 4C. You'd have to be pretty skilled at recognizing multiple F2L possibilities though. You may be better off doing this with a modified EO line where DFDB, ULUR, or UFUB are put in the line so there's no need for rotations and F2L recog is easier


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 24, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Honestly I think that a modified Lin method would be better. Something like this:
> 
> Cubeshape
> FB
> ...


I feel like they'd be about the same. The main difference is pretty much the skipping of equator orientation. However, including that with solution of D-layer edge and corners would probably be easier and worth the 6 extra algs.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 24, 2017)

I also wonder if something could be done to force an easy L6EP case during CP. For example, if you could solve CP + place all opposite edges opposite of each other (kind of like phasing but for all 6 remaining edges), then the solution should be entirely intuitive + 1 parity alg if you didn't use cubeshape parity


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 24, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Sue Doenim I had the exact same idea for that ZZ variant, the problem with it is that when you do the y rotation the pre-oriented good edges all become bad edges.


No they don't. After you've solved all of the F2L edges, y rotations don't affect orientation. This method is actually OK most of the time as long as you make sure you don't trap other F2L edges under the pairs. If you do, it's a pain to have to pull them out.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 24, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> No they don't. After you've solved all of the F2L edges, y rotations don't affect orientation. This method is actually OK most of the time as long as you make sure you don't trap other F2L edges under the pairs. If you do, it's a pain to have to pull them out.


Yeah I can't believe I didn't realize that  whoops


----------



## Neuro (Apr 24, 2017)

What's the highest possible required movecount for a cross, FB, or a 2x2x2 block? Can be done with full color neutrality, but I'm trying to gauge statistics of pieces solved in comparison to # of moves performed.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 24, 2017)

I believe God's number for nonCN FB is 9


----------



## Neuro (Apr 24, 2017)

I'd expect that God's number for CN FB would be 7 or 8? And I seem to remember God's number for CN cross being 7 moves. No idea about the 2x2x2 though :/


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 24, 2017)

I remember 2x2x3 being something insane, like 9 or 10


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 24, 2017)

another random Idea for trying to not get OLL parity: (so far may only work for Yau or Meyer, not Hoya)
-When solving the 4th cross dedge, use 2-at-a-time pairing to solve another edge at the same time. This means that after the first 3-2 in 3-2-3 edge pairing there will be either a skip or 2 edges unsolved. if you track the amount of misoriented edges while edgepairing, you can decide which alg to use for the L2E to not get parity.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 24, 2017)

Any one want to try and flesh out Gilles Roux's 4x4 method? 

1x3x4 on LR
CLL
solve ULUR dedges
"orient" remaining wings
permute wings
L4C


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Any one want to try and flesh out Gilles Roux's 4x4 method?
> 
> 1x3x4 on LR
> CLL
> ...


to y'all not in the roux method speedsolvers:
this was a secret until after gilles roux joined the roux method speed solvers group a week or two ago. after posting a 3x3 average on the weekly competition, he asked what methods were approved for 4x4, and then gave an outline of the method he uses, which is posted above almost verbatim.

I want to help flesh it out.

I like the first 2(3) steps, they're basically the first 2 steps of the Lewis Method. As far as I can tell this is basically Lewis method with a sandwich finish.
How about we skip orientation of wings, and solve the M dedges 2/3 at a time with comms? that means we only have 2 looks for dedges.
and for centers, I think that comms are a little inefficient, I think that @rachmaninovian has a post on a faster L4C with more algs. I'll dig it up and then link it here. 
EDIT: here's the sandwich L4C thing I was thinking of.
However, I am wondering what other strategies we can come up with.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I remember 2x2x3 being something insane, like 9 or 10


That's about what I expected after doing tests on HARCS. But how difficult is recognizing multiple 2x2x3 blocks in inspection? Seems like full neutrality would be pretty intense but if you were to restrict it to 8 like in Roux possibly less then it could be viable 100% of the time.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 24, 2017)

consistently 1looking a 2x2x3 in inspection petrus-style is pretty hard. Though, I suggested a few months ago that one could onelook FB + track DFDB and centers (essentially 1looking a 2x2x3), which gives ~12-14 stm solutions


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> consistently 1looking a 2x2x3 in inspection petrus-style is pretty hard. Though, I suggested a few months ago that one could onelook FB + track DFDB and centers (essentially 1looking a 2x2x3), which gives ~12-14 stm solutions


this I dubbed Pootris.

Also, I want to help flesh out the 4x4 method @Teoidus, look at above post


----------



## Neuro (Apr 24, 2017)

So the 2x2x3 is actually the most efficient (no surprise there) but Roux is actually a very close second, >.03 away from 2x2x2 moves per piece
1: Roux- ~8, 5 pieces// 8/5= 1.6
2: 2x2x3- ~11, 7 pieces// 11/7= ~1.57
3: CFOP- ~7, 4 pieces// 7/4= 1.75

EO Line takes like 8 moves max but the solves can be super efficient. Hard to generate stats like those previously listed though.

EDIT: This was stupid. If you can solve optimally they should all be about the same for moves per piece. The point where it really changes are steps 2-x due to influencing future portions of the solve and getting efficient subsets. Still, I think that Roux FB may be one of the best ways to start a solve simply because of ease recognition and ability to look ahead into another step (2x2x2, SB, anything really) while not compromising movecount.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 24, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So the 2x2x3 is actually the most efficient (no surprise there) but Roux is actually a very close second, >.03 away from 2x2x2 moves per piece
> 1: Roux- ~8, 5 pieces// 8/5= 1.6
> 2: 2x2x3- ~11, 7 pieces// 11/7= ~1.57
> 3: CFOP- ~7, 4 pieces// 7/4= 1.75
> ...


Well basically if you're going by optimal, the greater the number of pieces, the greater the efficiency for basically all alg set which is why we do things like 1LELL rather than 2LPLL.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 24, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> this I dubbed Pootris.
> 
> Also, I want to help flesh out the 4x4 method @Teoidus, look at above post



Okay, I'm sorry but this name is unacceptable. Please stop using it. Pootris, Gay redux, SuNe... really? These sound like names toddlers would pick...

As for the 4x4 method, I wonder if there is a way to solve wings + some of L4C at the same time?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> *states all my names that are obviously jokes*
> As for the 4x4 method, I wonder if there is a way to solve wings + some of L4C at the same time?


I don't think the algs would be very nice. check out the thread I posted up above, though. I think we can have L4C be like 4.5-3 look.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> EDIT: This was stupid. If you can solve optimally they should all be about the same for moves per piece. The point where it really changes are steps 2-x due to influencing future portions of the solve and getting efficient subsets. Still, I think that Roux FB may be one of the best ways to start a solve simply because of ease recognition and ability to look ahead into another step (2x2x2, SB, anything really) while not compromising movecount.


I don't believe that is correct due to the fact that corners have more possible orientations and therefore more ways to be unsolved, if that makes sense.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 25, 2017)

Honestly what you will probably find with something like this is that the step that solves the most pieces at once always "wins" in terms of efficiency. This is because human methods are quite bad in terms of move-optimality (god's number for the <M,U> and <R,U> subgroups is like 20 STM--you are, in a sense, not any "closer" to solved in any of these groups vs in a random scramble)


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 25, 2017)

Has this been proposed before?

1. 3 cross edges, last one is any misoriented U-layer edge (5 moves)
2. F2L-1 (20 moves)
3. Last pair whilst ensuring 3 U-layer edges are unoriented (~7 moves using 41 "new" algs, or ~10 moves with 2 "new" algs)
4. COLL (10 moves)
5. L5E with the easiest EO case, probably possible to one-look almost every time (~10 moves)
Total would be 52 moves with 41 new algs, which is better than regular CFOP, all while making cross easier and use of insepction time more efficient.

Basic algs for inserting the last pair:
Connected pair, edges need to be flipped: y R' F' R U2 M' U' M
Disconnected pair, edges need to be flipped: R' D' r U r' D' R2 U R'


----------



## Hazel (Apr 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I was actually thinking of having a 2×1×1 bar that formed half of a layer, but the second option you mentioned might work. It's pretty much the same amount of work to create half a layer as opposed to half a face, plus the last step is half as many algs and more ergonomic if you have half a layer. And yes, the orientation step does NOT force the d-face to be solved, as PBL algs are kinda meh and it would be a LOT easier if you solve those two pieces during permutation.
> 
> @Aerma I don't think the method you came up with was really viable, but some of the ideas you came up with actually could be really good in WaterRoux: (keep in mind for my example here the three solved edges are DB, DR and DL and we are trying to solve L9E)
> 
> ...


Yeah, sounds good! Do you think it's okay enough to pursue, or should I go back to square 1 (pun not intended)?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Has this been proposed before?
> 
> 1. 3 cross edges, last one is any misoriented U-layer edge (5 moves)
> 2. F2L-1 (20 moves)
> ...


it looks like Hawaiian Kociemna, but with less algs than the original(hundreds for HKOLL+HKPLL). It's an HK or 3CFCE variant.(look up 3CFCE on the wiki) 
Also, looks like you're just using VHLS 4-flip cases to force a 3-flip on U. I use the first alg regularly, especially on 6x6+ because that's really the only place I main CFOP.
cons I can see: 
-not sure how good recognition for onelooking the last step would be.
-the cross with 1 U layer edge misoriented is about the same as cross movecount and looking-in-inspection-wise, I think.

I will try a few solves with this method(using L5EOP and the few of the L5EPLL's I know). maybe I'll post some alg.cubing example solves, I have played with 3CFCE-style methods before and they're pretty nice.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Has this been proposed before?
> 
> 1. 3 cross edges, last one is any misoriented U-layer edge (5 moves)
> 2. F2L-1 (20 moves)
> ...


here is an example solve
it's super inefficient because it only saved one move in cross, and it made the F2L actually _less efficient_, even if you don't include the flipping with the LS_. 
_
EDIT: Here is the cross you could do with 1 extra move it's a 5 HTM xcross. after finding this xcross, decided to try a speedsolve with the scramble, and I got a sub-14 solve(I am like sub-25 with CFOP usually, it's not my main method). let me try to reconstruct what I did.

E2: Here is a full reconstruction of what I did. it's 47 htm/stm(same either way)


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 25, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> We do not just reduce the number of cases, zbll is not really 1lll as it requires a pre-1lll setup to solve in one look meaning last slot takes longer, if someone knew full 1lll that would still be around 4000 algs



ZBLL is really 1 look LL assuming you have edges oriented when you finish F2L. Whether you do that during EOLine or freely during F2L, or some sort of EOLS is up to you.

Also Jabari knows a really large subset of LL cases and LSLL cases, so it may be more possible than we once thought. Who knows.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 25, 2017)

So here's a solve of a Roux/ZZ hybrid I've been playing with. Scramble is from the example solve thread.

L B2 U2 R2 B2 R2 F' L2 F' U2 L2 B U' L2 R D2 R' F' U' F2 R

R2 L F' R U' F B U D2 R2 U D L2//EOFB + LR (13/13)
U R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U R U' R'//SB (10/23)
U L' U' L U' L' U2 L//COLL (8/31)
U M2 U M' U2 M' U2 M2//4C (8/39)

Got pretty lucky with LR. I think that making FB is kinda awkward though and F2L edges can get trapped in DFDB. Anyone think it can be made decent?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So here's a solve of a Roux/ZZ hybrid I've been playing with. Scramble is from the example solve thread.
> 
> L B2 U2 R2 B2 R2 F' L2 F' U2 L2 B U' L2 R D2 R' F' U' F2 R
> 
> ...


at least it isn't a CFOP/roux hybrid, but I think if you want to do something like that you're better off doing ZZ-LSE or zz-4c or whatever it's called.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 25, 2017)

Yeah that's what I thought, worth a shot though


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2017)

update on progress with HD method:
So we have been working on the HD method(what was called "EG VOP"), and we are done generating the algs. We will not fully publish the method, however, until one or two of the contributors(Neuro, Thermex, me, and Sue Doenim) have learned the whole method. so basically all we need to do is speed-optimize the algs.


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 25, 2017)

I used to enjoy reading this thread


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 26, 2017)

@Shiv3r Move count is definitely lower, there are more edge pieces to choose from. Regular cross is ~7 moves whereas this uses about 5. F2L can't possibly be any less efficient. One looking is easily possible. Anything else?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 26, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> I used to enjoy reading this thread


"Used to"? What is that supposed to mean? The way I see it, methods are only progressing further and further. The older posts from this thread are generally bad ideas or nonsensical hybrids. We've finally cut things down to efficient and viable methods for speedsolving


----------



## Thermex (Apr 26, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Yeah, sounds good! Do you think it's okay enough to pursue, or should I go back to square 1 (pun not intended)?


Nice pun lol. I think it might be worth pursuing, the seperation step probably wouldn't be >150 algs but I'm kinda skeptical about the recognition and ergonomics for the 2nd step. As for the alg count of the step, my estimate is that there are exactly 150 algs for the 2nd step since there should be 30 ELL-like algs for all 5 possible orientations of the midges. Still though, I have the feeling the algs suck for the second step and aren't worth pursuing. Maybe though.
@Shiv3r I'll get back to work on the NLL algs today, I also think I'll begin learning the full method starting this weekend.


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 26, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> "Used to"? What is that supposed to mean? The way I see it, methods are only progressing further and further. The older posts from this thread are generally bad ideas or nonsensical hybrids. We've finally cut things down to efficient and viable methods for speedsolving



Because it's been the same, re-hashed stuff over and over for years and years. "What if we don't solve an edge down here first, we solve it last instead" Who cares? The derivative method is not going to be any better than the one it was pulled from, and so is not novel or helpful. Taking a Picasso, and photoshopping the tree to the left of the picture and then the house over to the right, does not make the picture any better (it probably made it worse), and the only person who should get credit for it being good at all is Picasso.

IMO, the only decent methods that have come out of this thread for like literally 2 years are LMCF and 2GR. They're pretty novel in their own right, or at least in the case of LMCF are revisiting an idea that was discarded long ago, and bringing new life into it. Everything else seems to be to have just been rearranging fluff, to virtually no effect.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 26, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Nice pun lol. I think it might be worth pursuing, the seperation step probably wouldn't be >150 algs but I'm kinda skeptical about the recognition and ergonomics for the 2nd step. As for the alg count of the step, my estimate is that there are exactly 150 algs for the 2nd step since there should be 30 ELL-like algs for all 5 possible orientations of the midges. Still though, I have the feeling the algs suck for the second step and aren't worth pursuing. Maybe though.
> @Shiv3r I'll get back to work on the NLL algs today, I also think I'll begin learning the full method starting this weekend.


Maybe it would be better to just orient the LL edges while orienting the midges as opposed to fully solving them, then EPLL + midge permutation? We could separate that into intermediate (EPLL then z + midges), and advanced (EPLL + midges at the same time). I'm not sure how many cases the advanced set would have, but it's definitely in the hundreds if not more.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> Because it's been the same, re-hashed stuff over and over for years and years. "What if we don't solve an edge down here first, we solve it last instead" Who cares? The derivative method is not going to be any better than the one it was pulled from, and so is not novel or helpful. Taking a Picasso, and photoshopping the tree to the left of the picture and then the house over to the right, does not make the picture any better (it probably made it worse), and the only person who should get credit for it being good at all is Picasso.
> 
> IMO, the only decent methods that have come out of this thread for like literally 2 years are LMCF and 2GR. They're pretty novel in their own right, or at least in the case of LMCF are revisiting an idea that was discarded long ago, and bringing new life into it. Everything else seems to be to have just been rearranging fluff, to virtually no effect.


is this 3x3 only? I have mostly given up on 3x3 methods. However, I have found that there are a lot of things to be innovates in other puzzles. I have come up with several unique methods for 4x4+. the only problem is that usually no one answers those posts and they get flooded.


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 26, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> is this 3x3 only? I have mostly given up on 3x3 methods. However, I have found that there are a lot of things to be innovates in other puzzles. I have come up with several unique methods for 4x4+. the only problem is that usually no one answers those posts and they get flooded.



Fair point. I meant 3x3 only. I think we're only touching the surface of possibilities for big cubes.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2017)




----------



## FastCubeMaster (Apr 26, 2017)

Ok smart people show me how you can 1LLSLL that's quicker than the 5 or 6 steps shown in the other thread


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 26, 2017)

There is CTLS where if you have any pair in the LL, you can always do an R or F' to setup a ZBLL case... It could in theory be a 1LLSLL, provided you set up the pair every time. Good luck with the recognition though. 

I think any 1LLSLL that's actually possible will involve setting up to an alg "intuitively", rather than memorizing a unique alg for every case.


----------



## LexCubing (Apr 26, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> Ok smart people show me how you can 1LLSLL that's quicker than the 5 or 6 steps shown in the other thread


Well buddy there's CFOP out there with 4 steps and it's really fast! Its even in its name. C-F-O-P!

If you meant look I said let's not care about that anymore. Have as much looks as you like but LSLL must be done in 1-look. For ex:
Cross->1st Pair->2nd Pair->
3rd Pair->Jabari Last Slot and Last Layer



AlphaSheep said:


> There is CTLS where if you have any pair in the LL, you can always do an R or F' to setup a ZBLL case... It could in theory be a 1LLSLL, provided you set up the pair every time. Good luck with the recognition though.
> 
> I think any 1LLSLL that's actually possible will involve setting up to an alg "intuitively", rather than memorizing a unique alg for every case.



Correct me if I'm wrong but I know it's still 2 looks. Except F2L is "easier".

Lucky pair ->ZBLL
Pseudo pair->CTLS

When I said easier I meant if the F2L pair sucks there's a chance the other "pairs" will be easier and just do those. ZBLL is easier because of recog but CTLS still requires setup like CT.

Edit:
If everyone is confused when I said let's not care about looks I meant the looks before LSLL. For example:
Weird step 1 + WS 2 + W3 + ... + WS n + 1LLSLL
LSLL must be 1 - look. That's it.​


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 26, 2017)

LexCubing said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I know it's still 2 looks. Except F2L is "easier".
> 
> Lucky pair ->ZBLL
> Pseudo pair->CTLS
> ...


I use ZZ, so I'll stick with that as an example. Hyperthetically the method could look something like this for someone with super human recognition. 

EOLine (1 look) 
Left block (2 looks) 
3rd square + LL pair (1 look, something like phasing - use alternate inserts to force a pair, which _doesn't_ require an extra look) 
CTLS (1 look) - you recognise the setup the same time that you recognise the alg. 
It's not two looks. It's definitely a 1LLSLL. Recognition is just really really really hard.


----------



## cuber314159 (Apr 26, 2017)

Let me explain: as far as I know, no one has learned all 3668 1lll cases or algs so why do you then ask for a 1llsll which is 817344, that cannot be reduced further than 20000 algs from mirrors and inverse and auf so the only way of achieving anything with any relation to 1llsll is complex setup so even if it could be done it is not a viable speedsolving method I do not believe that recognition could ever be sub1 second also algs would be long and the execution would be hard so it is not viable for speedsolving as it either requires complex setup or a rediculous amount of very long algs


----------



## Thermex (Apr 26, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> Fair point. I meant 3x3 only. I think we're only touching the surface of possibilities for big cubes.


I see your point, I sometimes do tire of seeing the people who randomly pop up with variants of Petrus and Roux that are basically the exact same thing, and I think this thread is too focused on 3×3 as other puzzles could use some major advancements too (megaminx, skewb, etc.). But I think you're incorrect in stating that people "used to" come up with better ideas, most of the old ideas in this thread were just hybrids of Roux and CFOP. And I don't think that just because people recommend these kind of meh methods that aren't special in any way we can criticize them, part of this thread is getting people to understand that you have to be a lot more creative than just coming up with Roux/Petrus variants, and getting them into true method designing. After all this thread isn't supposed to be something you watch for entertainment, it's where people brainstorm their ideas, good or bad, and we make improvements on them.
Although I'm kinda done coming up with 3×3 methods at this point for the very reason I wrote in that last paragraph (they're hard to come up with), I still think there are ways of solving the LS+LL in CFOP and variants of WaterRoux that have potential and should still be pursued. Nonetheless, I still would like to see more ideas for non-3×3 puzzles come out of this thread.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2017)

Thermex said:


> onetheless, I still would like to see more ideas for non-3×3 puzzles come out of this thread.


I have posted several times about methods for 4x4+, however no one else suggests any further developments. Also I think that 2x2 is actually somewhat unexplored, due to the mindset that "EG is love, EG is Life, EG is the only way to survive"(poetry intended). Also, seeing some intersting Square-1 methods or Skewb methods would be nice as well.

so guys, with all the 3x3 talk, there is still room for lolmethods on 3x3.
here's one I came up with a while ago, K3(basically a corners-first method based off K4)
1.solve D layer
2.CLL(can be done after step 3 if you want)
3.F2L with K4 F3L algs
4.ELL


----------



## Neuro (Apr 26, 2017)

I think that from this point we need to do some major statistics and weight the advantges and disadvantages on 3x3 methods and substeps. From this point on 3x3, you'll probably get methods with similar movecounts but with different approaches that will all end up about the same. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue new methods (as we'll have more variety and hopefully advancements), but I honestly believe that for a fast human method the lowest possible average movecount while still retaining the ergonomics and lookahead necessary to be fast is ~43. Non-3x3 still has a good ways to go, especually cubes beyond 4x4 and non-cubic puzzles (minus pyraminx).

Speaking of 3x3 stats, I'll be running some major tests on what I believe are the best ZZ variants that are under 200 algs to see what tends to come up the most often, what is the most efficient, and what can give you the "luckiest" solves and averages. I'll be using ZZ-CT, ZZ-B (ZZLL), CLS, ZZ-WV, ZZ-VH (COLL+EPLL), and ZZ-Tripod. I'll probably use 50 random scrambles and try all of them out using Cube Explorer and HARCS to ensure all solves and methods are on an equal playing field in terms of efficiency up to the LS/LL variant. Any other ZZ variants that should be tested? Maybe someone can help me out for methods other than ZZ?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2017)

Neuro said:


> _(minus pyraminx)_


I think there are still things to be discovered with Pyraminx, which was proven by my recent genning of all the FP method algorithms(On pyra I'm currently method neutral between LBL and FP-1, which gets you nice faces pretty often and only 9 algs, 4 for FP-1 set and 5 LBL)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Speaking of 3x3 stats, I'll be running some major tests on what I believe are the best ZZ variants that are under 200 algs to see what tends to come up the most often, what is the most efficient, and what can give you the "luckiest" solves and averages. I'll be using ZZ-CT, ZZ-B (ZZLL), CLS, ZZ-WV, ZZ-VH (COLL+EPLL), and ZZ-Tripod. I'll probably use 50 random scrambles and try all of them out using Cube Explorer and HARCS to ensure all solves and methods are on an equal playing field in terms of efficiency up to the LS/LL variant. Any other ZZ variants that should be tested? Maybe someone can help me out for methods other than ZZ?


If you are looking to see how fast these methods can _get_, then use x2 y neutrality. I believe x2 y neutrality is possible with ZZ(example: iirc Chris Tran is x2 y). Also look and see how much of each solve is 2-gen, because that will give you a rough Idea of how good that variant id for OH.

and for ZZ methods to try, also look at ZZ-4c, and also maybe one of the better ZZ-D methods. 
Also, I heard a variant of ZZ where you only solve DB during EOline, which means you can use that empty DF slot to build more efficiently(Matt Dipalma and @Teoidus I believe were talking about this on the discord).


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 26, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> Let me explain: as far as I know, no one has learned all 3668 1lll cases or algs so why do you then ask for a 1llsll which is 817344, that cannot be reduced further than 20000 algs from mirrors and inverse and auf so the only way of achieving anything with any relation to 1llsll is complex setup so even if it could be done it is not a viable speedsolving method I do not believe that recognition could ever be sub1 second also algs would be long and the execution would be hard so it is not viable for speedsolving as it either requires complex setup or a rediculous amount of very long algs


I agree with everything you've said except for the long algs part and the execution part. The average move count would probably be around 15 moves, and the algs for the most part would be similar in ergonomics to typical LL and LS sets that currently exist.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 26, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> If you are looking to see how fast these methods can _get_, then use x2 y neutrality. I believe x2 y neutrality is possible with ZZ(example: iirc Chris Tran is x2 y). Also look and see how much of each solve is 2-gen, because that will give you a rough Idea of how good that variant id for OH.
> 
> and for ZZ methods to try, also look at ZZ-4c, and also maybe one of the better ZZ-D methods.
> Also, I heard a variant of ZZ where you only solve DB during EOline, which means you can use that empty DF slot to build more efficiently(Matt Dipalma and @Teoidus I believe were talking about this on the discord).


Alright I'll be sure to look at those ZZ variants. I'll probably do all the solves with x2 and y axis neutrality but still use the same EO linefor every solve (per scramble of course) so there's no direct advantage. Would you like to tackle the Roux variants? I think that TCMLL, EOLR, Pinkie Pie, MO centers, and (maybe) UFUB would be good places to start. Maybe some blockbuilding variants also (i.e. opp centers, free blockbuilding, etc)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Alright I'll be sure to look at those ZZ variants. I'll probably do all the solves with x2 and y axis neutrality but still use the same EO linefor every solve (per scramble of course) so there's no direct advantage. Would you like to tackle the Roux variants? I think that TCMLL, EOLR, Pinkie Pie, MO centers, and (maybe) UFUB would be good places to start. Maybe some blockbuilding variants also (i.e. opp centers, free blockbuilding, etc)


I cannot, I don't know how to operate HARCs


----------



## Neuro (Apr 26, 2017)

Alright well testing out all the LSE variants is still pretty easy.

Basic HARCS coding for Roux

>apply (insert scramble) # (yes there does need to be a space in between the # / scramble and apply / scramble)
>roux (loads FB SB FS LSE CMLL)
>style (UF UB etc) (sets solving orienation)
>fb
>x (1 2 3 etc) (fb gives many solutions so select the optimal one)

And continue from here. The HARCS thread has a tutorial video I think


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Alright well testing out all the LSE variants is still pretty easy.
> 
> Basic HARCS coding for Roux
> 
> ...


okay. I'm assuming this runs on PC, if it is then I can't actually achieve anything for a while, I'm on a laptop


----------



## Neuro (Apr 26, 2017)

I can run it on my laptop at home, runs Windows. Not sure about Mac OS though


----------



## Hazel (Apr 27, 2017)

Some skewb method ideas I came up with:

1) An advanced Skewb method where you first solve a half layer + an adjacent center (so it would look like a Petrus block), then solved the remaining 4 centers and 6 corners with one alg.
2) An addition to Sarah's methods where you can have the first layer corners permuted incorrectly (as in a diagonal swap).
3) A method where you solve 2 diagonal corners relative to a center, solved the opposite side/layer, then solved the rest with one alg.
4) Solve 2 Roux-style blocks (center + 2 adjacent corners) on left and right, then corners, then Last 4 Centers

Also, has anyone thought of a 2x2 method where you solve a 1x1x2 block, then use one alg to solve the rest?

Or what about a 4x4 method like this:
1) solve Roux-style 1x3x4 block on left, then on right (or right then left), as well as the D center
2) DF and DB dedges
3) Last 3 centers
4) OLL
5) PLL (this would probably have to be done corners -> edges, instead of all at once)
This method could also be adapted to other big cubes

Are any of these viable and/or worth pursuing?


----------



## Thermex (Apr 27, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I have posted several times about methods for 4x4+, however no one else suggests any further developments. Also I think that 2x2 is actually somewhat unexplored, due to the mindset that "EG is love, EG is Life, EG is the only way to survive"(poetry intended). Also, seeing some intersting Square-1 methods or Skewb methods would be nice as well.
> 
> so guys, with all the 3x3 talk, there is still room for lolmethods on 3x3.
> here's one I came up with a while ago, K3(basically a corners-first method based off K4)
> ...


Yeah you're one of the only ones coming up with non-3×3 ideas which is cool, but I know barely anything about big cubes so I cant really respond to any if your posts but I think I might start getting into big cubes. For a while now I have been interested in pyra, skewb and mega and think they could definitely use some huge advancements. Here's a couple of ideas:

Pyra: This has probably been explored before but what if you started a solve the same as 1-flip but then did the flipping+centers and L3E steps in one look? (If that didn't make sense basically you just solve a 1-flip top and solve the rest with one algorithm). It would only be like 100 algs.

Mega: I've been looking into last slot+last layer methods for a while, my best idea is actually taking LLS (Leighton's last slot, the method Crafto22 came up with) and transposing to megaminx like this:
1) Orient ALL the corners (otherwise recognition sucks for the next step)
2) Solve the pair into slot while doing corner permutation
3) ELL (are there any webpages with MM ELL algs? Do they suck?)

Skewb: Maybe TEG on skewb? How many algs would this be?

@Aerma now that I think about it, your recomendation might be better than skewb TEG. I actually am really interested in the first idea you came up with, it could be a rediculous # of algs (imo anything above 450 isn't worth pursuing) but solving the block is really easy and you could use ARFs to drastically lower the number of algs required for the last step. I think it's the best idea you've come up with so far. Some of the other methods you came up with were kinda meh (3 and 4) and I've heard that 2 has already been made before. Also the big cube method you came up with was basically just the Lewis Method but you included OLL and PLL at the end which doesn't work because the DF and DB edges are still unsolved.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 27, 2017)

After a bit of experimenting, I think a pretty good way of reducing the cases for the skewb thing would be to solve DBR corner because it takes 3 moves max I'm pretty sure, which would reduce the case number, and you could potentially solve the U center (which would add just 1 more move 50% of the time and 0 more moves 25% of the time), which would bring down the case number even more.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 27, 2017)

@Aerma the variant you just mentioned is slightly less efficient and ergonomic but still a good replacement to the original if it's too many algs. I think I'll spend the next 30 mins or so trying to figure out how many algs there would be. I'll get back to you when I'm done.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 27, 2017)

For your megaminx variation you'd be far better off if you did EO before so you get EPLL. MM EPLL is already 15 algs so full ELL would have horrible recog and would have tons of cases (zero rotational symmetry and pure flips) Otherwise it actually looks pretty good!


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Some skewb method ideas I came up with:
> 
> 1) An advanced Skewb method where you first solve a half layer + an adjacent center (so it would look like a Petrus block), then solved the remaining 4 centers and 6 corners with one alg.
> 2) An addition to Sarah's methods where you can have the first layer corners permuted incorrectly (as in a diagonal swap).
> ...


here are the methods you just described:
1)Rhanza's Skewb method
2) I dont think anyone has done this.
3)...
4)Scrouxb

Also, the 4x4 method is called Kenneth's big cube method, but it's also kind of the Lewis method. you may want to look into the Lewis method, K4, and kenneth's though.


----------



## TDM (Apr 27, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> 2) I dont think anyone has done this.


Its close enough to Kir-Meep, although I guess it's slightly more advanced than Kir-Meep since it solves the opposite centre (which Kir-Meep doesn't do).


----------



## Thermex (Apr 27, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> here are the methods you just described:
> 1)Rhanza's Skewb method
> 2) I dont think anyone has done this.
> 3)...
> ...


The skewb method Aerma proposed is similar to Rhanza's method but the last three steps are done in one look. According to @shadowslice e several 2×2 methods have been tried on skewb including the one Aerma reccomended.

@Aerma so about the skewb method, at this point I've determined it would be pretty much impossible to do the step you described without >500 algs, so i think the best idea now is to do what you did and start thinking of mini sub-steps we could put before it to reduce the number of cases. I'll think about it.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 27, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Mega: I've been looking into last slot+last layer methods for a while, my best idea is actually taking LLS (Leighton's last slot, the method Crafto22 came up with) and transposing to megaminx like this:
> 1) Orient ALL the corners (otherwise recognition sucks for the next step)
> 2) Solve the pair into slot while doing corner permutation
> 3) ELL (are there any webpages with MM ELL algs? Do they suck?)



Some megaminx ELL algs: https://sites.google.com/site/permuteramera/home/3ell

They don't seem to be very nice, but I don't know how bad other megaminx algs are anyway. Compared to the 333, it's a lot more awkward to use commutators to solve edges because megaminxes can't slice.

Also, step 2 would have loads of cases. (180-ish? Too lazy to count the exact number.)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2017)

so about the HD method(formerly EG VOP) we were talking about earlier, we have released the "first step" (LOLS, for Lewis Orient Last Slot). Here are the algs. If you want to start learning the algs, start with those.

Note: 


these are only the orientation algorithms. The permutation algorithms are still being speed-optimized. One thing to notice is sometimes it can be better to mirror the - alg for a + case and vice versa because the v gives you a cancellation into that alg.

If you are working on learning HD, I suggest doing this until the NLL algs are released(and while you are learning them):
0.Make the "V"(3/4 ortega face)
1. LOLS(predict in inspection)
2.use R2 U R2 and R2 U' R2 to separate the layers
3.PBL
This is the method I used to practice the V and predicting LOLS. it can be used as a kind of learner's method, kind of like using 4 look Last layer on 3x3.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Apr 27, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Speaking of 3x3 stats, I'll be running some major tests on what I believe are the best ZZ variants that are under 200 algs to see what tends to come up the most often, what is the most efficient, and what can give you the "luckiest" solves and averages. I'll be using ZZ-CT, ZZ-B (ZZLL), CLS, ZZ-WV, ZZ-VH (COLL+EPLL), and ZZ-Tripod.



ZZ-b has more than 200 algs if you use the full 58 phasing algs.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 28, 2017)

How good would a Pyraminx advanced method be where you solved the centers (5 moves max I think), then L6E?

What about a 2x2 method where you:
1) solve 3/4 of a face (just a few turns)
2) insert the last corner while permuting that face and orienting LL corners
3) PLL


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 28, 2017)

Aerma said:


> How good would a Pyraminx advanced method be where you solved the centers (5 moves max I think), then L6E?
> 
> What about a 2x2 method where you:
> 1) solve 3/4 of a face (just a few turns)
> ...


Pyraminx L6E has way too many cases. I personally think the Petrus/backbone method for pyraminx deserves more attention. For the 2x2 method, the second step has 624 algs. I would either change steps 2/3 to insert last corner and solve D-layer/CLL, insert any corner and orient everything/permute everything (HD method), insert last corner and orient all other corners/PBD (104 algs + PBL), or something, but all of those are pretty bad, besides HD. I might try looking into my first suggestion more; it's only 32 algs, I think.
I think that either of my 2 previously mentioned square 1 methods could be good. This could be considered the next step: 
SQ-CT
1) Parity cubeshape (the parity solution is essential this time)
2) First block
3) Second block and fix equator
4) Insert DB edge (can be combined with previous step often, algorithmically might be worth it)
5) Finish everything else in one algorithm (93 cases, same as TTLL)


----------



## Thermex (Apr 28, 2017)

@Aerma Sue's right that would be a rediculous number of algs, but doing L5E instead (I guess this has been nicknamed "backbone") could have potential. The 2×2 method you came up with was basically just doing HD but permuting the bottom corners during LOLS wihich is much less alg-efficient.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 28, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> ZZ-b has more than 200 algs if you use the full 58 phasing algs.


Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I didn't think about the # of phasing algs just the ZZLL's! I may still keep it in my stats though simply because the number of algs is still well within reason to learn and the method can be pretty fast.


----------



## Thermex (Apr 28, 2017)

Wait here's another megaminx LS+LL idea:

1. Put the DRF corner in its slot (correctly oriented) and orient the edges (~40 really short algs)
2. COLL (192 cases, problem is the recog might be complete garbage)
3. L6EP (EPLL+FR edge, again this might have terrible recog and a ton of cases)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 28, 2017)

@Neuro Speaking of ZZ, I decided to do an FMC solve, and ended up doing ZZ-WV and getting a 45-move solve. Here's the solve(there are no rotations, so you will have to pan around to see what I'm doing)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 28, 2017)

I came up with an Idea to skip OLL, it's basically 2look VLS and it sucks. but here it is, since I haven't talked about it before here: 
-F2L-1
-insert the D layer corner while orienting all the edges(16 algs, twice as many algs as VHLS)
-BLE


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 28, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I came up with an Idea to skip OLL, it's basically 2look VLS and it sucks. but here it is, since I haven't talked about it before here:
> -F2L-1
> -insert the D layer corner while orienting all the edges(16 algs, twice as many algs as VHLS)
> -BLE


It's kind of like MGLS, but with less algs, right? It actually seems okay, at least for intermediate cubing.
My Hexagonal Francisco method from a while ago. It's sort of a 2GR HF combo thing.
Recap:
HF+
1a) 1x2x3 on D (<R,U,F,r,u,f>)
1b) Attach DLF and solve CP
2a) E-slice edges -1
2b) Insert last E-slice edge and force arrow case
3) L5C
4) L5E
Example solve:
Scramble: F2 B2 U2 R2 L F U' D2 L' D' B D2 F' R2 U2 B L2 F2 R2 U2 B
Inspection- z2
Block- F' U' f2 E F2 R' (6/6)
CP- R U R' D R U' R' D' (8/14)
E-slice- U R U' R' u' U' r U r' u2 U r U r' (14/28)
Last edge + 3-flip- E' r U' r' (4/32)
L5C- R U2 R2 U2 R' U R2 U' R U2 R (11/43)
L5E- M' U M u' M' U2 M' U M U2 M' U M2 (13/56)
56 moves. This is around ZZ-VH movecount, isn't it?
Note: I don't actually know how to fix CP, I just tried stuff until I found something that worked; Last E-slice edge alg was intuitive; L5C was from cube explorer; L5E was just a cancelled U-perm, so if this is to become a method, we should have all L5E arrow cases.


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 29, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> I came up with an Idea to skip OLL, it's basically 2look VLS and it sucks. but here it is, since I haven't talked about it before here:
> -F2L-1
> -insert the D layer corner while orienting all the edges(16 algs, twice as many algs as VHLS)
> -BLE



It's JJLS.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 29, 2017)

So for CFCE what I'm thinking is this: 3 cross edges, F2L (last one you either ensure a 4 flip on top or full EO), a CxLL subset that preserves EO and solves it for 4 flip and L5E. 

F2L should be pretty intuitive and CxLL would theoretically have double the amount of CMLL and by putting all bad edges on the top there's no issue with symmetry. And L5E is pretty straightforward b/c you already have EO done. So basically you can get pretty similar TPS/lookahead as you can with CFOP with a theoretically lower movecount while having pretty low # of algs and simple recognition. My biggest gripe would be with the last F2L pair and EO recog but it's really not that bad. Not to mention the other alternative is learning like 16 algs per CxLL case. Any thoughts on this? I'll add a solve soon


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 29, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So for CFCE what I'm thinking is this: 3 cross edges, F2L (last one you either ensure a 4 flip on top or full EO), a CxLL subset that preserves EO and solves it for 4 flip and L5E.
> 
> F2L should be pretty intuitive and CxLL would theoretically have double the amount of CMLL and by putting all bad edges on the top there's no issue with symmetry. And L5E is pretty straightforward b/c you already have EO done. So basically you can get pretty similar TPS/lookahead as you can with CFOP with a theoretically lower movecount while having pretty low # of algs and simple recognition. My biggest gripe would be with the last F2L pair and EO recog but it's really not that bad. Not to mention the other alternative is learning like 16 algs per CxLL case. Any thoughts on this? I'll add a solve soon


didn't crafto22 just propose this exact same thing a while back?


----------



## Hazel (Apr 29, 2017)

I know Ivy Cube isn't an official event or anything, but if it was someday that I think I might have come up with an okay advanced method for it:
1) Solve 3 centers around a corner
2) Solve the rest with one alg


----------



## Hazel (Apr 29, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So for CFCE what I'm thinking is this: 3 cross edges, F2L (last one you either ensure a 4 flip on top or full EO), a CxLL subset that preserves EO and solves it for 4 flip and L5E.
> 
> F2L should be pretty intuitive and CxLL would theoretically have double the amount of CMLL and by putting all bad edges on the top there's no issue with symmetry. And L5E is pretty straightforward b/c you already have EO done. So basically you can get pretty similar TPS/lookahead as you can with CFOP with a theoretically lower movecount while having pretty low # of algs and simple recognition. My biggest gripe would be with the last F2L pair and EO recog but it's really not that bad. Not to mention the other alternative is learning like 16 algs per CxLL case. Any thoughts on this? I'll add a solve soon


I've heard that this only saves maybe 1 move for cross, and even makes F2L LESS efficient :/


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 29, 2017)

I


Aerma said:


> I know Ivy Cube isn't an official event or anything, but if it was someday that I think I might have come up with an okay advanced method for it:
> 1) Solve 3 centers around a corner
> 2) Solve the rest with one alg


The Ivy cube is just a pyraminx without the tips and styled differently
the method you are talking about is WO for pyraminx.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 29, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Has this been proposed before?
> 
> 1. 3 cross edges, last one is any misoriented U-layer edge (5 moves)
> 2. F2L-1 (20 moves)
> ...


@Shiv3r Not exactly, he forced an MO edge into the last cross slot and used an arrow case while solving L5E with only one possibility for L5E that's harder to recognize.

What I think I'd do differently now is to do 3 cross edges while forcing a in either an oriented U layer edge OR last cross edge, do F2L while forcing either a cross OLL or EO done (should be pretty intuitive), and CxLL that either does EO or preserves it and L5EP. Easy cross, F2L may be a problem but it should still be fast, CxLL is really easy as proven by COLL, CMLL, etc., and L5EP is pretty easy to recognize and it's entirely <M,U> or <R,U> with a rotation. Also easier lookahead into F2L may help to cancel out the slowish EO portion later in the solve.

EDIT: Alternatively, you can do the EO influence, and do COLL and use 2 sets of L5E. I think that both variants would be good but perhaps the EO+CxLL variant is better (recognition of misoriented L5E probably isn't that great even with rotational symmetry)

Solve with v1 45 STM
Solve with v2 43 STM

I've done several solves with the 1st variant and every solve has been under 55 STM so far, should be below CFOP's average movecount even with the awkward EO influence


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 29, 2017)

Here's kind of an alternative way of doing WVCP.
1) EOF2L-1
2) Solve last F2L corner and solve CP (26 algorithms)
3) Solve last F2L edge and solve corner orientation (27 algorithms)

Also, I've thought of a better way of detecting CP during last slot. When an F2L corner is out, 3 U-layer corners are visible. If you know your COLL recognition well enough (from all angles), you can look at these three corners and know what the last U-layer corner would be were it in the F2L corners place (e.g. do R U R' on a solved cube. If the U-layer corner in DFR were in ULF, it would have to have it's U color sticker on the F face, bringing about a headlights case.). You can then tell the "COLL case" from the colors you can see, and identify the pieces that are switched. ( e.g. if you do R U R', the "COLL case" formed by the corners switches UBR and UFR when applied.). Here, you take this swap, and update it by swapping the 2 corners before the F2L corners, moving in a clock wise direction (e.g. after R U R', you would swap UBR and UFR.). This swap is the byproduct of inserting the F2L pair. You then take both swaps, and account for both while inserting your last F2L pair, giving you an <R,U> solvable corner subset. 

With this recognition method in place, I'd like to propose what I would call 2GLS: a VHLS type alg set where CP and EO are solved, leaving you with a 2GLL case to finish.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 30, 2017)

Sorry for spam but here's a quick idea I came up with that should be a better alternative than full COLS. Basically you can do WV, SV, BLE, and 1 set in which the corner is in it's slot but the edge isn't. For most of the LS cases you can get to any one of these cases in ~3 moves assuming you wish to use it. Altogether it has 129 algs that are of course all 2 gen. I can see it being quite useful for ZZ, particularly OH. Let me know your thoughts!

EDIT: My bad, there are actually 2 sets for corner in slot -edge not including BLE! So 5 sets of 27 gives 135 algs, still pretty reasonable IMO.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 30, 2017)

Potential 2x2 method, not super advanced like EG but maybe viable:
1) Solve a "layer". One of the layer pieces doesn't have to be the correct one, as long as it's oriented properly.
2) OLL
3) 2x2 variant of TTLL

There's also 3 variants of this I thought of:

1) "layer"
2) CLL (solving permutation of the 3 corners on U layer that are supposed to be on U layer, but same algs as CLL)
3) use the same alg every time to solve TTLL

or

1) "layer"
2) a form of CLL that would make it so you could do a R2 U R2 U' R2 immediately after and solve the cube, or cancel into it.

or

1) "layer"
2) L5C


----------



## Thermex (Apr 30, 2017)

@Aerma I didn't necessarily understand everything you just said, but I'm pretty sure your first idea was this?

1. Layer, but one piece from the opposite layer can be in it
2. OLL
3. TTLL on 2×2 (6 algs)

I actually think I might teach some of my friends this; I think anyone planning on learning HD at some point could use this as a stepping stone.

A new "pathway" of methods I might teach some of my friends:

1. Beginner's LBL (LBL with only sunes and T-perms)
2. LBL (layer, OLL, PLL)
3. Beginner's VOP (the method you described earlier that ends it TTLL)
4. VOP
5. HD


----------



## Hazel (Apr 30, 2017)

Finally, a method I proposed that I don't have to put in the trash can


----------



## VenomCubing (Apr 30, 2017)

Real quick thought: maybe during the insertion of the last f2l pair, a solver could make sure that at least one last layer corner is oriented. Then for the last layer, the LL edges could be oriented and permuted to be solved with an oriented corner (one algorithm), leaving the last three corners to be solved, so L3C would be the last step. Any feedback?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 30, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> Real quick thought: maybe during the insertion of the last f2l pair, a solver could make sure that at least one last layer corner is oriented. Then for the last layer, the LL edges could be oriented and permuted to be solved with an oriented corner (one algorithm), leaving the last three corners to be solved, so L3C would be the last step. Any feedback?


That's fish and chips or snyder LL. It's not too bad anD better in terms of movecount though you can get really horrible cases like 3 twisted corners


----------



## VenomCubing (Apr 30, 2017)

Thanks!
Very helpful.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 1, 2017)

After rethinking my previous post on a MGLS style WVCP, I have thought that it would be better like this:
1) EOF2L-1
2) Place last F2L edge and solve CP
3) Place last F2L corner and solve CO (2-gen CLS)
There are certainly more algorithms, but I think ergonomics would be better.


----------



## Neuro (May 1, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> After rethinking my previous post on a MGLS style WVCP, I have thought that it would be better like this:
> 1) EOF2L-1
> 2) Place last F2L edge and solve CP
> 3) Place last F2L corner and solve CO (2-gen CLS)
> There are certainly more algorithms, but I think ergonomics would be better.


You might as well be doing WVCP. It has nearly the same # of algs and recog is still pretty bad


----------



## Shiv3r (May 1, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> That's fish and chips or snyder LL. It's not too bad anD better in terms of movecount though you can get really horrible cases like 3 twisted corners


3 twisted corners alg is actually pretty fast. mine is sune+Uperm, and I can sub-2 it. even though I don't practice it...


----------



## shadowslice e (May 1, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> 3 twisted corners alg is actually pretty fast. mine is sune+Uperm, and I can sub-1 it.


video please.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 1, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> video please.


I probably exaggerated, I could probably sub-1.5 it. I'm saying that for L3C cases, that one isn't that bad. 
Kinda like T-perm imo. It's pretty inefficient but really fast.


----------



## Anonymous696969 (May 1, 2017)

What if someone could make a new megaminx method? Maybe it could help with look ahead (meaning not having to look over the megaminx so much to find pieces so look ahead is easier, that be awesome).


----------



## Shiv3r (May 1, 2017)

Anonymous696969 said:


> What if someone could make a new megaminx method? Maybe it could help with look ahead (meaning not having to look over the megaminx so much to find pieces so look ahead is easier, that be awesome).


look at Hyu da Hyun S2L order. it's a variant of westlund which imo is better lookahead-wise. there isn't a straight tutorial on it, but this is what I do: 
-F2L on white
-Rotate and do another "F2L" with Yellow
-continue with some strange form of westlund and finish with a LL color adjacent to your F2L color.


----------



## Anonymous696969 (May 1, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> look at Hyu da Hyun S2L order. it's a variant of westlund which imo is better lookahead-wise. there isn't a straight tutorial on it, but this is what I do:
> -F2L on white
> -Rotate and do another "F2L" with Yellow
> -continue with some strange form of westlund and finish with a LL color adjacent to your F2L color.


Thanks man, i'm going to look into that concept more, pretty different and smart idea. Once again thanks. This will probably help a lot with my megaminx times as I am really into it right now.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 2, 2017)

Neuro said:


> You might as well be doing WVCP. It has nearly the same # of algs and recog is still pretty bad


I guess. My method, I believe, would have a slightly lower movecount and slightly better ergonomics. I guess I'll go back to the first version. Here are some other orders in which to do it, though.
E=F2L edge, C=F2L corner, F=F2L pair, O=corner orientation, P=corner permutation (as in reduction to a 2-gen solvable state)
F, O+P: WVCP
E+P, C+O: my 2nd version
E+O, C+P: some weird TSLE/TTLL type thing
C+O, E+P: Seems bad
C+P, E+O: 1st version
O+P, E+C: Looks interesting, kind of like reverse WVCP, but would have 126 algs for first step.


----------



## Neuro (May 2, 2017)

Interesting proposal to finish MCELL in 3 looks

I'll just go through all the steps here (based on my preference):

1: FB on L
2: 2x2x2 in DBR
3: TSLE variant (orients corners, doesn't pay attention to EO) 105 algs
4: Roux VH (insets edge corresponding to corner in FDR while orienting the edges) 15 algs?
5: Last CE (uses TTLL-like recog but very few algs due to 2x1x1 block in CE on bottom) 54 new algs (?) and 21 PLL's

I'll put a solve in later but it looks pretty promising IMO, should be efficient with good recognition while being under 200 algs!

EDIT: Solve. 43 STM but might've been more efficient with different starting block or CE+LL alg


----------



## Shiv3r (May 2, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Interesting proposal to finish MCELL in 3 looks
> 
> I'll just go through all the steps here (based on my preference):
> 
> ...


what else is under 200 algs? ZZ-b and ZZ-CT.


----------



## Neuro (May 2, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> what else is under 200 algs? ZZ-b and ZZ-CT.


Only CT works well with MCELL? Also it has overall less algs than CT because Last CE has a super low case count.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 2, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> what else is under 200 algs? ZZ-b and ZZ-CT.


They control more though and take more moves to get to the alg excecution point.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 2, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> They control more though and take more moves to get to the alg excecution point.


however more people main them then main M-CELL at this point


----------



## shadowslice e (May 2, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> however more people main them then main M-CELL at this point


yes but at one point more people main cf than cfop.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 2, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> yes but at one point more people main cf than cfop.


true true. I'm not against M-CELL. one thing I didn't like about the original method proposal was the lack of algs proposed
One of the things I have against the method is the structured "solve these 3 pieces , then solve this last pair here", because it has the possibility to give nastier cases than other methods Like CFOP or ZZ or even Roux which give you easier cases more often. 
But if someone genner all the TCLL and then the L5E algs, or the algs posted here, I think maybe It will be ok.

@Teoidus How's 2Gr going?


----------



## Neuro (May 2, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> But if someone genner all the TCLL and then the L5E algs, or the algs posted here, I think maybe It will be ok.
> 
> @Teoidus How's 2Gr going?


Misoriented L5E would have terrible recog. You'd be MUCH better off orienting and permuting. As for TCLL, I have some algs that I can modify that I made for TCMLL. Oh and my ZZ substep doc is coming along pretty nicely, it just takes awhile. Hopefully I can release my findings by the end of the month.


----------



## Teoidus (May 3, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> @Teoidus How's 2Gr going?



I'm practicing it when I have free time.

As for the MCELL variant: FB+2x2x2 (18), TSLE (10), RouxVH (8), last CE (~13) => ~49 moves

So I could imagine it being alright, but the fancy LSLL trickery may be worse off than a simpler method that achieves similar movecounts.

Personally, I favorite MCELL variant is one I stumbled on (which I considered old version of 2GR, since I didn't know about MCELL at the time): FB+2x2x2 (18), CP+EO (8), sq to complete F2L (10), 2GLL (15) => 51 moves.

While not anything amazing, the CP+EO step was surprisingly efficient and you can get pretty lucky with the psuedo2gen and 2gen steps following it.


----------



## Allahjabark (May 3, 2017)

A sub 10 rouxer on the subreddit posted his own lse method that he used before switching to EOLR or something. I just like the braindead recog on it and I average about 4 secs with lse now (as opposed to 4-a-b-c) coming from 6 seconds. I'll stop rambling and drop the link now so you can try it for yourself.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19fYocBPuClXnpZiggBm3vJKicztwuj0iXIuZtm0aRak/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## TDM (May 3, 2017)

Allahjabark said:


> A sub 10 rouxer on the subreddit posted his own lse method that he used before switching to EOLR or something. I just like the braindead recog on it and I average about 4 secs with lse now (as opposed to 4-a-b-c) coming from 6 seconds. I'll stop rambling and drop the link now so you can try it for yourself.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19fYocBPuClXnpZiggBm3vJKicztwuj0iXIuZtm0aRak/edit?usp=sharing


Isn't this just a worse version of normal LSE? The lookahead is barely different and it's incredibly inefficient.


----------



## Teoidus (May 3, 2017)

Reminds me of the waterman system for LSE


----------



## Allahjabark (May 3, 2017)

TDM said:


> Isn't this just a worse version of normal LSE? The lookahead is barely different and it's incredibly inefficient.


The lookahead helps due to not having to look at the D layer I guess. I don't know, but I'm switching to EOLR soon. Also I can really crank up tps on this.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 3, 2017)

Allahjabark said:


> The lookahead helps due to not having to look at the D layer I guess. I don't know, but I'm switching to EOLR soon. Also I can really crank up tps on this.


You don't need to look at the d layer in normal lse or eolr


----------



## TDM (May 3, 2017)

Allahjabark said:


> The lookahead helps due to not having to look at the D layer I guess. I don't know, but I'm switching to EOLR soon. Also I can really crank up tps on this.


Can't you do this with normal LSE? The only part of LSE with difficult lookahead is the transition to 4c, which is the same in this method. If anything, being restricted to doing so many M moves would slow my TPS down.


----------



## Allahjabark (May 3, 2017)

TDM said:


> Can't you do this with normal LSE? The only part of LSE with difficult lookahead is the transition to 4c, which is the same in this method. If anything, being restricted to doing so many M moves would slow my TPS down.


I just need to work on blocks right now, I'm at about 17 seconds with blocks, 5 at CMLL and about 6 for LSE.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 4, 2017)

ZZ variant, probably sucks.
1) EOline
2) Build any 2x2x1 block on each side
3) Build 6 1x1x2 blocks
4) permute all blocks
Might be useful for FMC.


----------



## Neuro (May 4, 2017)

So I'm playing with ZZ-D for my ZZ substep doc and I came up with this (but it's probably been considered/done before )

After 3x2x2, put one of the D layer corners in the back and solve CP in one alg. 13(?) algs. Should be about the same as Porky v2 in terms of execution/recog


----------



## Shiv3r (May 4, 2017)

So over the time I have been using roux, I have found some interesting stuff. (not really anything new, but just some random tips I have found, and some weird algs). 

-Alexander Lau will often do some weird FB trick(it is in a lot of the solves on the recon database ), where he builds the FB 
an x away, then does an Lw move to bring up FB and the DR edge at the same time. there is not much evidence of hum using pinky pie though. He also does OH LSE in his own way, called Alex or Lau style, which rests the FR side on the table, and it looks like you are doing M and F moves.
-I didn't know this until recently, but Kavin, the world's fastest OH Rouxer, actually builds his FB on left(he's a right-handed Rouxer), then does a z' and does FB like a kind of cross-on-left with R, U, and u moves. He also is one of the creators/early adopters of Kavin style OH LSE, with the DR(DL for Kavin) edge on the table and doing M and U moves.

-Some weird CMLL stuff: 
-If you use the <RUL> Jb-perm for oriented adjacent swap like I do, then a slight modification to it makes it an alg that flips edges. you make the first and last R moves wide, and makes the last R move an r2.
so the alg becomes this: *r'* U L' U2 R U' R' U2 *r2*(x')
-for oriented Diag swap, there is a great alg that flips edges: 
R' U L' U2 R U' x' U L' U2 R U' R x
It seems slow, but I can sub-1 it, and I use this and Y-perm(preserve edges) as my main algs for diag oriented. 

I just decided to rant a little about some Roux stuff, I have some other method Ideas I want to propose here later.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 4, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So I'm playing with ZZ-D for my ZZ substep doc and I came up with this (but it's probably been considered/done before )
> 
> After 3x2x2, put one of the D layer corners in the back and solve CP in one alg. 13(?) algs. Should be about the same as Porky v2 in terms of execution/recog


Huh. besides 2GR, my favorite ZZ-d variant is the one used by Kleb on the /r/cubers discord, and he told us discorders about it a few months ago. His was basically at F2L-1, permute all the corners as efficiently as possible, then build the last F2L pair and insert. I can't remember exactly how it worked, if the pair needed to be in the right place or only the corner, but it was surprisingly efficient


----------



## Neuro (May 4, 2017)

Here's another ZZ-D variant I came up with, probably less efficient than my last one though

Solve LS using any LS case while solving CP (no orientation): (6x18)+(3x2)=114 algs

Again, recog is similar to miDiPalma's "CLL" system. @Shiv3r Sound's interesting, I'll try to find it. If I can find a ZZ-D system that I like I'll add it to my variant doc.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 4, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Here's another ZZ-D variant I came up with, probably less efficient than my last one though
> 
> Solve LS using any LS case while solving CP (no orientation): (6x18)+(3x2)=114 algs
> 
> Again, recog is similar to miDiPalma's "CLL" system. @Shiv3r Sound's interesting, I'll try to find it. If I can find a ZZ-D system that I like I'll add it to my variant doc.


make a discord account and join the /r/cubers thing, Kleb is an admin on the /r/cubers discord. or I could ask him later.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 4, 2017)

here it is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...pHQBAuQYBmVAOouA5vkfiGe34/edit#gid=1099035608

the final F2L corner has to be in URB
it's called "ZZ-cp something" 
@Neuro here ya go


----------



## Neuro (May 5, 2017)

Alright so my first proposal of ZZ-D has 14 algs and the recognition is actually not too bad if you hold last corner in the back like in TTLL. And if both corners are in the D layer you can use Porky v1 algs. I'll try and make some CP algs and post them here later. I think setup for this approach takes ~3 moves and the CP algs should be pretty short, hoping this can be a nice variant


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Alright so my first proposal of ZZ-D has 14 algs and the recognition is actually not too bad if you hold last corner in the back like in TTLL. And if both corners are in the D layer you can use Porky v1 algs. I'll try and make some CP algs and post them here later. I think setup for this approach takes ~3 moves and the CP algs should be pretty short, hoping this can be a nice variant


what is the approach? (the steps). if it only has 1 corner in the D layer, I believe it is called semi-porky


----------



## Neuro (May 5, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> what is the approach? (the steps). if it only has 1 corner in the D layer, I believe it is called semi-porky


You can have either both corners in the D layer (either solved or swapped) or just one in the back (or front is skilled enough, swapped or solved) and from there you can use TTLL like recog for 1 corner and normal CP recog when both are in the bottom. I'll put a solve in later

EDIT: Solve with 8 move CP. I think this is about standard for CP movecount right now but recog may be easier and the alg probably could've been shorter


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2017)

topic change.
I was looking around and found this.





I can't look at the comments for some reason, and also can't figure out what he's doing.

EDIT: oh wait Nvm He's using Milan I think.


----------



## Teoidus (May 5, 2017)

looks like midges last


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2017)

I specifically meant the steps, it looks like centers then directly solve edges, and then do something to corners.
oooh wait I was thinking midges like midges in waterman, this actually makes sense. basiclaly he solves the whole cube like he would a 4x4, then fixes the middle edges. I wonder if the 3-2-3 you can do can actually be pretty fast with this. I want to try this on Yau5/Hoya5 now!


----------



## Hazel (May 5, 2017)

So I came up with a side-first method (that has probably been done many times before):

1) side + E slice (You could do this like normal cross + F2L, just without worrying about correct cross-color permutation)
2) OLL
3) PL2L (permute Last 2 layers)

Example: R2 D2 B' L2 D2 B' L D2 R2 D' U2 F U' F2 U F2 L' R' U2
*1) *
cross: x2 F U2 F R' L'
F2L1: y R' U2 R2 U' R'
F2L2: L' U L' U2 L2 U2 L2
F2L3: U' R' U2 R y U2 R' U R
F2L4: R U2 R' U2 R U' R'
*2) *F R U R' U' F'
*3) *
Parity: M2 U2 M2
PLL1: U2 F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' U'
PLL2: z2 U2 R2 u R' U R' U' R u' R2 y' R' U R

It's not very viable for speedsolving, but it's kinda fun to do so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## LexCubing (May 5, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> Let me explain: as far as I know, no one has learned all 3668 1lll cases or algs so why do you then ask for a 1llsll which is 817344, that cannot be reduced further than 20000 algs from mirrors and inverse and auf so the only way of achieving anything with any relation to 1llsll is complex setup so even if it could be done it is not a viable speedsolving method I do not believe that recognition could ever be sub1 second also algs would be long and the execution would be hard so it is not viable for speedsolving as it either requires complex setup or a rediculous amount of very long algs



I gave up on this but so you know I can reduce it to ~4k - 2k depending on what I do on my 3rd slot. As long the math checks out.

Yes just like how ZZ reduce a 4k alg set to 493 I can reduce ~400k - 1M alg set to around the size of 1LLLL.
And that's the magic of math.

As long the math checks out.


----------



## cuber314159 (May 5, 2017)

LexCubing said:


> I gave up on this but so you know I can reduce it to ~4k - 2k depending on what I do on my 3rd slot. As long the math checks out.


Yes, but this is my point, you are not reducing alg numbers, you are merely forcing complex setup, which may be intuitive but still takes extra solve time. ZBLL is not pure 1lll it is more technically a subset of 1lll, the CPEP for 7 of the 57 OLL cases, and I presume your 1llsll will be similar. The only way to reduce alg sets is by mirrors and inverses and even still requires learning that alg anyway as it is hard to figure out an inverse first time while performing the alg sub1 as anyone wishing to learn 1llsll would likely aim for.
Edge orientation during F2L is setup and therefore makes ZBLL not pure 1LLL


----------



## Neuro (May 6, 2017)

I've got a dilemma on my ZZ variant doc that I would like your opinions on

I have ZZ-OLLPLL and ZZ-VH on my variant stats document along with many LS+LL variants. However, all the "bases" I use for my scrambles go to F2L-1 (all variants are tested by first taking a scramble and solving to F2L-1 so as to effectively test the efficiency and variance of the techniques)

My concern arises when looking at OLLPLL and VH in that they are NOT LS+LL variants, so you'd actually want to build* full F2L* before you use that variant. *All my bases are, again, done solving to F2L-1*. Will this make the tests for OLLPLL and VH void as they are not built to a proper base to test, as you have to add extra moves to get to "the proper base"; or can they still be considered good tests to see the efficiency to solve from F2L-1? If you're confused here's a solve where I marked the base and everything.

One concern is that if I build full F2L for those solves specifically they get an unfair advantage, as they now use different bases from the other variants. But now, they have the disadvantage of not being at their proper F2L stage.

TLDR: ZZ Stats doc builds to F2L-1 to test. You have to solve F2L before using OLLPLL or VH whereas on the other variants you don't. Is this an issue?


----------



## Neuro (May 6, 2017)

Oh and here's a 4x4 variant I've been playing with, based off of Hoya/Lewis/Meyer

1: Hoya Centers+DB edge
2: L and R blocks+last 2 centers (K4, blockbuilding, freeslice, anything really)
3: Pair edges (commutators/Meyer style)
4: CLL+Parity (easy to MU your way to setup)
5: L5E

EDIT: ¡Es horrible, no prestar atención a este método!


----------



## Ognjen Lecic (May 6, 2017)

So we all know about coll and zbll and regular oll pll, with zbll you have one look 1 alg, with coll you have 2 looks 1,5 algs(1 for oll and .5 for epll because those are really easy and fast) and oll pll you have 2 looks 2 algs, but what if you had 1 look 2 algs, basically a long zbll, that would be l4c +epll in 1 look, l4c has 84 algs which are zblls that dont affect the edges so you can predict epll and do it right after that zbll, it has close to 90 algs for the entire ll a lot less than zbll ovc you would need to use some last slot method or just use zz or even alg for 2 look oll could work if you know what it does to the pieces, what do you guys think about this?


----------



## LexCubing (May 6, 2017)

cuber314159 said:


> Yes, but this is my point, you are not reducing alg numbers, you are merely forcing complex setup, which may be intuitive but still takes extra solve time. ZBLL is not pure 1lll it is more technically a subset of 1lll, the CPEP for 7 of the 57 OLL cases, and I presume your 1llsll will be similar. The only way to reduce alg sets is by mirrors and inverses and even still requires learning that alg anyway as it is hard to figure out an inverse first time while performing the alg sub1 as anyone wishing to learn 1llsll would likely aim for.
> Edge orientation during F2L is setup and therefore makes ZBLL not pure 1LLL


 
What do you even mean by reducing the alg count? Mirrors/Inverses don't reduce it though. It's still the same # of algs. Ua and Ub PLL are inverses of each other but how many algs? 1? No 2.

ZZ did reduce the alg set and also extra solve time depends on the how the method. ZZ-a is on top w/ 1LLLL Method and its other variations.


----------



## xyzzy (May 6, 2017)

You don't need full L4C to preserve the edges, just half of it, because the edges can be off by a H perm and it wouldn't matter.

The algs for EP-preserving COLL are in some cases the same as the usual COLL algs (e.g. the 3-cycles don't even affect edges), but there are some that are significantly worse than the usual COLL algs, and this would have a higher move count than COLL/EPLL.

Pros: only one recognition pause.
Cons: EP recognition with unsolved corners is harder than EPLL recog (you have parity to account for if you use two-sided recog wrt a fixed corner); the recognition pause with COLL/EPLL can be eliminated with lookahead; algs are worse; you can already predict EPLL with COLL if you memorise how the alg affects the edges.


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 6, 2017)

The problem with ZBLL is not learning algs. It takes me around 10 minutes to learn a new alg. The hard part is associating your recognition for the case with the alg. Since a 1 look, 2 alg method doesn't really affect the number of cases you need to associate recognition for, it's actually not as much of an advantage as you'd think.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 7, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Oh and here's a 4x4 variant I've been playing with, based off of Hoya/Lewis/Meyer
> 
> 1: Hoya Centers+DB edge
> 2: L and R blocks+last 2 centers (K4, blockbuilding, freeslice, anything really)
> ...


Wouldn't it be "no presta atención," because you're in command form? Or did you just use Google translate?

I had an interesting idea. Almost like FreeFOP but with ZZ.
1) Roux style first block
2) 2x2x2 (left block B square+DB+centers)
3) L5EOP (Orient edges and place FD), modified for when edge in F2L slot is misoriented.
4) Solve as ZZF2L-1
I think it has the potential to be just about as good as ZZ. I believe movecount would be lower.
Example solve (into ZZ-CT):
Scramble:L B' U B D' L' D2 B2 R F2 D2 B R2 B' U2 L2 B2 R2 L2
Inspection: y
FB: F' U r' D' U2 B U2 r B (9/9)
2x2x2: R U R M U' M2 R' U R M2 U M' (12/21)
L5EOP: r U2 r' U2 M' U M U' M' U2 M (11/32)
TLSE: U R' D' r U2 r' D R (8/40)
TTLL: D R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U D' (10/50)
TSLE and TTLL were both pretty lucky, but to counterbalance that, the previous steps could almost certainly have been more efficient.


----------



## Hazel (May 7, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Wouldn't it be "no presta atención," because you're in command form? Or did you just use Google translate?
> 
> I had an interesting idea. Almost like FreeFOP but with ZZ.
> 1) Roux style first block
> ...


You could have done FB + 2x2x2 in 10 moves total (without the y in inspection): D' R U' D2 L2 F2 D B D R2


----------



## Neuro (May 7, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Wouldn't it be "no presta atención," because you're in command form? Or did you just use Google translate?


 Ah I think you're right! I'm not a fluent speaker and almost never write in Spanish so I forget stuff sometimes :/

On the method, it's basically a MCELL variant. Could be good if you can identify all cases quickly enough. Wouldn't it be L6EOP though? By my understanding you have DF, FR, and all U layer edges to orient.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (May 7, 2017)

I had and 2 ideas for Square-1 methods:

1. Cubeshape
2. Solve 1st layer corners
3. EO (5 algs)
4. 1st layer edges + PLL (439 algs?)
If you really want to learn algs, you can learn this. I think the last step has 219 algs without parity. CSP gives better cases, although the parity cases might not be much longer than the non-parity cases because corner permutation is not solved.

1. Cubeshape
2. Solve 1st layer corners
3. EO + CLL (27 algs?)
4. EP (99 algs)
This one has less algs and better recognition. If you use CSP, EP has 49 nicer algs.

EDIT: You can put your last layer color on the first layer if you get a good case for the 2nd step. Then once you are done with the 3rd step or 4th step, you can cancel into switching the layers.


----------



## Hazel (May 7, 2017)

I had an idea for an LS subset where if the LS edge is already solved (or maybe even only permuted), then you can insert the corner while solving EO for the Last Layer. There would be 21 cases I think for if the LS edge orientation had to be solved, I think 42 or so otherwise.


----------



## Neuro (May 8, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I had an idea for an LS subset where if the LS edge is already solved (or maybe even only permuted), then you can insert the corner while solving EO for the Last Layer. There would be 21 cases I think for if the LS edge orientation had to be solved, I think 42 or so otherwise.


Sounds like a less intense ZBLS. By less intense, you brought the case # from 302 to 24 (48 if you allow the edge to be disoriented, which I'd recommend)! 8 EO possibilities for both oriented and disoriented sets and x3 for corner orientation.

However, it would probably be better if you have sets in which the corner can be in the LS, as that it has a 1/5 chance of ending up there while solving last F2L edge. This, assuming orientation or disorientation gives us an algcount of 66.

If you were to implement phasing, you'd get ZZLL and have probably one of the most feasible techniques for 1LLL using CFOP! You'd probably want to reduce it to only possibilities of *disorientation*, as your algcount drops to 90 as oppossed to 198. Assuming only disorientation is allowed and phasing is used, you need 239 algs excluding mirrors to have a 1LLL, lower than ZBLL and of course better recog!

Good job, looks like it has very high potential to be (one of) the future(s) of CFOP!

EDIT: Fullstep solve. 46 moves (used HARCS to get xcross and super easy F2L admittedly but still pretty good) and LS Solve, 26 moves but the phasing+LS probably could've been better if slice/wide moves were used


----------



## Hazel (May 8, 2017)

@Neuro Thanks for the high praise! One question though, what is phasing? Also, could you rephrase what you said in the 3rd paragraph, it was a bit confusing to me, sorry!


----------



## Shiv3r (May 8, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> You don't need full L4C to preserve the edges, just half of it, because the edges can be off by a H perm and it wouldn't matter.
> 
> The algs for EP-preserving COLL are in some cases the same as the usual COLL algs (e.g. the 3-cycles don't even affect edges), but there are some that are significantly worse than the usual COLL algs, and this would have a higher move count than COLL/EPLL.
> 
> ...


this is a thing already, it's called EZBLL, and Lars petrus has a page on it. the smallest number of algs that any two can solve every case in ZBLL is 12.



ShyGuy1265 said:


> I had and 2 ideas for Square-1 methods:
> 
> 1. Cubeshape
> 2. Solve 1st layer corners
> ...


these are pretty interesting. you may want to look at methods like Lin or LBL. they both seem not that good compaed to LBL, which just broke WR single. 
one of the more efficient methods I have seen (without CSP) is where you orient everything, then check both layers to see if you have parity, execute a much nicer and shorter parity alg, then do CP then EP


----------



## Neuro (May 8, 2017)

Aerma said:


> @Neuro Thanks for the high praise! One question though, what is phasing? Also, could you rephrase what you said in the 3rd paragraph, it was a bit confusing to me, sorry!


So basically phasing is getting 2 opposite edges across from each other (i.e. yellow/red in UF and yellow/orange in UB). Phasing is implemented in ZZLL in order to drop the algcount significantly, because you no longer have to deal with edges that are opposites color-wise but end up adjacent to one another. It's kinda hard to explain in words, so I'd look at case images for ZZLL. A PLL that has phasing in it is the T perm. All edges are opposite of each other. Another example is the H perm.

As for the third paragraph, what you would want to do in order to implement phasing effectively is to put the last F2l edge into the slot misoriented. Having only misoriented cases brings the case count down to 90 for full phasing and EOLS. As ZZLL has 169 algs, your case count is 239 excluding mirrors. Therefore, it has the possibility of being the most effective 1LLL methods for CFOP, as recog for EOLS+Phasing is quite easy (Egide has a LS technique he uses for ZZ, you can easily modify it to work with this method. Just egidecubing.com) and ZZLL recog isn't too bad due to less cases to memorize and frequently appearing patterns.

Hopefully this clarified it somewhat!


----------



## Thermex (May 8, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So basically phasing is getting 2 opposite edges across from each other (i.e. yellow/red in UF and yellow/orange in UB). Phasing is implemented in ZZLL in order to drop the algcount significantly, because you no longer have to deal with edges that are opposites color-wise but end up adjacent to one another. It's kinda hard to explain in words, so I'd look at case images for ZZLL. A PLL that has phasing in it is the T perm. All edges are opposite of each other. Another example is the H perm.
> 
> As for the third paragraph, what you would want to do in order to implement phasing effectively is to put the last F2l edge into the slot misoriented. Having only misoriented cases brings the case count down to 90 for full phasing and EOLS. As ZZLL has 169 algs, your case count is 239 excluding mirrors. Therefore, it has the possibility of being the most effective 1LLL methods for CFOP, as recog for EOLS+Phasing is quite easy (Egide has a LS technique he uses for ZZ, you can easily modify it to work with this method. Just egidecubing.com) and ZZLL recog isn't too bad due to less cases to memorize and frequently appearing patterns.
> 
> Hopefully this clarified it somewhat!


I've been working on a very similar method to what you just wrote with JTay that we're calling "ribbon". One thing I'd like to mention is that it's bit more efficient and ergonomic if you insert the edge in its slot while solving the cross (this forms a ribbon shape). Our idea was that for the last slot you
1) Orient all the pieces (DFR corner+last layer) and orient the DR edge (300 algs, but it can be cut to 150 if you fully solve the DR edge during the ribbon)
2) TTLL (100 algs)

I still like our idea a lot but I think your method has slightly less algs. Which do you think is better?


----------



## Teoidus (May 8, 2017)

Here's a simple idea: ZZ with intuitive LSLL

The idea is to solve the edges <R,U>, then the corners <R,U,D>. Here are some example solves:

43 STM (lucky)
59 STM (unlucky)
50 STM (expected)
49 STM (expected)


----------



## Neuro (May 8, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I've been working on a very similar method to what you just wrote with JTay that we're calling "ribbon". One thing I'd like to mention is that it's bit more efficient and ergonomic if you insert the edge in its slot while solving the cross (this forms a ribbon shape). Our idea was that for the last slot you
> 1) Orient all the pieces (DFR corner+last layer) and orient the DR edge (300 algs, but it can be cut to 150 if you fully solve the DR edge during the ribbon)
> 2) TTLL (100 algs)
> 
> I still like our idea a lot but I think your method has slightly less algs. Which do you think is better?


Ribbon sounds quite good as well, but yes mine has less algs. I think that mine'd be more efficient as well (ZZLL takes ~12 moves and ~11 moves for phasing+EOLS). However, TTLL recog is still easier than ZZLL and it could be argued that OLC has better recog than EOLS+Phasing. Second part is up to debate for me though, I can recognize it super fast. I think that people will gravitate to Ribbon because of the recog, despite the higher algcount (although they are actually quite similar, Ribbon=243 and mine=239) Good luck to you and JTay!


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (May 8, 2017)

Neuro said:


> If you were to implement phasing, you'd get ZZLL and have probably one of the most feasible techniques for 1LLL using CFOP! You'd probably want to reduce it to only possibilities of *disorientation*, as your algcount drops to 90 as oppossed to 198



Why not oriented? Are the algs more efficient?


----------



## Neuro (May 8, 2017)

ShyGuy1265 said:


> Why not oriented? Are the algs more efficient?


I don't know about the efficiency, but oriented gives you 108 algs as opposed to misoriented which gives 90. This is due to reduced cases when the corner is in the slot (extreme rotational symmetry)


----------



## TDM (May 8, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Here's a simple idea: ZZ with intuitive LSLL
> 
> The idea is to solve the edges <R,U>, then the corners <R,U,D>. Here are some example solves:
> 
> ...


Or you could just use petrus Heise


----------



## Shiv3r (May 8, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Here's a simple idea: ZZ with intuitive LSLL
> 
> The idea is to solve the edges <R,U>, then the corners <R,U,D>. Here are some example solves:
> 
> ...


ZZ-Heise. Lel I may start using this for the heck of it.


----------



## Teoidus (May 8, 2017)

TDM said:


> Or you could just use petrus Heise



haha yeah, that is where I got the idea. Basically all I'm saying is it might be easier to speedsolve with if you break down edge+pairs into solving all the edges, then keyholing in 2 corners.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 8, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> haha yeah, that is where I got the idea. Basically all I'm saying is it might be easier to speedsolve with if you break down edge+pairs into solving all the edges, then keyholing in 2 corners.


so keyholing in 2 corners like how? niklas?
also Ryan talks about this on his page, as the "edges first" approach.


----------



## Teoidus (May 8, 2017)

Keyholing them in with D moves


----------



## Neuro (May 8, 2017)

Alright so I did a preliminary test with 20 out of the 50 solves on my ZZ Variant Stats document. The results were quite interesting. I used the movecount from F2L-1 on every solve using CT, Tri, B, WV, VH, MG, and OLLPLL (OP). I calculated the Mean and SD for each group to see which ones were the "best." Using the top 3 means, I then judged with the SD to see which was the most consistent. This was followed with a thest depicting the dependance of wether the movecount was <=25 depending on the variant.

ZZ-B, ZZ-CT, and ZZ-MG had the best means (in that order.) After viewing the SD's, it showed that ZZ-B was the winner. However, ZZ-CT was only ~.1 greater than ZZ-B in both categories. Given the fact that they also had the same proportion of N to Y in accordance to the movecount being <=25, we can conclude that the two variants are practically equal. 

Therefore, I believe that the "best" of these 7 variants is ZZ-CT. CT has much better recognition than ZZ-B, giving it a huge speed advantage that easily outshines the minuscule statistical advantage of ZZ-B.

Here's the link to my document at the moment. If there are any mistakes that I made or any more tests that I should perform, please comment on the document and let me know. Thanks!


----------



## Teoidus (May 8, 2017)

It looks like your mean for ZZ-b is 23.65, which is greater than your mean for ZZ-CT (23.60)? Yet your plots seem to show a different mean for ZZ-b... confused.

Also, I'm don't think I'd agree about recognition being much better with ZZ-CT. ZZ-b recognition is quite straightforward


----------



## Teoidus (May 9, 2017)

39 STM 2GR

z2 // insp
f U M' u r' u' S2 // EOPair 7/7
U R' U F2 // CPLine 4/11
U R M2 u' R2 u' U' M2 // Block 8/19
R' U2 R' U' R2 U R' // F2L 7/26
U R2 F2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R F2 R2 U' // 2GLL 13/39

I'm working on an audio memo scheme that will let one remember EOPair in inspection--I think this might help with making it easier to track CP through EOPair. I can reasonably one-look the whole 2GLine in every ~1/10 or so solves now, but one of the most annoying things I've encountered so far is having to audio memo things like "Fw2 U Fw' R2 Fw" (11 whole syllables just for 5 moves!). In this new scheme, you could simply memo as "kidw(u)b"--much easier to keep in mind while recognizing and tracking CP.

Currently, the scheme is given as follows:

```
var dict = [
  "(U, U', U2, u, u', u2) -> (i, o, a, e, oo, au)",
  "(F, F', F2, f, f', f2) -> (f, g, h, b, d, k)",
  "(R, R', R2, r, r', r2) -> (r, v, w, l, p, t)",
  "(M, M', M2, E, E', E2, S, S', S2) -> (n, m, j, ee, ye, ge, s, z, sh)"];
```

The idea was to optimize the sounds used to represent each turn type in a way that yields an efficient audio code. For example, the hope is that sounds from the R move group (mostly consonants) will mesh well with turn types that are frequently used alongside it in solves (in this case, U moves are vowels, which works nicely, and F moves are (mostly) non-aspirated consonants, increasing chances of forming friendly pairs).

At optimal efficiency, this scheme encodes 2 STM / syllable, which is pretty nice.

Here's the above soln transcribed using this memo scheme:
z2 // insp
bimepoosh // EOPair 7/7
ivih(u) // CPLine 4/11
irjoowoo-oj // Block 8/19
vavowiv // F2L 7/26
iw(u)h(u)vavororh(u)wo // 2GLL 13/39

The extra u's (pronounced "uh") are used to pad awkward letter combos + make silent consonants audible (these are inefficiencies). In this case the scheme has efficiency 39 STM / 21 syllables = 1.85 STM / syllable.

If we compare to just reading the moves out loud (R U f2 R -> "ar yu ef too ar"): 39 STM / 73 syllables = 0.53 STM / syllable.


----------



## Neuro (May 9, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> It looks like your mean for ZZ-b is 23.65, which is greater than your mean for ZZ-CT (23.60)? Yet your plots seem to show a different mean for ZZ-b... confused.
> 
> Also, I'm don't think I'd agree about recognition being much better with ZZ-CT. ZZ-b recognition is quite straightforward


Hmm that's weird. I'll check my code but I have no idea how that happened. Also, are 50 solves truly necessary or does 20 per group (7 groups) meet conditions of ANOVA?

I personally think that the recognition for ZZCT is better than ZZB because you already need to track or identify 2 opposite edges during LS and the LL recog can take quite some time to get used to. CT basically mimics the recog of OLL and PLL, which most people are familiar with. They can be equally fast though, just depends on preference I suppose.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 9, 2017)

(5x5 Idea, sorry for breaking up your conversation about ZZ-b)
for Yau5 I came up with a "half"-centers approach to L4C that is similar to what maps600 does, or what Justin thomas does for 6x6/7x7. They do it in three steps(bar, middle bar, finish), and for me it's a little easier. of all the L4C approaches I have used(including center-by-center) this one seems the fastest to me. The Idea is you solve 3 2x3 blocks of center pieces one at a time, then with the fully unsolved center and the completely free slice solve the rest. I am not sure if it is actually that much better than anything else out there, or if someone came up with something similar, but I really like it.

Any Ideas/critiques? I think it could possibly the fastest way to do L4C on Yau5/Meyer5, because in my experience it is much faster.


----------



## Teoidus (May 9, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Hmm that's weird. I'll check my code but I have no idea how that happened. Also, are 50 solves truly necessary or does 20 per group (7 groups) meet conditions of ANOVA?



I'm not sure; I don't know too much about ANOVAs other than the fact that they're a generalized form of t-test. I would guess that 20 is a bit small given that for a simple t-test you usually want >40 so you can assume normality.


----------



## GreyAerin (May 10, 2017)

I was doing some regular old solving when I thought to myself "Hey What if I make a ZZ-CFOP hybrid method and get really good at it?" Well I was just asking if anyone else had thought of this and would be willing to collaborate with me on this.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (May 10, 2017)

Some people have had an idea like EOCross/F2L/ZBLL as a method but EOCross is a lot to see during inspection and it's way more efficient to do blockbuilding if you already have the edges oriented.


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 10, 2017)

If the objective is to get an easier last layer, then CFOP with edge control is better. The biggest advantage of doing EO first is that it makes it easier to block build F2L.


----------



## FJT97 (May 10, 2017)

The ultimate zzcfop mix is zztop


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Alright so I did a preliminary test with 20 out of the 50 solves on my ZZ Variant Stats document. The results were quite interesting. I used the movecount from F2L-1 on every solve using CT, Tri, B, WV, VH, MG, and OLLPLL (OP). I calculated the Mean and SD for each group to see which ones were the "best." Using the top 3 means, I then judged with the SD to see which was the most consistent. This was followed with a thest depicting the dependance of wether the movecount was <=25 depending on the variant.
> 
> ZZ-B, ZZ-CT, and ZZ-MG had the best means (in that order.) After viewing the SD's, it showed that ZZ-B was the winner. However, ZZ-CT was only ~.1 greater than ZZ-B in both categories. Given the fact that they also had the same proportion of N to Y in accordance to the movecount being <=25, we can conclude that the two variants are practically equal.
> 
> ...


Instead of doing 50 samples, it would probably be less effort to work out the exact mean and SDs of move counts for each method. It would eliminate any uncertainty from having a limited sample size.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (May 10, 2017)

Sure dude, I'll help. I think I could be useful because I have experience with ZZ and CFOP.


----------



## GenTheThief (May 10, 2017)

When I first switched from CFOP to ZZ, I was doing a lot of EOCross, because I found block building hard. After my second comp, I was able to transition to full ZZ, and I can confidently say that either CFOP or ZZ is much better than a mix of both.


----------



## Neuro (May 10, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> Instead of doing 50 samples, it would probably be less effort to work out the exact mean and SDs of move counts for each method. It would eliminate any uncertainty from having a limited sample size.


 I provided the means and SD's in the document and also performed an ANOVA test to determine if any of them were truly different. ZZ-CT had the lowest mean, and of the top 3 lowest means ZZ-B had the lowest SD. However, ZZ-B's mean was only .05 greater than ZZ-CT's. Essentially the same thing with the SD's, where they were off by only ~.2. I concluded ZZ-CT on this preliminary test due to the extremely small deviation away from the "best" method and having what I believe to be much better recognition and OH potential.

I believe a larger size is necessary as not all of the plots are equally distributed, and some of them had extreme outliers which can of course affect the Mean and SD. I think that 20 is acceptable, but 50 will be more accurate. I hope this gives some reasoning behind my absolute madness (these tests take a VERY long time.) Also, I'd love to hear some opinions or secondary tests that should be performed on the methods. Hopefully someone benefits from this study at some point


----------



## Shiv3r (May 10, 2017)

hey, so random Idea: CN ZZ is very possible if you're only Y axis neutral. 
So here's what you do in inspection: 
-Recog EO from one of the Y axis neutral anlges
-then glance around the Z axis(I rotate it but I don't think you need to) to see if there's an easy EOline(z rotations do not affect number of bad edges in any way)

You only need to do this twice, and only once if you find a good EOline your first time. and bonus: you don't need to recognize EO for every orientation, only 2 at most.
what do you think? I am heavily considering trying to get CN with ZZ just to use this.



Neuro said:


> I provided the means and SD's in the document and also performed an ANOVA test to determine if any of them were truly different. ZZ-CT had the lowest mean, and of the top 3 lowest means ZZ-B had the lowest SD. However, ZZ-B's mean was only .05 greater than ZZ-CT's. Essentially the same thing with the SD's, where they were off by only ~.2. I concluded ZZ-CT on this preliminary test due to the extremely small deviation away from the "best" method and having what I believe to be much better recognition and OH potential.
> 
> I believe a larger size is necessary as not all of the plots are equally distributed, and some of them had extreme outliers which can of course affect the Mean and SD. I think that 20 is acceptable, but 50 will be more accurate. I hope this gives some reasoning behind my absolute madness (these tests take a VERY long time.) Also, I'd love to hear some opinions or secondary tests that should be performed on the methods. Hopefully someone benefits from this study at some point


I think he meant mathematically calculate the averages according to the likelihood of each case and stuff like that.


----------



## Teoidus (May 10, 2017)

Theoretical movecounts are already available and calculated by @mDiPalma

Interestingly they suggest conclusions different from @Neuro 's


----------



## Mastermind2368 (May 11, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> When I first switched from CFOP to ZZ, I was doing a lot of EOCross, because I found block building hard. After my second comp, I was able to transition to full ZZ, and I can confidently say that either CFOP or ZZ is much better than a mix of both.


I did EO-Line, then EO cross, rather then thinking about the other two pieces when doing EO-Line.


----------



## Neuro (May 11, 2017)

So here is something pretty cool that I came up with for OH

1: Roux FB
2: z or z' and build 2x2x3 block <U,u,R/L>
3: F2L minus 1 corner
4: Ribbon style orientation (idk the ergonomics of this but it's probably similar to that of OH OLL)
5: TTLL

Basically its CFOP-y Pootris (seriously is there a better name for this? if not there really, REALLY needs to be one) The method has pretty good ergonomics (and IMO CFOP OH really isn't that bad) with some really nice steps at the end of the solve. 

Solve here, 42 moves. I'm a right handed OH user so I catered to that demographic.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 11, 2017)

Take a look at the square 1 world record.
Scramble: 0,5/-3,0/1,1/0,-3/-3,-3/2,-4/-5,0/0,-3/0,-3/0,-3/2,-2/0,-4/4,-4
Solve:
y2 
CS: 2,-2/0,4/-2,-1/0,-3/
CO: 0,-2/
EO: 3,-3/-1,-1/
CP: Skip
EP: -2,4/5,-1/-3,0/1,1/-3,0/2,-3
It's a fluke, due to low movecount. Easy CO, best EO (other than skip), CP skip. We need a method where this isn't just luck. The chance of just nice EO and CP is 1/144, I believe. With a Roux style F2B, movecounts like this are not uncommon (maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it certainly ha better chances than in Vandenburg). This would be compounded if you used non-matching blocks, but that is a bit of a stretch. If you build a layer minus 1 edge, the solve could be finished with the same case count as TTLL+PLL, but recognition would be better due to being able to recognize CP from any angle, among other things. We need to make this a thing.


----------



## Teoidus (May 11, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So here is something pretty cool that I came up with for OH
> 
> 1: Roux FB
> 2: z or z' and build 2x2x3 block <U,u,R/L>
> ...



I'd argue you don't even need the z/z', can just build the 2x2x3 block <L,l,U> if you're right-handed.

I'm not sure how many moves ribbon takes, but this should give ~13 2x2x3, ~7sq, n ribbon, 15 TTLL => 35+n moves on average.
If ribbon is ~9-10 moves (which I could see it being) and my estimate for sq isn't too low, this would be pretty nice, averaging 45-46 moves.

Oh whoops, I didn't realize you have to solve the last F2L edge as well. In that case I think the movecount gets a little less appealing.



Sue Doenim said:


> Take a look at the square 1 world record.
> Scramble: 0,5/-3,0/1,1/0,-3/-3,-3/2,-4/-5,0/0,-3/0,-3/0,-3/2,-2/0,-4/4,-4
> Solve:
> y2
> ...



Maybe something like:

1. cubeshape
2. F2B
3. CLL + ULUR
4. EPLL

?


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 11, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Maybe something like:
> 
> 1. cubeshape
> 2. F2B
> ...


If you solve DB during F2B and use parity cubeshape, you can use one alg, basically HKPLL to solve the rest in a feasible number of algs. This is what I'm proposing. Your idea is probably fine, but has an extra look. Also, I had a 2-gen style HF thing I proposed a while back, and I want to ask you as the only person who really knows much about CP what you think of it.


I said:


> HF+
> 1a) 1x2x3 on D (<R,U,F,r,u,f>)
> 1b) Attach DLF and solve CP
> 2a) E-slice edges -1
> ...


----------



## Teoidus (May 11, 2017)

Ah you're right. That sounds much better, solving the entire U layer + DF with 1 alg.

For the HF idea, I dunno if it's worth it to use something as advanced as CP. Usually the only advantages CP can give are slightly better ergonomics or a greatly reduced case count. In this case given that HF is sorta "high" movecount already, it doesn't seem to be worth much to reduce the case count and get a 2gen L5C.


----------



## Neuro (May 11, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I'd argue you don't even need the z/z', can just build the 2x2x3 block <L,l,U> if you're right-handed.
> 
> I'm not sure how many moves ribbon takes, but this should give ~13 2x2x3, ~7sq, n ribbon, 15 TTLL => 35+n moves on average.
> If ribbon is ~9-10 moves (which I could see it being) and my estimate for sq isn't too low, this would be pretty nice, averaging 45-46 moves.
> ...


My estimate is 13 moves for 2x2x3, 9 for F2L-1 corner, 10 for ribbon orientation, and 15 for TTLL. Average movecount based on these estimates would be 47 moves, about the same as Roux. However, I believe tht lucky singles would be relatively common as 2x2x3 can be like 10 moves pretty easily (5 FB, 5 2x2x3) and TTLL/Ribbon orientation have really nice cases also. I may just use this and do Roux for 2H (maybe this for 2H as well b/c my F2L is actually pretty good.) I've basically decided I'm switching to Roux at this point but of course I'll continue to work on my ZZ variant sheet.

46 move solve, marked the most important parts of the solve w/ movecounts. Ugly but fast TTLL. I think being neutral between a z rotation and a rotation-less style is the best bet.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 11, 2017)

Neuro said:


> My estimate is 13 moves for 2x2x3, 9 for F2L-1 corner, 10 for ribbon orientation, and 15 for TTLL. Average movecount based on these estimates would be 47 moves, about the same as Roux. However, I believe tht lucky singles would be relatively common as 2x2x3 can be like 10 moves pretty easily (5 FB, 5 2x2x3) and TTLL/Ribbon orientation have really nice cases also. I may just use this and do Roux for 2H (maybe this for 2H as well b/c my F2L is actually pretty good.) I've basically decided I'm switching to Roux at this point but of course I'll continue to work on my ZZ variant sheet.
> 
> 46 move solve, marked the most important parts of the solve w/ movecounts. Ugly but fast TTLL. I think being neutral between a z rotation and a rotation-less style is the best bet.



This is basically what Kavin does for first and second block. weird how the fastest OH Rouxer is right-handed...


----------



## Neuro (May 11, 2017)

That's where I drew inspiration from actually. I enjoy the rotation he uses. Right hand OH FTW!


----------



## TDM (May 11, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> weird how the fastest OH Rouxer is right-handed...


Why is it?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 11, 2017)

TDM said:


> Why is it?


Right-handers are in the Minority iirc.


----------



## Hazel (May 11, 2017)

lil 3x3 method idea:
solve 2x2x2
EO
F2L using blockbuilding
LL

or you could also do 2x2x2 and EO at the same time, not too sure how hard it would be though


----------



## TDM (May 12, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> Right-handers are in the Minority iirc.


Roux solvers are also in the minority. Do you find it surprising that there are Roux solvers who are so high in the rankings?


----------



## Thermex (May 12, 2017)

TDM said:


> Roux solvers are also in the minority. Do you find it surprising that there are Roux solvers who are so high in the rankings?


No, because Roux is such a great method


----------



## Neuro (May 12, 2017)

I calculated the # of cases for ribbon orientation (without accounting for AUF's)

There's 57 OLL's. Well that was easy

There are 8 possible EO cases, as well as 8 CO cases for both the plus and minus sets, so 2 sets of 64

64+64+57=185 algs

Still within reason as AUF's will probably cancel a decent number of cases out. I do suspect it's higher than the predicted 150 though.


----------



## mDiPalma (May 12, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Also, I'd love to hear some opinions or secondary tests that should be performed on the methods. Hopefully someone benefits from this study at some point



Taking the means (taken from published algsets) and case frequency (for intuitive steps) into account, here is a good approximation of the relative movecounts of a few ZZ/Petrus LS/LL variants.


```
Method         Step 1        Step 2        Step 3         AUFS        Total        Alg Count
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZBLL           7.04          13.5          ---            1.5         22.04        493
[color=green][b]CR             5.33          9.07          9              1.5         24.90       144 (72 w/ M)[/b][/color]
ZZ-b           10.07         13.76         ---            1.5         25.33        169
ZZ-CT          10.37         15.21         ---            2.25        27.83        197
COLL/EPLL      7.04          ~11.5         7.5            2.25        28.29        46
WV/SV          4.67          8.74          ~15            1.5         29.91        48
OLL/PLL        7.04          7.93          ~15            2.25        32.22        28
```



Here is a plot of movecount versus algcount for each variant and a least-squares linear regression.


----------



## JTay (May 12, 2017)

Howdy all, 
There's only 58 algorithms for each set of Ribbon Orientation (ROLL+ & ROLL-) when you account for symmetry. Add in the 72 from TTLL, and there are 188 new algorithms for someone who already knows full CFOP. 

I should be able to make the algorithms soon, starting with the + cases, so expect those to come out in the next few days! It's my first time generating algs, so if anyone would like to help or can give any tips, that would be great!


----------



## Thermex (May 13, 2017)

JTay said:


> Howdy all,
> There's only 58 algorithms for each set of Ribbon Orientation (ROLL+ & ROLL-) when you account for symmetry. Add in the 72 from TTLL, and there are 188 new algorithms for someone who already knows full CFOP.
> 
> I should be able to make the algorithms soon, starting with the + cases, so expect those to come out in the next few days! It's my first time generating algs, so if anyone would like to help or can give any tips, that would be great!


One thing I forgot to mention that's very important: the ROLL/TOLL (which should we name it?) cases where the edges are already oriented are just TSLEs, so there's no need generating those. 188 cases is not a rediculous amount of algs to learn for someone looking to get faster, especially compared to ZBLL or even Neuro and Aerma's proposed method, which I believe is around 215 additonal algs (correct me if I'm wrong).
Also someone who knows both full CFOP and full CT has to learn EXACTLY 100 additonal algs, which is pretty cool. I'm not too worried about the recog, as long as you know what way the DRF corner is twisted after you solve the ribbon the U-face recognition shouldn't be too bad. It's pretty much the same as OLL recog, but there's more cases and of course they look different.

My main tips for cube explorer:
1. Make sure you look through as many algs as possible, don't just stop when you a find a decent 12 move alg towards the top of the screen. There's often some alg down there that's more ergonomic than the first one you go with.
2. When you're really stumped and can't find ANY good algs, put an x or z rotation on the cube and generate some more. You'll sometimes find something really good there.
3. When you set up a case for the FIRST time and gen algs for it, set it so it's only R U and F moves. If you don't find anything there, add in L moves. Then maybe go for a z or x rotation if that's not working.
4. Don't just go for the lowest movecount alg, go for the one that is the most ergonomic (but still pretty short). Always try to avoid string of moves like (R, F) (F, U) that require regrips.
5. As often as possible try to include multiple algs for a case (I'd say I do this for a about a fifth of the algs I've generated for Twisty EG). If you've found two algs and can't tell which is better, time yourself using them.

Okay, so I could probably figure this out myself, but does anybody know how me and JTay would set up these cases? How do you make Cube explorer ignore the permutation of the DRF corner but solve the orientation of all the pieces?


----------



## TDM (May 13, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Okay, so I could probably figure this out myself, but does anybody know how me and JTay would set up these cases? How do make Cube explorer ignore the permutatiin of the DRF corner but solve the orientation of all the pieces?


----------



## shadowslice e (May 13, 2017)

Thermex said:


> stuff


Call it TOLL as ROLL already refers to something else.


----------



## Thermex (May 14, 2017)

@TDM thanks for that. That helped.

@JTay so the way we're gonna gen these algs is by pressing Control+Left click, then blanking out every color that's not yellow.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 15, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @TDM thanks for that. That helped.
> 
> @JTay so the way we're gonna gen these algs is by pressing Control+Left click, then blanking out every color that's not yellow.


Hey, @JTay it's Justin Taylor! didnt know you had an SS account
Anyway @Thermex I need more help with better NLL algs, if anyone wants to help it would be appreciated.


----------



## JTay (May 15, 2017)

Update on Ribbon:
I've decided to name Ribbon Orientation as Twisted Orientation of Last Slot. I have finished generating algorithms for all of the TOLS+ set, along with corresponding case images. The cases are sorted by corner orientation for columns and by edge orientation for the rows. Note that any of the corners could also be replaced by their opposite face's color, as the method does not care which corner is in FDR. The majority of the cases are very nice, with most being quite fingertrick friendly. I believe that average movecount for speed optimal algs is just under 11 moves. There are a few that I could not find a pleasant and efficient algorithm for, so if anyone could help find a replacement for them, that would be awesome.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17FsGpkiqPVtN3zUUhbIfG2AkHbUyNhmQIepc95iBWbQ/edit?usp=sharing

My next project is adding the corresponding TOLS- algorithms and generating their images as well. I'm not sure if I'll generate OLL algorithms with no regard for FDR, as I'm sure only a handful of cases would benefit. Let me know what y'all think of it!


----------



## Neuro (May 16, 2017)

40 move solve using BFTT (2x2x3 Block, F2L-1 corner, Twisty Orientation, TTLL) name suggestions? Scramble from 3x3 example solve thread

Scramble: B2 L2 D' F2 D R2 U2 L2 U' F2 D' B' R2 D L' B D R' B R2 B

x2 L M2 B' M2 F//FB (5/5)
M U r' U' r2//2x2x3 (5/10)
F R' F2 U' F U' R2//F2L (accidentally solved corner) (7/17)
U R U R' U' B' R' F R F' B//Orientation (11/28)
R U R' y' R2 u' R U' R' U R' u R2//Permutation (12/40)


----------



## Shiv3r (May 16, 2017)

Hey guys, we should talk about 4x4 and 5x5 and maybe even bigger methods. Here are some things I came up with recently:

4x4/5x5 method: Use Meyer or Meyer5, then after edgepairing put the middle centers a u2 away from solved, and keyhole in BL and BR, then you have a solved 2x2x3 in the back. you can then put in the final cross edge and do CFOp with a double xcross. it's Pootris4, but with the solved block on D.(and if ya hate on Pootris, one of Felik's solves in his former WR average was pootris)

6x6 I came up with a way to do L4E on 5x5 pretty quickly, which I made a video on here.

5x5: Now I also came up with a way of doing Yau5 centers really quickly(on 5x5-- on 6x6+ doing bars is better). you blockbuild one 2x3 around one center, then hold the 2x3 on the left, and then do either an r or r'(if it was a 3x3) to bring up another center, blockbuild another 2x3, then do the same move as you did the first time, blockbuild another 2x3, then do the same move(r or r') as you did before, then finish the centers. I usually finish by doing the D center first then the 2 side centers, but you can do the last 3 bars in any order.

questions/thoughts?


----------



## Teoidus (May 16, 2017)

Neuro said:


> 40 move solve using BFTT (2x2x3 Block, F2L-1 corner, Twisty Orientation, TTLL) name suggestions? Scramble from 3x3 example solve thread
> 
> Scramble: B2 L2 D' F2 D R2 U2 L2 U' F2 D' B' R2 D L' B D R' B R2 B
> 
> ...


It'd be nice to see a solve where TTLL is used. For now, this just looks like a freefop solve


----------



## Neuro (May 16, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> It'd be nice to see a solve where TTLL is used. For now, this just looks like a freefop solve


Yeah I know, it was just coincidence, it just happened to be the F2L solution I saw but the corner ended up solved. I'll be doing more solves that should prove more useful than this one 

EDIT: New solve, 50 moves but literally 2/5ths of the moves came from TTLL 

SCRAMBLE: U F2 U D' R' F' D' L' U F' R U2 D2 B2 R' D2 B2 R' D2 R L

y2 D F' L U' M2 D2 F'//FB (7/7)
U2 r2 U' r' U r//2x2x3 (6/13)
F' U' F R' U2 R' U' R'//F2L-1 Corner (8/21)
y F U2 L F2 L' U2 F2 U2 F//TOLS- (9/30)
U' R U2 R' U R U' R U R' U D' R U R' D R U R2 U'//TTLL (20/50)


----------



## JTay (May 17, 2017)

@Neuro Try out this alg for that TOLS-: (U) R U' R2 F R2 U R' U' R' F' R. Should end up with a U perm to finish. Much nicer!


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 17, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> Taking the means (taken from published algsets) and case frequency (for intuitive steps) into account, here is a good approximation of the relative movecounts of a few ZZ/Petrus LS/LL variants.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


What is CR? I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. Is it a fake method for statistical reasons? Like an average or something?


----------



## obelisk477 (May 17, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> What is CR? I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. Is it a fake method for statistical reasons? Like an average or something?



Cardan Reduction


----------



## Neuro (May 17, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Neuro and Aerma's proposed method... I believe is around 215 additonal algs (correct me if I'm wrong).


It's 187 algs. 169 ZZLL's (without mirrors), and if you keep the F2L edge in it's slot disoriented there are 2 distinct EO cases. From there 3 phasing cases (now up to 6) and the F2L corner ca be twisted 3 ways. 6*3=18 algs. If you count using mirrors/inverses, you only have 98 algs. Setting up LS that way can be a little hard to get used to though but it should give a comparable (or lower) movecount than TOLS+TTLL. I would say it's personal preference.

EDIT: If you allow the edge to be either oriented or disoriented you have ~220 algs (haven't fully accounted for symmetry yet)


----------



## Neuro (May 17, 2017)

39 move solve I got using BFTT (FB to 2x2x3, F2L-1C, TOLS, TTLL)

B U2 B2 D2 F' L2 F' D2 L2 F D' B' F2 R' B' L' D' L' U2 R2

U M' B' r2 U F'//FB (6/6)
U r' U' r' U' r'//2x2x3 (6/12)
U2 R D' F' U F D//F2L-1 corner (7/19)
R2 U2 F R F' U2 R F R F'//TOLS- (10/29)
M2 U' M2 U' M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2//PLL (10/39)

The corner solved itself during TOLS but still a good solve


----------



## Space Cat (May 18, 2017)

I'm not sure if joke sub-methods count, but it's still an idea.

I want to propose *JLL*, which isn't an acronym for anything. JLL forces a PLL skip by doing a bunch of PLL algs before OLL, and after the correct state is found, you do the OLL and it's solved.


----------



## sqAree (May 18, 2017)

Space Cat said:


> I'm not sure if joke sub-methods count, but it's still an idea.
> 
> I want to propose *JLL*, which isn't an acronym for anything. JLL forces a PLL skip by doing a bunch of PLL algs before OLL, and after the correct state is found, you do the OLL and it's solved.



I understand it's a joke method, still, you don't skip PLL by doing PLL possibly more than once.


----------



## Space Cat (May 18, 2017)

sqAree said:


> I understand it's a joke method, still, you don't skip PLL by doing PLL possibly more than once.


It's technically not PLL because you're using algorithms for cases after OLL.


----------



## Teoidus (May 18, 2017)

sqAree said:


> I understand it's a joke method, still, you don't skip PLL by doing PLL possibly more than once.


i think it's because the PLLs do weird things to orientation as well. He wants to use normal OLL, not pure OLL, so he has to set up a specific permutation, but 1 PLL might not cut it.


----------



## Space Cat (May 18, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> i think it's because the PLLs do weird things to orientation as well. He wants to use normal OLL, not pure OLL, so he has to set up a specific permutation, but 1 PLL might not cut it.


Which is exactly why it's a joke method. It's slower than 2LLL but it looks cool to non-cubers.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 18, 2017)

so guys, I want to bring this up again, but I'm working on making Meyer method a lot faster. I need some volunteers to help me find what solves which case. it's called OP+CMLL, and what it does is solves Orientation parity at the same time as CMLL. so you get algs like this(for adj swap): F sexy F' U' lucasparity. basically I'm coming up with a bunch of algs that have lucasparity or pure parity or double parity in them so we can skip orientation parity while doing CMLL. there will be some cases we'll need to generate algs for, but most of them can probably be done just with experimentation. 
and yes, Meep already did this for OLL, it's called POLL.

here's the algs I have come up with so far, if you have any others please tell me.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cxz3Scm8WlMHIDLC7nzc0a8RQQCwn38v7G_bsfCySiY/edit#gid=0

EDIT: random cool trick: if you use the Sebastian Weyer PLL parity alg, you can replace the r2 with an l2 and it'll do PLL parity on the bottom.(I realized only recently that actually do it mirrored for some reason idk why)


----------



## Neuro (May 18, 2017)

So this was a solve I got using BFTT that had two possible outcomes. One is what I would do in a speedsolve more than likely (alg/execution-wise) and the other uses a lot of cancellations and a shortened alg to reduce movecount. 1st is 47 and the 2nd is 40.

Scramble: F2 D' F2 L2 F2 L2 U' B2 L2 F2 L D' F2 R U2 B L F D' U2 L2

F L' D' B U R U' B2
M' U r U2 M2
L U' R2 U L' U2 R
R' U' R U' R' U2 R
y U2 R' U' R' U' R U R D R' U' R U D' R U R2 U' R' U2

F L' D' B U R U' B2
M' U r U2 M2
L U' R2 U L' U R U' R' U2 R
y U2 R2 U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 L R U R2 U'

I think someone with the right TPS could make this a really viable method for OH and 2H


----------



## Thermex (May 19, 2017)

@Shiv3r I'll try to find some algs this weekend for OP+-CMLL.


----------



## Hazel (May 19, 2017)

Usually, in Roux solves, L6E is done by first orienting the edges, then solving the UL and UR edges, then the last 4.
What if instead, you did it like this:

Solve 1 First Layer edge while correcting centerpieces (~4-5 moves?)
Solve last First Layer edge while orienting LL edges (14 super easy algs)
EPLL (4 algs)

And no I'm not stealing this idea from DELToS, that's just my old account that I don't use anymore.
Example:
L6E scramble:
U M' U2 M2 U M U' M' U' M' U2

solution: U2 M' U2 M2 U M' U' M U' M' U (H perm)

Maybe this is less efficient than traditional L6E, but this may be easier to learn or something, for me it's faster anyway.


----------



## Teoidus (May 19, 2017)

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/L5EOP


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 22, 2017)

Here's an idea I had that's similar to Pinkie Pie. There are kind of 2 versions, first is probably better.
V1
1) F2B-1
2) Insert last F2B edge and place UL and UR on D layer: it's kind of like a phasing and/or VHLS type thing, basically if both UL and UR are on U you orient+phase them, if one is misoriented on D misorient the other, if neither of these cases, set one up; the idea is to make them solvable with an AUF and M move
3) Insert last corner while solving CP
4) Pseudo 2-gen OLLCP
5) L6E
V2
1-2) Same
3) Insert last corner+orient edges
4) COLL
5) L6E
Movecount would likely be higher, but not enormously. Other than that, I don't have much to say.
V1 example solve
Scramble: B2 D' F2 D R2 F2 D2 F2 U B2 U B F2 L2 R D' F' L R F
y2
FB- R U F L2 F' D l2 F' r' M F (11/11)
SBsq- R' U M U M' U' M U2 M2 U R2 U2 r U r2 (15/26)
Thing- R U' R2 F R F' (6/32)
PP setup- U' M' (2/34)
CPthing- R U L' U R' U R U R' U2 L (9/43)
OLLCP- U2 r U M U R' U' r U' r' (10/53)
L6E- U' M2 U M2 U2 M U2 M' (8/61)
Movecount was high, but I'm bad. Like, really bad. Still, seeing that movecount, it's probably useless. I'm not even going to try a V2 example.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (May 22, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> When I first switched from CFOP to ZZ, I was doing a lot of EOCross, because I found block building hard. After my second comp, I was able to transition to full ZZ, and I can confidently say that either CFOP or ZZ is much better than a mix of both.


I know this is a bit late, but thanks for that.
Just making sure, EOcross AND/OR CFOP style F2L (in ZZ) is worse than doing a complete method by itself?


----------



## FastCubeMaster (May 22, 2017)

Space Cat said:


> I'm not sure if joke sub-methods count, but it's still an idea.
> 
> I want to propose *JLL*, which isn't an acronym for anything. JLL forces a PLL skip by doing a bunch of PLL algs before OLL, and after the correct state is found, you do the OLL and it's solved.



Haha I know this is a joke method but this is probably one of the dummest things I've ever read. 
Thanks for the laugh


----------



## TDM (May 22, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Here's an idea I had that's similar to Pinkie Pie. There are kind of 2 versions, first is probably better.
> V1
> 1) F2B-1
> 2) Insert last F2B edge and place UL and UR on D layer: it's kind of like a phasing and/or VHLS type thing, basically if both UL and UR are on U you orient+phase them, if one is misoriented on D misorient the other, if neither of these cases, set one up; the idea is to make them solvable with an AUF and M move
> ...


Yeah this is really inefficient. In general, 2-gen cases are no better than the average case. Also, you're not really saving any moves by doing the edge and corner separately.


----------



## Neuro (May 22, 2017)

I think listing all the things that'd be useful to know for LSE would look like:

Established: Some (or all) of Pinkie Pie i.e. OLLCP, EOLR (the good cases)

Plausible: LMCF style L5E, L5EP/swapped L5EP (and y2 mirrors?), sandwich orientation for when URUL are solved (very rare), and ELL/Opp Cross ELL.

Standard LSE is very well established right now. What I would do is focus on CMLL variants or non-matching blocks
friendly LSE recog.

@JTay hows TOLS coming along?

EDIT: I found a really cool LSLL method for CFOP, looks pretty good for OH. Basically put the LS pieces in with no regard to orientation and 1 alg reduces it to a 2GLL state. Link


----------



## Shiv3r (May 23, 2017)

Hey, so I came up with a 4x4 method a while back, just for the lols, here it is again in more detail. this is based off one of the solves in felik's former WR average, which is basically Pootris on the E slice instead of the M slice. 
Here's the steps: 
1.2 opp centers
2.Roux block
3.L4C
4.rotate so Rouxblock is on D, and solve one edge, place at DF, then do 3-2-3
5. Make sure centers are a Uw2 away and then keyhole in the RB and LB edges, then solve the DF cross edge 
6. Finish as in Yau5(Double Xcross) 
it's kind of a stupid method, but hey, it's kind of fun, right? 

Here's a 156 OBTM example solve: 
scramble: U L2 F U' R Fw' B' L' F' D U' L F U' Uw2 B' Uw2 Rw F L' U2 R2 B Rw' R D R' D' L B' R' D' F' B2 U' Fw D' B L' R
y//inspection
F2 Rw F Rw'//first center
R' y Uw2 U' Rw U2 Rw'//first 2 centers
z' F R L' B D' U' Rw U F2 Rw2 x F2 3Rw' F//Roux block
U 3Rw Rw' U Rw U' 3Rw2 Rw' U' Rw U Rw2 U2 Rw2 3Rw' U' Rw U' Rw' U2 2L' U' 2L//L4C
z' y' F2 Uw' R U R' Uw F'//rotate + any edge at DF
Uw' F' U2 F L' U2 L Uw 3Uw2
R U2 R' Uw F' L F L' Uw'
L' U2 L Uw' F' U F Uw//3-2-3 edgepairing
R U' R' 3Uw2 L' U L F' U' F U R U' R' 3Uw2 L' U' L F2//Keyhole in back F2L edges + last cross edge
U F' U2 F y' U' R' U R 
R U R' U' F' U2 F U2 F' U F//finish F2L
U r' U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 x U2 r2 U2 r' U2 r U2
R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R y2//OLL+double parity
R2 3u' R U' R U R' 3u R2 3f R' 3f'//PLL

thoughts on this method?


----------



## Hazel (May 23, 2017)

So I came up with a LSLL method for 3x3, not sure how viable it would be:
1: Insert LS edge while orienting LL edges
2: Solve LS corner while solving LL corner orientation (like an advanced Winter Variation
3: PLL


----------



## mDiPalma (May 23, 2017)

Aerma said:


> So I came up with a LSLL method for 3x3, not sure how viable it would be:
> 1: Insert LS edge while orienting LL edges
> 2: Solve LS corner while solving LL corner orientation (like an advanced Winter Variation
> 3: PLL



https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/MGLS


----------



## Hazel (May 23, 2017)

What about a super alg-heavy version of ZZ-CT for CFOP where TSLE solves all LL orientation, not just the corners?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 23, 2017)

Aerma said:


> What about a super alg-heavy version of ZZ-CT for CFOP where TSLE solves all LL orientation, not just the corners?


TOLL. already thougt of by Justin taylor and efattah. 
this is why I usually don't propose LS methods often, they're usually already a thing.


----------



## JTay (May 23, 2017)

@Neuro I have generated all 116 algs for TOLS+ and TOLS- at this point. I need to make the images for the "-" cases and that's about it. Then, I might tackle improving TTLL.

I considered developing algs for Tran Style 3rd Slot (I believe that's the name), but it's too situational to be used effectively.

If someone feels like learning an absurd number of algs, full Twisted VLS should be exactly 650 algorithms. I believe TS3S with edge orientation is also the same number of algorithms, just a different approach. You could have some pretty insane solves with this though. XRibbon - -> One Pair - -> TS3S/TVLS - -> TTLL/PLL.

Just spitballing some thoughts I've had, let me know what y'all think!


----------



## GenTheThief (May 23, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> I know this is a bit late, but thanks for that.
> Just making sure, EOcross AND/OR CFOP style F2L (in ZZ) is worse than doing a complete method by itself?


yep.
Vanilla ZZ or vanilla CFOP.
Don't mix EO with CFOP unless your're doing some LSLL influence stuff.
Don't do cross-stuff with ZZ unless, like, the pieces solve themselves or something weird.


----------



## Teoidus (May 23, 2017)

I think the efficiency of full blockbuilding is severely overrated, actually

Here are some data from way back when people did movecount analysis on eocross vs blockbuilding: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/zz-speedcubing-method.5180/page-6#post-69583

If the eocross is completed naively (that is, EOLine and then DLDR), a stepwise optimal pair-by-pair f2l yields ~25.74 moves to complete f2l from eocross.
By comparison, EOLine + stepwise optimal 2square 2pair f2l yields ~24.64 moves to complete f2l from eoline.

That's ~1.1 extra moves more than *stepwise optimal blockbuilding* + ~3.47 extra to complete the eocross *naively*.

So in this case there is a ~4.57 move discrepancy, but in practice eocross will never be completed naively and we are much more likely to reach stepwise optimal pair-by-pair than stepwise optimal blockbuilding.

On top of this, eocross f2l is going to be more ergonomic than blockbuilding f2l, as every pair solution has "wrist turning number" 0. 

I believe gyroninja has also done analysis which reveals that eocross f2l is actually more qtm optimal than blockbuilding f2l (though this goes away when you allow openslotting): http://cubic-intelligence.tumblr.com/post/149477762423/wow-eocross-gives-lower-qtm


----------



## Neuro (May 24, 2017)

Joking about ZZ Magic !?!?! ITS BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!

We all know ZZ Magic right? the forced LL skip by solving the LR Faces??? Well.... Here's a new way to make it viable!!!

While putting in your LS, solve a 1x1x3 bar on U.... Then... use one of 17 algs to solve the other bar and BOOM. LL DONE!!!

All jokes aside, if you solve a 1x1x3 bar on the U layer, you reduce ZBLL sets to just T and U ZBLL each of which have only 6 algs, and PLL which has 5. I wouldn't ever use this because finding a bar can be hard as well as inefficient. Some people might find it interesting. Oh and it removes the magic aspect b/c you so an LL alg to get an LL skip


----------



## Pyjam (May 24, 2017)

Too difficult. It's already too difficult to build and preserve a single pair on U before inserting the last pair. This would reduces the number of ZBLL cases but phasing is an easier way to reach the same goal.


----------



## xyzzy (May 24, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> This would reduces the number of ZBLL cases but phasing is an easier way to reach the same goal.



Having three pieces pre-solved (either a line (2c1e) or a square (1c2e)) reduces the number of cases far more than phasing does, which essentially is just having two pieces pre-solved.

Also, this idea was proposed before (see somewhere around page 110), and indeed nobody uses it because setting up the line is too hard for too little gain.


----------



## Pyjam (May 24, 2017)

Let's consider *ZZ-Tripod*. I have a question:
When the blocks are made and the FR edge is solved with sexy moves, how many cases are there for the last 2 edges and last 4 corners (if we want to solve them 1-look) ?

A sample here. I'd like to merge the last 2 steps in 1.
Thanks.

*EDIT:* There are likely more cases than ZBLL because some symetries are broken.

But after FR is solved there could be a good 2LLL to develop (if not already done).


----------



## Pyjam (May 24, 2017)

*ZZ-Tripod with solved edges in FR :*

I think the number of algs required to solve the LL 2-look is ridiculously low.
If the last 2 edges are swapped then solve them and 1 corner with one of these 9 algs:

PLL V (if the FRU corner is already solved)
PLL Ja (if the BRU corner is already solved)
PLL Jb (if the FLU corner is already solved)
U2 R2' D' r U2 r' D R U2 R U'
U R' U2 R' D' r U2 r' D R2 U2
U R U' R' U2 R L U' R' U L' U
U2 R U2 R D r' U2 r D' R2' U'
U R2 D r' U2 r D' R' U2 R' U2
U2 R' U R U2' R' L' U R U' L

…then solve the L3C.

Bad cases are: White corner in its slot with bad orientation (Solved by 3x Sexy Moves). Others?

If the last 2 edges aren't swapped, it's even easier to solve the cube.

I suppose all this is already known since… 1982 ?


----------



## xyzzy (May 24, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> When the blocks are made and the FR edge is solved with sexy moves, how many cases are there for the last 2 edges and last 4 corners (if we want to solve them 1-look) ?



12 (corner permutation) × 27 (corner orientation) = 324 cases. Less than ZBLL, but not by much.

E: This is assuming you're not counting the L4C cases; that would increase the case count a bit. The L4C cases can have the following CP: solved, two 2-cycles, 3-cycle clockwise, 3-cycle anticlockwise. For the first category, there are 7 cases; for the other three categories, there are 27 cases each. In total, this would be 88 L4C cases, or 412 in total.


----------



## Pyjam (May 24, 2017)

I've found that indeed but I doubled it because there are 2 cases for the last 2 edges (so it allows for a permutation of the last 2 corners). I am wrong?

I wonder if it is possible to solve one more corner just by doing cycles of sexy moves...

EDIT: If I remember well, I'v read somewhere that it's possible to solve the cube with sexy moves only.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 24, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Joking about ZZ Magic !?!?! ITS BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!
> 
> We all know ZZ Magic right? the forced LL skip by solving the LR Faces??? Well.... Here's a new way to make it viable!!!
> 
> ...


I already did this "ZZ-magic" thing with Jtwong71 about a year ago. but we did it this way, which is pretty inefficient but is very alg-light(about as many as full PLL TOTAL): 
-ZZF2L-1
-build a U layer corner-edge pair and an F2L pair. 
-place the U-layer pair in the F2L slot and AUF the F2L pair to ULB, then use one of 9? algs to place the F2L pair and solve the line(algs here)(note, I think there's one alg missing here idk why)
-Solve the LL with EO and the Line solved. 12 cases, here are algs


----------



## xyzzy (May 24, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> I've found that indeed but I doubled it because there are 2 cases for the last 2 edges (so it allows for a permutation of the last 2 corners). I am wrong?


You're right; I missed that. I edited my earlier post to include that.



Pyjam said:


> EDIT: If I remember well, I'v read somewhere that it's possible to solve the cube with sexy moves only.


Do you mean something like the sexy method (or 8355 or another of its close relatives)? Or do you mean four-move triggers like sledgehammer that preserve the three 2×2 blocks on the U, R and F faces?


----------



## Pyjam (May 24, 2017)

Thank you.

It was thinking about the sexy method.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 24, 2017)

Anyway, I have been using Squan LBL, aka Jason Baum method aka "whatever the F**k that nub Helmer Ewert does"(quoted verbatim from a conversation I had a few months ago), and have been trying(and failing) To learn Lin.

I just want to talk a little about these methods and would like to ask if anyone wants to help me try to develop these.

quick recap of what the LBL-style method is: 
1.Cubeshape/CSP
2.roux F2B
3.Insert DF and DB edges
4.PLL(I do 2look, corners-edges)

and Lin: 
-steps 1&2 of "LBL"
-insert either D layer edge then use one of 6 CP+Df algs to insert the final edge and solve CP
-EPLL 
I am x2 y with the first method, and if I learned Lin I would be x2 y with it as well. that seems weird, but it's actually pretty easy. if you solve the blocks that actually go on U when you're doing Roux blocks, you just cancel your PLL into /(6,6)/ at the end. 
So anyway, Lin method has less algs(it's what Robert Yau uses, there are only 6 cases), but I think the LBL-esque method seems just as good, if more alg-intensive. 
In fact, the Lin method is MORE efficient than the first one, due to the fact that _all the CP+DF algs are the same length_, which means that you force EPLL in the same amount of slices as the first method takes to get to PLL. I don't know the PLL vs. EPLL movecounts(inc. parity) but I do know that the only problem with Lin is that recognition for DFDB can be a little complicated. However, Helmer Ewert Had the squan WR single for a week or two with the first method, so it is decent. 
Any thoughts/suggestions on improvements?


----------



## Teoidus (May 24, 2017)

@Sue Doenim mentioned a pretty good improvement to this a while back, which was something along the lines of:

Cubeshape
F2B + DB edge
HKPLL


----------



## Neuro (May 24, 2017)

What I'd do is this

1: Cubeshape
2: F2B
3: Insert 1 DB edge while doing CP (you can do preexisting Lin algs but this may be more efficient)
4: L5EP (not sure about alg #, probably >100 including parity stuff)

HKPLL on squan would have an insane # of algs unless you did CSP


----------



## Teoidus (May 24, 2017)

That requires 1 additional step, which I'm not sure is needed. HKPLL with CSP is ~128 algs, so wouldn't HKPLL without CSP be ~256 algs? That's a lot, but it doesn't seem insane to me.


----------



## Neuro (May 25, 2017)

Ok so something similar exists to my proposed one called Yau-1 that does the following

1: Cubeshape
2: 3/4 D layer (1 edge and 1 corner missing)
3: L5C
4: L5E

Also, found an algsheet for this method. There aren't any case images but it's still easy to follow. Here's the link. It has 33 L5E algs on it, so either L5EP has much less algs than I thought or it's incomplete. I suspect the prior though, as L5EP on 3x3 has 16 algs so w/parity should give you 32 or so. Assuming the algcount of 33 is correct, for both Yau 1 and my method you only need 39 algs in comparison to 256.

I know that 256 is doable, but I'm thinking of the overall recognition. I'm probably just skeptical but it seems like with that many cases you get a lot of cases that look very similar and thus confusion ensues. Most people don't know PLL on Squan for much the same reason. It's probably more efficient, but not worth it IMO.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Ok so something similar exists to my proposed one called Yau-1 that does the following
> 
> 1: Cubeshape
> 2: 3/4 D layer (1 edge and 1 corner missing)
> ...


First off, I agree that my method is not good unless you want to be fast. My original post on it was talking about how the latest WR is a fluke, and how we can get similar movecounts. It is really designed for use with cubeshape parity, as it's point is to try and minimize movecount as greatly as possible, so it would only have ~128 algs. 
I feel like recognition would actually be really quite good, better than TTLL even. Since CP is detectable from any angle on the U layer, all that's left to determine is EP. The D layer edge is always easy to identify, as it will always be visible or solved. Then you only need to determine the permutation of 2 more edges, since the lack of parity will lock in the position of the other 2. Basically, it should be like TTLL, but easier. 2-sided recognition could even work.

I feel like the Briggs2 method (CP during FB in Roux) should be used more, although not necessarily with BLS. There are so many possibilities with it. Pseudo-2Gen 57 algorithm OLLCP sounds pretty nice, doesn't it? Pinkie Pie could become the norm, as opposed to the exception. And having pre-permuted corners would really help with NMCLL recognition. It could be as fast as CMLL recognition. CP, doubtlessly, is where people are turned away. Is Teoidus' new form of recognition going to work with it, or is what Shadowslice explained still better?


----------



## Teoidus (May 25, 2017)

My CP system works fine and will yield more efficient CP solutions, but I'm not sure CPFB worth it. It's hard to justify when normal Roux is already so efficient with few algs


----------



## Neuro (May 25, 2017)

I think that CP Roux could be good if used correctly. I think that making FB with <F,f,U,u,R,r> would be very difficult to plan in inspection. What I would suggest is place one or both of the SB corners into either slot (no worries about permutation/orientation) and use 1 alg to do full CP. From there just SB, CMLL (or OLLCP stuff) and LSE.

Probably not terribly useful for 2H b/c of CMLL+EOLR speed and the efficiency is practically the same, but OH could benefit if CP recog and lookahead to SB gets fast enough

R2 U R2 U2 R2 F2 D B2 L2 R2 D' L' B' U' L' R' B2 U' F2 L2 R'

y' B' R' D' r2 F D2//FB (6/6)
U R//CP Setup, recognize case (2/8)
U2 R F R F'//CP Alg (5/13)
r' U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U R' U' r'//FB (11/24)
U M' U M' U' R U R' U R U2 R'//PP Setup+OLLCP (12/36)
U2 M2 U//LSE (3/39)

If anyone is interested here are some first draft CP algs. Enjoy *Because CE is CE it solves the SB corners into their slots, hence this is a very rough 1st set*

I use DBR as buffer corner. Swap means SB D corners swap (i.e. DRF DRB swap, 1 corner DRF in DRB)

If one corner in place, put other corner in UBL. Names are based on case apperance rather than actual swaps (TTLL for reference)

1 corner solved
Front Swap- CP done, continue
Right Swap- F' U2 F
Diag Swap- U2 R' F R F' 
No Swap- U R U' R' F' U F 
Front Solid- U' F R F' R2 
Right Solid- U R2 F R' F' 

1 corner swapped
Front Swap- F' U F
Right Swap- U2 R F R F'
Diag Swap- U2 R2 F' U' F
No Swap- R U' F R2 F' 
Front Solid- CP done, continue
Right Solid- U F R F2 U' F

2 corners solved
No Swap- CP done, continue
Front Swap- R U' R' F' U' F
Diag Swap- R U F R' F' R' 

2 corners swapped
No Swap- R2 U' F' U2 F R'
Front Swap- R F R' F'
Diag Swap- CP done, continue


----------



## xyzzy (May 25, 2017)

Silly LSLL idea:

Do something like ZZ-blah, but instead of orienting the U/D colours away from the U face, we orient the L/R colours (or the F/B colours) away from the U face, then one-look the last layer with PLL + 184 more ZBLL algs. Example:

Scramble: R2 F' R2 F' R2 F2 R2 U2 L F R' F2 L' R F'
R U R' // set up pair
U R U' R' // insert and orient LR away from U
U F' U2 R' U' R U' F U' R' U R U R' U R // ZBLL

Compared to the original ZZ-blah, efficiency is only marginally better (the pi and H sets have slightly longer algs than the others on average), and this comes at the cost of almost doubling the number of LL algs required. Compared to ZZ-b, efficiency is probably worse and it also uses more LL algs.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 26, 2017)

I just thought of a very simple seeming LS method for reduction to 2GLL: Just have 6 algs for each F2L case, one for each CP. It is meant for use with pre-EO methods. 116 algs, so quite a bit, but quite feasible.


----------



## Neuro (May 26, 2017)

I actually came up with this a while back but never posted it. Could be a good CP style. What I'd probably do is something similar to my Roux CP style simply for the efficiency though. Does yours orient edges also or just bring it to a <RrUM> 2GLL? Orientation would give you more LS algs but full 2G 1LLL would have a ridiculous amount of algs and would have crappy recog. Of course ZZ/Petrus don't have this issue, but it seems like your aiming to CFOP OH.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 26, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I just thought of a very simple seeming LS method for reduction to 2GLL: Just have 6 algs for each F2L case, one for each CP. It is meant for use with pre-EO methods. 116 algs, so quite a bit, but quite feasible.


That's more or less zz-porky, zz-rainbow or zz-orbit (I can't remember exactly which one it is)


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2017)

Okay, so y'all remember Hawaiian Kociemba? well, I think solving only 3 cross edges is actually really good. I can usually plan xcross-1 edge in inspection, and the L5EOP algs are nice(L5EOP is EO+DF, then EPLL), and the L5EP algs are pretty nice(much of the algs can be done with a conjugated EPLL, or an H-perm and then a conjugated EPLL). So here's what I use when I solve it, and though I didn't invent it (it's called 3CFCE on the wiki), it's pretty nice: 
-*3* *C*ross edges(and whatever F2L you can plan in inspection)
-*F*2l without the edge(often you can use the open face to make pairs really efficiently)
-*C*LL(I use CMLL's, they work usually)
-*E*dges(L5E). there are 2 ways to do this, L5EOP(L5EO->EPLL) and EO->L5EP. the alg count is the same, but L5EO is pretty intuitive for Roux solvers because you just force the Edge on D, so I suggest that strategy.

I actually got a nice scramble a while back and got a 12 sec solve with this, so it's pretty good. Any thoughts?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 26, 2017)

So just a random Roux that I decided to do because it makes roux solves more fluid and I haven't heard of someone doing it anywhere. copied from a doc I am making with a bunch of LSE things I am working on.


Where BU is in the 2 ugly ULUR cases

The reason I did this is I realized that even with EOLR, there are some cases that are unavoidably ugly. In this, you can recognise BU right after EO with these cases. These are organized into 2 cases: ugly case(M’ U2 M U/U’M2) and back ugly case(M’ U2 M’ U/U’ M2).

-Ugly case: Solve with M’ U2 M (U/U’ M2 insert) 
UF and R corners’ colors match: BU at DF. 
UF and R colors don’t match: BU at UB. 

-Less ugly case: solve with M’ U2 M’ insert
For both: BU at UF.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 27, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I actually came up with this a while back but never posted it. Could be a good CP style. What I'd probably do is something similar to my Roux CP style simply for the efficiency though. Does yours orient edges also or just bring it to a <RrUM> 2GLL? Orientation would give you more LS algs but full 2G 1LLL would have a ridiculous amount of algs and would have crappy recog. Of course ZZ/Petrus don't have this issue, but it seems like your aiming to CFOP OH.


No, I said, although not very clearly, that it was for methods that take of EO first. I think <R,U,r,M> 1LLL should be called pseudo-2GLL. It's really pretty nice. However, I'm pretty sure it would have about 688 cases.


shadowslice e said:


> That's more or less zz-porky, zz-rainbow or zz-orbit (I can't remember exactly which one it is)


ZZ-Orbit is very similar, but this doesn't require the pair to be made. ZZ-Orbit is to this as VHLS is to ZBLS and WV is to ZZ-c.


----------



## Hazel (May 27, 2017)

There have been LSLL subsets proposed and used, but why not try to create a last *2* slots last layer subset?
My idea was to make it so you can skip OLL 100% of the time, providing you do this on every solve:
1) Solve the cross and 2 adjacent F2L pairs
2) Solve the 3rd F2L pair while orienting the 3 LL edges that would still be in the last layer (sometimes there's 4, but still only orient 3/4)
3) Solve the last F2L pair while orienting corners (this can be done with Winter Variation, and would take advantage of the orientated edges to fully solve OLL with this step)
It sounds a bit complex, but it's quite simple really.

Here's an example:
Setup: F' U2 B D' L' B' L2 U' L2 B L' D B' U2 F

3rd F2L pair + Edge orientation: U2 L' U L F U' F'
4th F2L pair + Corner orientation: y L' U' L U' L' U2 L' D' L U L' D L2 (this is just solving the F2L normally and canceling into Winter Variation)
PLL: R perm


----------



## Neuro (May 27, 2017)

Hey so here's an interesting ZZ style Megaminx method if anyone is interested. It's similar to ZZ-Spike, but requires you to look at less faces during EO.

1: F2L
2: Yu Da Hyun style S2L until you have only F R U and L faces to solve.
3: Solve Balint Block on F and do full EO (very similar to ZZ-Spike recog but quite a bit easier IMO)
4: ZZ-F2L
5: LL as normal

I can make a video if anyone is confused, leave suggestions for this!


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Hey so here's an interesting ZZ style Megaminx method if anyone is interested. It's similar to ZZ-Spike, but requires you to look at less faces during EO.
> 
> 1: F2L
> 2: Yu Da Hyun style S2L until you have only F R U and L faces to solve.
> ...


I do Yu da Hyun(I think), I do the same thing actually except for EO. it would be easy.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 30, 2017)

Here's a couple of megaminx ideas.
1) F2L-2
2) VHLS with second to last pair
3) Build 2x2 block (edge-corner-edge-center block) on U
4) Solve last F2L pair
5) OCLL preserving block
6) Reduced PLL subset
You don't necessarily need to solve EO after F2L-2, but it makes building the block easier and has less OLLs. My next idea is probably better.
1) F2L-1
2) EO (you could do this earlier on)
3) EPLS: permute edges whilst inserting last F2L pair, very intuitive
4) OCLL preserving EP- there are algs available that do this
5) CPLL
Here's an idea I had for 3x3. It's really weird.
1) EO
2) Solve a 2x2x1 block on both the U layer and D layer
3) Solve edges
a) Solve E-slice edges
b) Solve other edges <R2,U,D> in regards to U/D layer blocks
4) L6C- solve with commutators
Might be useful for FMC. Would only be useful in speedsolving if you had the look ahead of 10 Felikses (Felicies?).


----------



## Shiv3r (May 30, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Here's an idea I had for 3x3. It's really weird.
> 1) EO
> 2) Solve a 2x2x1 block on both the U layer and D layer
> 3) Solve edges
> ...



It would be awesome for Chess clock FMC, a game I observed at an in-n-out last saturday after a comp, which is where you and an opponent have a chess clock, and you alternate doing a move and hitting the clock. Whoever finishes first wins.


----------



## Hazel (May 30, 2017)

Advanced 2x2 method idea:
1) solve corner orientation (So the U and D sides consist entirely of 2 opposite colors, like white and yellow for example)
2) advanced PBL (anybody know how many algs this would be?)


----------



## Teoidus (May 31, 2017)

This sounds a lot like Guimond.

Your second step would be 7! algs for every possible case, but of course with AUFs the number would go down


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 31, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Advanced 2x2 method idea:
> 1) solve corner orientation (So the U and D sides consist entirely of 2 opposite colors, like white and yellow for example)
> 2) advanced PBL (anybody know how many algs this would be?)


Note: NLL and LOLS are steps in the HD method
I'm pretty sure most people here have thought of this, but the idea gets killed by the case count. However, this does give me a new, HD-esque idea:
1) Solve 1x1x2 block
2) Orient corners
3) Permute corners
First step is once again, very easy. The second step would probably just usually be a one move setup to a LOLS case, but they could be more efficient, as only two pieces need to be preserved. The permutation would have 12 NLLs and 4 PBLs if you're willing to do 1-2 move setups and rotations.
Wait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If you tweak the OBLs in Guimond you can end up with pre-NLL cube states almost all of the time . . . and for the rest you can do a 2 move setup to change this.
I think this could successfully dethrone EG as the go-to 2x2 method.
Example solves:
Scramble- F' U' F' U' R F' R2 U R
V+CO- U R' U2 F R' (5/5)
NLL- D R2 U' R2 B2 U' R2 U R2 (9/14)

Scramble- F' R2 F' R2 F R2 F2 R2 U'
V+CO- R U R' F' (4/4)
NLL- R2 F2 U' R2 U (5/9)

Scramble- F' U' R2 F' R U2 R2 U' R2 U'
z y
V+CO- U' R2 F2 U' F (5/5)
NLL- D R2 U' R2 B2 U' R2 U R2 U' (10/15)

Oh my.
As good as or better than EG in less than half the algorithms.


----------



## Teoidus (May 31, 2017)

Will it hurt the 1look potential though?


ooooo, while we're here, I have an interesting idea:

CPLine
1look L6C? How many algs is this? (@xyzzy halp)


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 31, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Will it hurt the 1look potential though?
> 
> 
> ooooo, while we're here, I have an interesting idea:
> ...


~1080, I believe. However, L5C is only 120, I think. I thought of this method quite a while ago but kind of forgot about it.


----------



## Teoidus (May 31, 2017)

L6C is 1080 algs? Wow... you sure it doesn't go down when you allow AUFs/ARFs?

Edit: hm, there are 29160 cases without AUFs/ARFs. Well, maybe one could build CPLine + force the other first layer corners somewhere...


----------



## Neuro (May 31, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Wait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> If you tweak the OBLs in Guimond you can end up with pre-NLL cube states almost all of the time . . . and for the rest you can do a 2 move setup to change this.
> I think this could successfully dethrone EG as the go-to 2x2 method.
> Example solves:
> ...


Nice, we could have this as the advanced form of HD! I think the biggest thing would be inspection and finding a Guimond case that makes a V. Seeing how short the algs are, one looking-while hard-wouldn't be impossible. When we start to make our final documents, wiki page, video tutorials, etc I think we should give this as a general progression assuming we keep this latest revision:

Beginner- Literally the same as the VOP method, solve a V, do a LOLS, and only one of 6 algs for NLL
Intermediate- Full HD, sounds like a little bit of a jump but its actually really quite easy
Advanced- Second method described above, although there must be a better way of describing and looking at this so it's easier for people to understand.

Let's start documenting and stuff, I have almost all of tomorrow off @Sue Doenim so I can not only finish off NLL but help in creating an official doc and explaining/finding algs for this new variation as a whole


----------



## VenomCubing (May 31, 2017)

One idea, i call it ZZ-M, m standing for messy, or Mortensen, my last name. Eoline is done with any two yellow edges, same with the yellow edges in the blocks. Then coll is done, leaving the top and bottom edges to be permuted, with one algorithm. I've only found 1 alg, which is M2 U' M2 U' M2 U' M2 D M2 D M2 for two z perms. Does anyone have the full algset?


----------



## Shiv3r (May 31, 2017)

Okay guys, I think we should have a MUWR list(Method Unofficial World record) list.. 
For example, I know that for Ribbon method the UWR is 10.5 I think.
but what is the MUWR for methods like HD?(I think it's sub-2) ZZ-4c? etc?


----------



## Neuro (May 31, 2017)

Cool idea I had while thinking about 2GR

1: CP Line- Solve pair and insert LC while solving CP. No real preservation required so it's really efficient
2: F2B and Pinkie Pie setup- MUuRr and E technically
3: 2GOLL- 57 algs, super easy
4: LSE- Very short bc of Pinkie Pie setup

F2B probably takes a lot of moves but this could be a pretty good method because CP Line is actually quite easy to do as minimal tracking of corners while doing initial pair is required; and the last 2 steps are pretty much algorithmic (Only a few 4C cases are possible and BU makes it super fast/easy to recognize so it's basically like an alg from that point) Let me know your thoughts!


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 1, 2017)

Quick question: how do you generate algorithms?


----------



## CeBeMind (Jun 1, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Quick question: how do you generate algorithms?



Cube Explorer


----------



## Neuro (Jun 1, 2017)

CubeExplorer, ksolve, Acube, HARCS. There are probably more but these are the main ones (HARCS is not meant to gen algs so use it as a last resort)


----------



## JTay (Jun 1, 2017)

I have probably spent nearly 50 hours collectively developing this method, and I'm finally ready to publish it. Here it is guys, enjoy.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzm7fHMKOwCBb201b29RaUlHYms/view?usp=sharing


----------



## Neuro (Jun 1, 2017)

Looks good, congrats! My only suggestion would be to label the alg pages respectively because all the TOLS algs kinda merge but other than that it's a nice document


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 1, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Cool idea I had while thinking about 2GR
> 
> 1: CP Line- Solve pair and insert LC while solving CP. No real preservation required so it's really efficient
> 2: F2B and Pinkie Pie setup- MUuRr and E technically
> ...



My estimates are: 11 CPFB + 13 SB + 2 setup + 10 pseudo2GOLL + 9 LSE -> 45 moves on avg


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 1, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> One idea, i call it ZZ-M, m standing for messy, or Mortensen, my last name. Eoline is done with any two yellow edges, same with the yellow edges in the blocks. Then coll is done, leaving the top and bottom edges to be permuted, with one algorithm. I've only found 1 alg, which is M2 U' M2 U' M2 U' M2 D M2 D M2 for two z perms. Does anyone have the full algset?


Check the SSC wiki page
I think it would be found under CPETL and L8E and I genes the algs somewhere in the SSC thread.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 1, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Cool idea I had while thinking about 2GR
> 
> 1: CP Line- Solve pair and insert LC while solving CP. No real preservation required so it's really efficient
> 2: F2B and Pinkie Pie setup- MUuRr and E technically
> ...


I thought up of this a while, but with planning first square+2 DR Corners in inspection, then doing porky2 to insert the last F2L pair, then SB. but instead of 2GOLL(which it ended up being) I thought of it as the 2.5-gen subset of OLLCP(2.5-gen being <R,rU>)


----------



## Shiv3r (Jun 1, 2017)

random thought: since I can't find a thread for alg discussions, thought this would be a good place to post some V-perms I came up with intuitively. 
I used this alg from a youtube video: (the alg is executed a y/U away from the "normal" V-perm)
(L' U R U') (L U L' U)(R' U')(L U2 R U2 R')

and just with playing with wide moves and stuff I got this nice one: (r' F R F')(r U r' F)(R' F')(r U2 R U2 R') 
and this is what it feels like execution-wise: (r' F R F')(r U r' F')(l' U')(r x' U2 R U2 R')
I have gotten this alg up to speed with my original V-perm(R' U R' _U' y_ R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F) but it didn't take much since my V-perm is like my slowest PLL besides the G-perms. 
any thoughts on the alg?


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 1, 2017)

How does this method sound?
1. Cross -1
2. 2 adjacent f2l pairs
3. Solve corners
4. Place the cross piece in the FD slot and the edge in the UN slot.
5. L5E


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 1, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> How does this method sound?
> 1. Cross -1
> 2. 2 adjacent f2l pairs
> 3. Solve corners
> ...


U


----------



## Neuro (Jun 2, 2017)

@Rubik's cubed Maybe, but L5E would have a lot of cases because no EO.



Shiv3r said:


> Okay, so y'all remember Hawaiian Kociemba? well, I think solving only 3 cross edges is actually really good. I can usually plan xcross-1 edge in inspection, and the L5EOP algs are nice(L5EOP is EO+DF, then EPLL), and the L5EP algs are pretty nice(much of the algs can be done with a conjugated EPLL, or an H-perm and then a conjugated EPLL). So here's what I use when I solve it, and though I didn't invent it (it's called 3CFCE on the wiki), it's pretty nice:
> -*3* *C*ross edges(and whatever F2L you can plan in inspection)
> -*F*2l without the edge(often you can use the open face to make pairs really efficiently)
> -*C*LL(I use CMLL's, they work usually)
> ...


What I just realized with this is if you have F open with this you can do <RrLlUFM> which is actually a pretty good moveset that's reminiscent of Roux and ZZ. Also, if you wanted to go the HK route, being able to use M slice makes both HKOLL and HKPLL much more efficient. This may not be very good for OH due to the reliance on F moves but this is actually quite nice and still very efficient. As for CFCE, I find that EO->L5EP is very easy to recognize and is usually more efficient than EODF->EPLL. I think it's just preference though. I might use this for 2H if I can get my F2L fast enough


----------



## GenTheThief (Jun 2, 2017)

Random LS idea that has most certainly been proposed before

1. EOF2L-1 twisted corner
2. CP+twist corner (6 algs/4 algs)
3. 2GLL (~80 algs)/OCLL->PLL (28)

Sort of like a EJLS/CLS-thing.
I have no idea on the movecount advantage over other methods, or if there even is one but if you guys have any thoughts on it, feel free.
And if anyone knows if this is a direct copy of an existing method, can you tell me? The wiki page on LS didn't have anything on it.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 2, 2017)

I think this might be something Stachu was working on called Seth/Leslie: http://stachu.cubing.net/seth/


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 2, 2017)

loool, that post was from like 4 years ago man


----------



## TDM (Jun 2, 2017)

Bluefoot said:


> This just comes across as flat out rude and pretentious. Did you check your own post?


not only was it 4 years ago (as Teodius pointed out), but he had a point. If someone posts a new method I'd much rather they skipped the long boring paragraphs and just listed the steps clearly at the very beginning, before going into any detail. It's far more difficult to follow what's going on that way.

In the OP (which has since been edited), even now there is a lot of unnecessary stuff about how the OP derived the method he was proposing. None of that is important! It's (usually) not information anybody needs or wants.


----------



## Bluefoot (Jun 3, 2017)

It's still a clear violation of netiquette. If you don't like someone's writing style, move on. If you feel strongly that the message has value, but needs a different delivery, PM them, don't call them out in public. Those who do this get to sit at the big table. Those who don't get to stay on the bridge and feast on goat droppings.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 3, 2017)

I'll say nothing about somerandomkidmike's tone, but in a way that post did set some ground rules for this thread that we still follow to this day. Method proposals generally aren't taken seriously unless people provide an outline of substeps, descriptions of each step, projected movecount, projected algorithm count, etc. Of course there is still some spitballing that goes on here but when someone proposes an idea it follows this form, which is clearer and easier to follow than the OP.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 3, 2017)

In other news, my 2GR Examples page finally has 100 solves on it!

Here are the data. Mean 44.35, median 45, std 4.365. For comparison, 100 of my roux solves yields mean 46.58, median 47, std 4.91, and an ao100 from feliks yields mean 58.

And a nice histogram of the distribution of movecounts below.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 3, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> In other news, my 2GR Examples page finally has 100 solves on it!
> 
> Here are the data. Mean 44.35, median 45, std 4.365. For comparison, 100 of my roux solves yields mean 46.58, median 47, std 4.91, and an ao100 from feliks yields mean 58.
> 
> ...


Nice! However, this is kind of worrying me. You're making me want to switch methods (yet again) and I just started getting fast (for me) with Roux!
RIP me.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 3, 2017)

haha, the movecounts make me optimistic. I've been getting better and better at finding 6-7 move EOPairs and the mean 44 stm is substantially lower than my projected 49 stm


----------



## LemonCuberIGuess (Jun 6, 2017)

F2BL Example 3x3 Solve

Scramble: R F2 D2 R' D2 L2 U2 R B2 U2 F2 U' B L' R2 F2 R' U2 R2 F
Inspection: Y' Z2
F2L 2 Setup: F2 (1)
F2L 1: L' U2 L (4)
F2L 2: U R U R' U R U R' U2 F' U F (16)
F2L 3: U R' U' R U B' U B (24)
F2L 4: Y' R U' R' U R U R' (32)
CLL: L' U R U' L U R' U (40)
BE 1 and 2: U M2 F2 M2 F2 (45)
BE 3: S2 U2 S2 (48)
BE 4: ' M' U M U' M' U2 M (56)
OLLCP: (Hold Corners permutated correctly, Red facing you) R U R' U' M' U R U' r' U M' U' M U2 M' U' M U' (74)
74 Moves Total. Let me know if you want a tutorial Doc.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 6, 2017)

This is more or less PCMS isn't it?



LemonCuberIGuess said:


> R F2 D2 R' D2 L2 U2 R B2 U2 F2 U' B L' R2 F2 R' U2 R2 F


Or at least would this count as a solve using the method?
x2 U B U' r U' l'
U R U2 R
F R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' U' F'
M2 U' M U M2
U M D' M D2 M' D' U'


----------



## Hazel (Jun 6, 2017)

I've been thinking about a Roux/Waterman hybrid similar to WaterRoux:
1) Roux block on left
2) 2x2x1 block on right
3) corners
4) solve the rest of the edges as best you can (with a preference to solving D layer and left layer)
5) last 2-4 edges

Example
Scramble: D2 B2 L2 F' U2 F R2 U2 B2 D2 F D L2 U2 R F2 U' L' D'
z2 R D L' B U' D2 B2 //First block
L2 F D F2 R' F L2 //Second block
R L U L2 U R2 D2 R U' L //Corners
U2 M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2 (Ub perm) //"edges"
R B L F U F' L' B' R' U' //L3E

total: 52 (STM)
I haven't really generated any algs or anything so I haven't been able to use it in actual solves, but for somebody who's actually good at roux block building maybe it could be viable?


----------



## LemonCuberIGuess (Jun 6, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> This is more or less PCMS isn't it?



Sorta, you see F2BL is a method with 2 types, F2BOP and FEBO. F2BOP Uses CLL to solve corners and 2 look Last Layer, while FEBO uses EG and OLLCP. FEBO is faster than F2BOP, but harder to learn.


----------



## KAINOS (Jun 9, 2017)

An idea for 'ZZ-for-5x5' thingy:

*1. First 2 Centers*: These are going to be L and R centers.
*2. 'Bars-Redux'*: Instead of solving the remaining centers, reduce those into 1x1x3 bars like what would you see in the middle of Freeslice edge pairing. It's fine that the bars don't match with each other within Lw/Rw moves.
*3. EOPair 8 Tredges*: Same with Freeslice but do EO simultnaeously. Omit DF, DB ones and any other two.
*4. 'MOLine'*: Orient remaining unpaired midges and place DF and DB in their correct spots.
*5. 'EOLine'*: Solve centers and DF/DB wings using blockbuilding. You can think of it as ZZF2L (wings being corners, center bars being edges) but with <U2, D2, F2, B2, Lw, Rw> moves only.
*6. Last 2 Edges*: Algorithmic. (11? cases) Might be possible to do intuitively but I have no idea how to.
*7. 3x3 Stage*: ZZ!

It's probably just crappy, but felt like worth posting anyway.


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 9, 2017)

KAINOS said:


> An idea for 'ZZ-for-5x5' thingy:
> 
> *1. First 2 Centers*: These are gonna be L and R faces.
> *2. 'Bars'*: Instead of solving the remaining centers, you reduce those into 1x1x3 bars like what would you see in middle of Freeslice edge pairing. Yet it is fine that the bars don't match with each other within Lw/Rw moves.
> ...



Interesting idea. I've thought about something like your step 2 before, but it's honestly hard to see how having the freedom to make unmatched bars can be of much use in L4C. In practice you'd just solve centres normally and skip the last few moves of L2C. Once you have unmatched bars though, it becomes super easy to flip an edge during freeslice: just do U2! (Note: R2 if you use E-slice edge pairing instead of M-slice.)

For step 4, you could probably use something like F R2 U R' U' F' for orienting midges two at a time, or maybe some edge comms. Step 5 doesn't look very efficient, but I might have to experiment with it more.

For step 6, I think the common parity algs already preserve EO on the L and R edges, which leaves the non-parity cases. The usual slice-flip-slice strategy will destroy EO, so here's some algs that preserve EO. (There aren't standard names for the 2+2-cycle cases, but hopefully you can figure out which alg is for which case.)

3-cycle: r2 D2 r U2 r' D2 r U2 r (+ mirrors and inverses)
"opposite swap": r2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 r2 (same as the usual alg)
"2-flip": r' F2 r2 U2 r' F2 r U2 r2 F2 r
"swapped 2-flip": F2 r D2 r' F2 U2 F2 3r D2 3r' F2


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 11, 2017)

Here's a method proposed be Critical Cubing, and helped in development by Teoidus. It's a Roux-ZB hybrid thing, and I think it's really promising. There is a link in the description to a document; I suggest you read through it. This is the idea:
1) FB 
2) SB
3) Solve EO + place DF and DB
4) ZBLL
A few cool things I want to point out about this method: ZBLL recognition is significantly easier. Your CLL case can be recognized anytime after SB, as the M and U turns used in step 3 will not affect it. Then you can just trace your edges while finishing step 3, and in theory, have a pauseless recognition. Movecount is roughly equal, or even a little lower than in Roux. 
I'd like to propose a couple of new ideas around it. Firstly, phasing during EODFDB. This probably wouldn't add too many moves on, would it? Secondly, with that idea laid down, what if you used this to allow you to recognize the ZBLL cases with or without phazing, then choose the more favorable one? That would be insane.


----------



## JTay (Jun 11, 2017)

I've talked with Teoidus about this method some. I think it certainly has at least some potential, but I think the craziest thing theoretically possible with it would be to predict the ZZLL case before even solving the DFDB+EO+Phasing step, which I like to call HyperPhasing. If you were to make this step algorithmic and you knew exactly what each case did as far as edge permutation, you could determine which of the four ZZLL cases of each CMLL case you would get and go right into it with zero pauses. This would give a 1 look, 2 alg solution for the last 10 pieces and last 4 centers. This method would also give potential for a four look solve, with FB, Back Square, Last Pair, and the HyperPhase + ZZLL Prediction. Who knows how realistic this may be, but I found it to be interesting to think about.


----------



## Đỗ Viên Rouxer (Jun 11, 2017)

i have come back with my Perry method:
*The step:
S1: Pblock (Perry block)
a) Fb
b) 2X2X2 in DBR+FR
S2: Po (Perry orient)
a) Orient corner (Poc)
b) Orient edge (Poe)
S3: Psq (Perry square): square on UBL
S4: Plce (Perry last corner-edge): Permutate last 3 edges and 4 corners.
*Algorithm and movecount:
S1:
a) intuitive, 7 moves
b) intuitive, 10 moves (R, U, M, r)
S2:
a) 23 alg, 7 moves
b) intuitive, 6 moves (M, U)
S3: intuitive, 8 moves (R, U, M, r)
S4: 68 algs, 14 moves (R, U, L, D)
Total: 91 algs, 52 moves

Some example solves:
1) B2 L' D2 F2 R' B2 D2 R' B2 U2 F2 D L' R F R' B U' F' U R'
z2 // inspection
L D2 B R' D2 B' D' F // Fb (8/8)
R r2 U R2 r U' r' U' r2 U R // 2X2+FR (11/19)
R U R' U R U2 R' // Poc (7/26)
M' U' M // POE (3/29)
U2 M U2 M' U M2 U M2 U' // Psq (9/38)
D R U' R U R' D R D' R D R2 D2 // Plce (13/51)

2) F R2 U' B2 D2 F2 R2 U F' R B2 D2 B2 D' B2 D' F2 U2 L2
z2 // inspection
B' L' B' U' F L' D2 // Fb (7/7)
M' U r2 U' r' U' R2 M' U2 r // 2X2+FR (10/17)
F' U2 L' U2 L F // Poc (6/23)
skip // Poe (0/23)
U M U2 M' U M2 U M2 // Psq (8/31)
U' R D2 R D R' D2 L D' R D R2 L' U // Plce (14/45)

3) L2 B R2 B U2 B R2 B U2 B' R' F D2 U2 F2 D' F2 L' D
z2 // inspection
U' F2 L2 F D B2 L2 // Fb (7/7)
U R U' R2 M U' r' U' r2 U R // 2X2+FR (11/18)
R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R // Poc (9/27)
M' U2 M U2 M' U' M // Poe (7/34)
r2 U R2 U R2 U2 r2 // Psq (7/41)
U2 L2 D' L2 U' L2 D L2 U' // Plce (9/50)


----------



## Hazel (Jun 11, 2017)

So CriticalCubing made up a Roux-ZZ hybrid type method called LLOB but (and I don't want to seem self-centered or anything) does anybody remember that DELToS (my old account I lost the passcode to) made this up a while before? I think I proposed it on the account too a little bit back. I have all the algs for inserting DF edge + EO here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cCDVpuPzUXq_c2lItT3dBg0r2HscVXtT8ptqkD19c6I/edit?usp=sharing

and I originally called it Roux-MM (Miranda Manning), but I don't know if I specified the name

EDIT: I had a slightly different procedure for the method though, my version for L10E was CMLL, then DB while correcting centers, then DF + EO (what I called LE-OLL), then EPLL, but finishing with ZPLL seems ok too


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 12, 2017)

hello everyone. my name is abram lookadoo, and that is why i named it the Lookadoo method

(step inspection a) find a wat to build a 1x1x3 block (corner edge corner) and place it in DL as well as not create the diagonal corner permutation on top if solved 2 gen [R,U].

(step inspection b) after theoretically making the block, you theoretically put the block in DB and use only R[U,U2,U']R' M'[U,U2,U']M L'[U,U2,U']L r[U,U2,U']r' l'[U,U2,U']l (i will call this trigger style) to theoretically place the remaining bottom 2 corners permutation correctly, and find out witch 2 need to swap to complete the top layers permutation.

(step inspection c) find the two pieces on the still scrambled cube and find out witch two top pieces must swap for the top to be solved using trigger style, by knowing witch pieces swaps are congruent

yes inspection is crazy and not perfected

(step 1a) make the planned 1x1x3 block

(step 1 b) (this is easier than it seems) keep track of the two swapped pieces if you preform a U move, if you preform R,R2 or R' two new swapped pieces are formed due to all conditions (what two needs swaped) (what R move is used). now for the actual step, expand the 1x1x3 block into a 2x2x3 block while keeping track of the swap pieces and before the formation of the block permutate the corners (relative to the right side)

(step 1 c) preform a y rotation

(step 2 a) using trigger style place one f2l pair and influence the other pair

(step 2 b) using trigger style place the other pair

(step 2 c) place the final edge that goes into the first layer and orient all edges trigger style

(step 3) preform an 2gll algorithm 1/84 (not including skip)

so, that is my method. if anyone can provide a better style of inspection that would help.
I'm also interested about this methods move count (i calculated about 38 stm but I'm probably wrong)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 12, 2017)

Spoiler






Abram Lookadoo said:


> hello everyone. my name is abram lookadoo, and that is why i named it the Lookadoo method
> 
> (step inspection a) find a wat to build a 1x1x3 block (corner edge corner) and place it in DL as well as not create the diagonal corner permutation on top if solved 2 gen [R,U].
> 
> ...






This is essentially Briggs though with a less streamlined inspection and there are also a few things which I don't think would work:



Abram Lookadoo said:


> (step inspection b) after theoretically making the block, you theoretically put the block in DB and use only R[U,U2,U']R' M'[U,U2,U']M L'[U,U2,U']L r[U,U2,U']r' l'[U,U2,U']l (i will call this trigger style) to theoretically place the remaining bottom 2 corners permutation correctly, and find out witch 2 need to swap to complete the top layers permutation.


This won't necessarily preserve the pieces that need to be swapped once the D corners have been placed.


Abram Lookadoo said:


> (step 1 c) preform a y rotation


Personally I'm not a huge fan of fixed rotations built into a method. In addition, If you do "trigger style" in this state it will also not lead to a 2 gen LL.



Abram Lookadoo said:


> (step 2 c) place the final edge that goes into the first layer and orient all edges trigger style


Why not just build it in at the same time as the two f2l pairs?


Abram Lookadoo said:


> so, that is my method. if anyone can provide a better style of inspection that would help.


Have a look at Briggs/B2/the CPFB this @Teoidus came up with that I can't remember off the top of my head/ZZ-porky/ZZ-rainbow.



Abram Lookadoo said:


> (i calculated about 38 stm but I'm probably wrong)


 If you insist on solving in "trigger style" the movecount will most likely be around 50. If you don't, it will be closer to about 40-45 though this is assuming the methods actually works (which it doesn't in its current state due to breaking CP as indicated previously).



Aerma said:


> So CriticalCubing made up a Roux-ZZ hybrid type method called LLOB but (and I don't want to seem self-centered or anything) does anybody remember that DELToS (my old account I lost the passcode to) made this up a while before? I think I proposed it on the account too a little bit back. I have all the algs for inserting DF edge + EO here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cCDVpuPzUXq_c2lItT3dBg0r2HscVXtT8ptqkD19c6I/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> and I originally called it Roux-MM (Miranda Manning), but I don't know if I specified the name
> 
> EDIT: I had a slightly different procedure for the method though, my version for L10E was CMLL, then DB while correcting centers, then DF + EO (what I called LE-OLL), then EPLL, but finishing with ZPLL seems ok too


Tbh, the thing he's come up with is essentially one variant of M-CELL which I actually have a lot of the algs genned for (or can at least find them in the case of L5E(OP)).

It's just that I've given up trying to call precedent nowadays on anything not related to SSC because when a more well known cuber comes up with something and posts about it, no one really takes notice of anyone saying they made something very similar of near identical a few months or a year earlier (eg Hexagonal Fransisco, ZZ-CT etc)

Not to diminish his or any other cubers work it's just frustrating that nowadays it's a pr game and who promotes stuff the most gets credit like ortega/varasano, Fridrich/CFOP.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 12, 2017)

the lookadoo method

the method does in fact work. if the corners are permutated to fit trigger style on the right side (witch is fairly easy to do), then trigger style will not change permutation of the corners. to get it to 2gll you orient the sides using M triggers, and the corners are already permutated. i have not found a way to solve f2l+eo with decent lookahead speed, without messing up corner permuation (F moves mess with the permutation with this style). this is nothing like B2. the simplified steps are 1. build a 1x1x3 block 2. expand to a 2x2x3 block+cp for trigger style on the right side 3. f2l+eo 4. 2gll. B2 is a corner permutation roux method.

the lookadoo method: a better inspection (attempt 2)

(inspection a) find out how to make a 1x1x3 block

(inspection b) find the two corners that will be on the bottom and which one is closer (1/30)

(inspection c) read where the other 4 corners will be counter clockwise (don't know why i chose counter clockwise) and find witch 2 needs to be swapped to match the corresponding permutation to the bottom corners


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 12, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the lookadoo method
> 
> the method does in fact work. if the corners are permutated to fit trigger style on the right side (witch is fairly easy to do), then trigger style will not change permutation of the corners. to get it to 2gll you orient the sides using M triggers, and the corners are already permutated. i have not found a way to solve f2l+eo with decent lookahead speed, without messing up corner permuation (F moves mess with the permutation with this style). this is nothing like Briggs. the simplified steps are 1. build a 1x1x3 block 2. expand to a 2x2x3 block+cp for trigger style on the right side 3. f2l+eo 4. 2gll. brigs is a corner permutation roux method.


It does work but only if you replace the pair each time before starting with the new one and only using 2 turn types at the same time. If that's what you mean it is different to what you indicated in the post. It also introduces needless inefficiencies

Also, you're thinking of B2. Briggs is 1x1x3+ CP, 2x2x3+EO, F2L, 2GLL.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 12, 2017)

the lookadoo method
comparison to briggs

in the briggs method you solve corner permutation relative to the front side (using R and U)
the lookadoo method solves corner permutation relative to the right side after solving the 2x2x3 block (turing the cube then using trigger style)
the lookadoo method solves edge orientation while finishing the first two layers
the lookadoo method uses trigger f2l


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 12, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the lookadoo method
> comparison to briggs
> 
> in the briggs method you solve corner permutation relative to the front side (using R and U)
> the lookadoo method solves corner permutation relative to the right side after solving the 2x2x3 block (turing the cube then using trigger style)


You don't solve CP relative to any side if you place DFR/DBR. It's solved no matter what orientation from then as long as the corners remain in seperate layers.


> the lookadoo method solves edge orientation while finishing the first two layers


So does Briggs depending on the variant.


> the lookadoo method uses trigger f2l


This is different but only in the way that CFOP would be different if you solved F2L using "trigger style


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 12, 2017)

because you permiate the corners relative to the right side, it is likely impossible to solve using 2gen (R,U)
just try it mix it up using trigger style, turn the cube, and try to solve it 2gen.
this will prove that there is more than one direction to permiate corners.

you cannot solve f2l for cfop trigger style. the DF piece is not "empty". there is no way to flip sides.

the other points you provided, i cannot argue against


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 12, 2017)

Okay, so if I read this correctly:

1x1x3
2x2x3 + reduce CP
y, "trigger style" solve two F2L pairs
L5EO and solve DF
2GLL?

Approximate movecount: 6 1x1x3 + 12 2x2x3&CP + 14 F2Lx2 (assuming 2 triggers per pair) + 9 L5EO&DF + 15 2GLL = 56 moves, with conservative estimate for trigger F2L pairs and 2x2x3&CP.

As @shadowslice e pointed out, I'm also not sure how "trigger style" preserves CP. Here's a quick counterexample:
Setup: R' U' R y
Solve: U r U r' (CP is not preserved)

Or do you mean there cannot be AUFs between triggers?
I'd have to take a closer look at the CP stuff if triggers truly preseve, but for now take a look at this:
Setup: R' U' R y
Solve: ...no good solution as far as I can see

Your description is a little hard to understand so I've included both possibilities, but it looks to me like:
If AUFs are allowed, CP isn't preserved.
If AUFs aren't allowed, I don't know if CP is preserved but some cases look like they'll be extremely inefficient.

Finally, it seems like for now you are trying to recognize and track CP by this trigger style--I recommend using 2GR's recognition system instead (and tracking/solving system as well, if they are applicable to your method)



shadowslice e said:


> It's just that I've given up trying to call precedent nowadays on anything not related to SSC because when a more well known cuber comes up with something and posts about it, no one really takes notice of anyone saying they made something very similar of near identical a few months or a year earlier (eg Hexagonal Fransisco, ZZ-CT etc)



Could you point out where Hexagonal/ZZ-CT were first proposed? I've heard of Roux-CFOP hybrid and some other things being reinvented hundreds of times (LLOB included) but thought those two were relatively original.



shadowslice e said:


> Not to diminish his or any other cubers work it's just frustrating that nowadays it's a pr game and who promotes stuff the most gets credit like ortega/varasano, Fridrich/CFOP.



I think part of the reason this is is that there's a silly precedent for putting your name on methods that you've invented. A name doesn't tell you anything about the method other than who got "first author" in its development; perhaps if method names were more about their steps than about their creators then people would be less motivated to push pr/exposure with their name on it and more motivated to develop good methods.

In a few months i will have no idea what "Roux-Miranda Manning" is but call it "Roux-EODF" or something and I'll know pretty much what it is right away. Same with this lookadoo method


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 12, 2017)

the trigger style reduction method
(the lookadoo method)

permutation recognition and tracking (attempt 3)
and basic history

and yes, you can auf

the corner permutation is extremely confusing. the idea began when i created the idea of trigger style. i then tried to find a trigger algorithm that swaps corners, but there is no way to do that. so i thought, what happens if you preform an F move and solve it using trigger style. i found out that this causes the right two corners to swap. the method started with the block in the back. i didn't like the F move thing, so i decided to hold the block on the left so i used R moves instead. that is why we have to permiate it to the right side. that is why recognition is so difficult. you have to find out witch two on top need to swap (i acutely just found a better way to do this), then for each move you do the swap pieces change.

in this thing U means none swaps, R means the right top 2 swaps, D means that diagonals have to swap, and so on
this is what becomes what with each turn

----R----} ----U----} those things are arrows
UFLBU UUUUU
RRRRR RFLBR
DDDDD DDDDD this is why diagonal swaps are unwanted
{----R'---- {----U'---- you want to end on U when you finish the block

after this is is solvable trigger style

swap recognition

--F
14 the 6 corners and what i named them
23
--A

imagine solving the 1x1x3 block, then placing 1 in spot 1, if on bottom place A in spot 1, if both in bottom place F in spot 1, then read the names of the front two, this is the middle of this graph if permuation is correct
the left name in A spot, the top name in spot F
--- A +1 +2 +3 +4 +F
A Ee 32 F4 42 3F 23
1 42 Ee F3 4F 32 24
2 34 43 Ee AF F3 4A this is what it is if permutation is correct
3 F2 2F 4F Ee 2A A4 the top two that swap to give you the correct, is the swap pair
4 2F F2 A3 FA Ee 32
F 43 34 3A 24 A2 Ee

i had a lot of spacing difficulty there

and a question, would it be more useful to use trigger f2l+eo then 2gll, or trigger f2l then ollep?


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 13, 2017)

Okay, I understand now:

1. 1x1x3 on LD
2. 2x2x3 + *reduce CP to <B,U>*
3. y rot, solve F2L pairs "trigger style" (CP is preserved wrt new <R,U>, previously <B,U>)
4. EO+DF
5. 2GLL

Your average movecount is still going to be fairly high (~55), so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to fuss with CP in this manner.

As for F2L+EO then 2GLL, or F2L then OLLEP: F2L+EO then 2GLL will be ~12 + 9 + 15 = 36 moves, while F2L then OLLEP will be ~12 + 4 + 13? = 30 moves. OLLEP is a lot more algs though, ~57 * 12 = 694 vs the 84 2GLLs


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 13, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Here's a method proposed be Critical Cubing, and helped in development by Teoidus. It's a Roux-ZB hybrid thing, and I think it's really promising. There is a link in the description to a document; I suggest you read through it. This is the idea:
> 1) FB
> 2) SB
> 3) Solve EO + place DF and DB
> ...


In my opinion, this is only worth it if you go full ZBLL. Solving EO+DFDB+Phasing is basically equivalent to solving LSE--at that point, you're better off using standard L10P (CMLL/LSE).


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 13, 2017)

trigger style reduction method
(the lookadoo method)

advantages and disadvantages

advantages
solves more than half the cube in a decently small amount of moves (less than 20)
trigger F2L+eo can be incredibly fast if the solver has great look ahead due to it being completely made of triggers
has a relatively small 1LLL called 2gll (84 algs 13.15 average move count)
2gll algorithms can be preformed fast due to all the algorithms being 2 gen (R,U)

disadvantages
unbelievably hard to recognise the initial swap pair, so you'll have less time to lookahead
swap pair transformations are hard to keep track of if you are not used to it
if you don't have good lookahead trigger F2L will be very slow
you have to memorize 84 algorithms that consist of only R and U without getting them confused


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 13, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> trigger style reduction method
> (the lookadoo method)
> 
> advantages and disadvantages
> ...



Can I see example solves where 2x2x3+CP is consistently solved in <20 moves in the way that you describe?


----------



## Samuel Sharpe (Jun 13, 2017)

So I kinda invented a method. I didn't exactly invent it, I used a beginners method for megaminx, moved it to 3x3, and adjusted some stuff to make it a valid method. I call it Megacube.

You start it off like CFOP, by making a cross and doing F2L. When you get to the last layer, you look at the edges and look for a bar, l-shape or dot, and do the normal algorithms I call this step LLEO (last layer edge orientation) Next you do LLEP (last layer edge permutation) by moving the last layer around until 2 edges are solved.

If the 2 solved edges are perpendicular, put one in the front and one in the right and do a Y-Perm. If the 2 are across from each other, hold one in the front and do a T-Perm.

Now, you do LLCO (corner orientation) by putting a corner in the top right and repeatedly doing the algorithm R' D' R D until the corner is facing up. Move another into the top right and do it again.

Once all the corners face up, you do LLCP (corner permutation) by doing R' D' R on an unsolved corner, moving the respective edges over to the front and right spots, and undoing the moves. Do this with all the unsolved corners and the 3x3 should be solved. I think the method is pretty cool as an intermediate method.


----------



## Malkom (Jun 13, 2017)

This is an already existing last layer subset, not a new method.


----------



## Sajwo (Jun 13, 2017)

it's called 4LLL


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 13, 2017)

trigger style reduction method

random example solves to help people understand average move count distribution for each step of my method

R D2 F R B' F U2 R F2 L' B2 U R' D B' R' B' U L2 F2 B' L U L2 B' (scramble)
z2 B2 (1x1x3 block)
U R u2 R2 u' r2 u2 (left slot)
r' U r U2 r' U2 r2 (down slot)
y (trigger cp)
U r U r' U' l' U' l (left f2l slot)
U' R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' (right f2l slot)
skip (L5eo+DF)
U2 R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' R U' R' U (2gll)

U R' L' D L2 R U' R' L2 B D R' L F U2 D F B D U2 F L' B U D2 (scramble)
f' U L' U2 x' (1x1x3 block)
u' R2 u' (left slot)
M' U' r2 M U' r (down slot)
R2 y (trigger cp)
L' U' L R U R' U' r U r' (right f2l slot)
U2 M' U2 M R U2 R' l' U' l R U2 R' (left f2l slot)
U' M' U M U M' U M (L5eo+DF)
U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U' R U R' U R (2gll)

U B2 D' U' L' B D' F' R D' U2 R L D L2 U R' B R2 U B F2 L2 B D2 (scramble)
z2 L U' F2 (1x1x3 block)
U M' U r' U r U2 r2 (down block)
u' R u' R2 u R2 u2 (left block)
R' y (trigger cp)
L' U L U2 L' U2 L U2 L' U L (left f2l pair)
M' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 r' (right f2l pair)
M U' M' U2 M U' M (L5eo+DF)
U R U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' R U' R' U' (2gll)

D2 U2 B2 F L' U R2 D' R' F' B2 R' U2 D2 B F2 L' B' U' F U' F2 U L2 R (scramble)
z2 F D F' (1x1x3 block)
u' r (down slot)
u' R u' R u' R2 u' R2 u2 (left slot)
U' R y (trigger cp)
U' M' U' M U' l' U l (left f2l pair)
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' R' (right f2l pair)
U2 M' U M U2 M' U' M (l5eo+DF)
R U2 R' U' R U' R' U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R U' (2gll)

U2 B2 U L U2 D F' U F2 B2 L D2 L' B' F2 R U D L' U L R' U L2 U' (scramble)
z2 F R B' (1x1x3 block)
u' U' R M U M' E2 R' u (left slot)
U' r U2 r'(down slot)
R' y (trigger cp)
M' U2 M R U' R' (right f2l pair)
U' L' U L U' R U2 R' l' U' l R U2 R' (left f2l pair)
M' U M U M' U' M (l5eo+DF)
U2 R2 U' R U R U R' U2 R U R2 U R2 U (2gll)


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 13, 2017)

Hi guys, I am a roux solver who wants to get into 4x4. I know there are two 4x4 methods for roux solvers, Meyer and Lewis, but I want to know the pros and cons of each method and which one I should use.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 14, 2017)

meyer vs lewis

i am no expert on 4x4 methods, so you will have to choose for yourself

for meyer
the final 4 centers are quick and easy to complete
dedges are simple to pair up

for lewis
more block building leads to more efficient solves
no parity step (solved at L5e)

against meyer
transition from 4x4 state to 3x3 state can be hard to look ahead through

against lewis
L5e spams commutators, so its not as efficient, but still fast

this is not all the pros and cons, I'm no expert

if i were choosing i would choose a variant of meyer that permiates the corners with the first block, and solves 3 edges before finishing the centers


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jun 14, 2017)

Samuel Sharpe said:


> So I kinda invented a method. I didn't exactly invent it, I used a beginners method for megaminx, moved it to 3x3, and adjusted some stuff to make it a valid method. I call it Megacube.
> 
> You start it off like CFOP, by making a cross and doing F2L. When you get to the last layer, you look at the edges and look for a bar, l-shape or dot, and do the normal algorithms I call this step LLEO (last layer edge orientation) Next you do LLEP (last layer edge permutation) by moving the last layer around until 2 edges are solved.
> 
> ...


Incidentally, the megaminx method was actually based on a 3x3 beginners method invented in the 1980's. You've just rediscovered a variation of that method. Also sune and sune U sune are better than T or Y perm for edge permutation.


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 14, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> Also sune and sune U sune are better than T or Y perm for edge permutation.



50 out of the 60 edge permutations can be AUf'd into a 3-cycle, and those can all be solved with a single Sune variant. (5 of them are EP skip; the remaining 5 are with "reversed" edges, and need two Sunes.)


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 14, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> meyer vs lewis
> 
> i am no expert on 4x4 methods, so you will have to choose for yourself
> 
> ...


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 14, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> meyer vs lewis
> 
> i am no expert on 4x4 methods, so you will have to choose for yourself
> 
> ...


 thanks!


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 14, 2017)

trigger style reduction method

variants

1. 1x2x2 block*2 in LB,LBD,LD and RB,RBD,RD+ trigger cp(front)
2. trigger pair with free M slice*2 + oc
3. L6e

1. 2x2x3 block + trigger cp(right)
2. y + trigger f2l
3. ollep

1. 2x2x3 block + trigger cp(right)
2.y + trigger pair*2 + co
3. L5e

1.2x2x3 block + trigger cp(right)
2. y + 1x2x2 block FL,DFL,FD + eo
3. 2GLL+LS

if you have any questions about trigger style reduction, feel free to ask


----------



## weatherman223 (Jun 14, 2017)

So basically, I was messing around and came across this method by myself. This is basically a roux/cfop hybrid. This is called hC-F-C-L

The steps are

1. Solve a half cross on white or your dominant colors, and insert mis oriented opposite color or same color edges. (If it is an opposite edge, it does not have to be mis oriented.

2. Solve F2L like normal.

Step 3. Solve Corners

Step 4: Do LSE.

I will be generating an alg.cubing.net for this method. I find this method _kinda_ efficient, if you are really fast at Roux and CFOP.

Pros: more movement for F2l, M-slices used more, less LSE cases

Cons: Not fast at roux and fast at cfop, vice versa? Not for you.



Spoiler: Example Solve 1



L2 D F2 R2 D2 R2 D B2 R2 B2 D' F' R B U' L' D R' D' U L // Setup
// No inspection rotation

L // Half cross

R2 B2 // Mis oriented edges to complete the half cross stage

L U2 L' U' L U L' R' U R // First Pair

U' R U R' B' U B // Second Pair

y' R' U R U' y L' U L // Third pair

y2 L U2 L' U' L U L' U' d  U' L' U L // fourth pair

// COLL skip

U' M' U M D M' U M' U' D2 M' U M' D U2 y M' U2 M y2 M' U2 M // VERY INEFFICIENT LSE

M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 // H Perm, finished



Spoiler: Alg.cubing.net page



https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=L2_D_...T_LSE
M2_U_M2_U2_M2_U_M2_//_H_Perm,_finished


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 15, 2017)

Movecount will be ~6 halfcross, 7 * 4 F2L, 10 CLL, 3 DF, (y rotation), 9 DF+EO, 7 EPLL = 6 + 28 + 10 + 3 + 9 + 7 = 63 moves

For comparison, Feliks gets ~58, Roux is ~48, 2GR is ~49, ZZ-CT is ~52


----------



## weatherman223 (Jun 15, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Movecount will be ~6 halfcross, 7 * 4 F2L, 10 CLL, 3 DF, (y rotation), 9 DF+EO, 7 EPLL = 6 + 28 + 10 + 3 + 9 + 7 = 63 moves
> 
> For comparison, Feliks gets ~58, Roux is ~48, 2GR is ~49, ZZ-CT is ~52



Half cross on average is about 2-4 moves, the rest is accurate. You could combine Df+EO and EPLL for the LSE stage.

3 + 28 + 10 + 3 + 8-9 (could be less because there are less cases for DF DR LSE than DF DB LSE) + 7 = 59 HTM, which is fairly more efficient than CFOP

If you want to switch to Roux but absolutely suck at block building, this could be good for you


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 15, 2017)

This doesn't look too good to be honest. Movecount is very similar to CFOP and ergonomics are worse than CFOP's, so I'm not sure there's an advantage to it.


----------



## weatherman223 (Jun 15, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> This doesn't look too good to be honest. Movecount is very similar to CFOP and ergonomics are worse than CFOP's, so I'm not sure there's an advantage to it.



Yeah, not really for speedsolving but could be a good method for beginners that are interested in Roux.

Also, people disagree that this isnt LSE since it inst DF/DB and instead DF/DR. So, this will be called Weatherman's LSE from now on so people don't get angry.


----------



## Hazel (Jun 15, 2017)

weatherman223 said:


> so people don't get triggered.


As yes, using a word that's a synonym of a mental breakdown for some people used completely incorrectly, just what I like to see in the mornings


----------



## weatherman223 (Jun 15, 2017)

Aerma said:


> As yes, using a word that's a synonym of a mental breakdown for some people used completely incorrectly, just what I like to see in the mornings



Triggered has been changed to angry. Sorry, was really tired last night, haha.

I have accepted this as not really going anywhere until I can optimise this, so this method might be dead.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 15, 2017)

as a cfop roux transition method

how about you place two edges in DL and DR then solve F2l with free M slice. this would be a cfop style f2b.

i think a better name for half cross could be broken cross, but you get to decide.

what is the advantage that made you consider the halfbroken cross?

the only thing i think it will help with is recognition and possible for 1 look L8e (edges are in correct layer and D is organised in a specific way) with a reasonable amount of algorithms, for a shadowslice variant


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 15, 2017)

I really don't this is going to be a good idea. In the past cfop-roux hybrids have been proposed countless times (my first proposal was also a roux-cfop hybrid actually) and they are almost always worse than vanilla roux or vanilla cfop. I don't think an argument can be made for "transition methods" as the best way to transition to a new method is often just to start using the new method, breaking down hard to understand steps into simpler components as you go.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 16, 2017)

Since phasing isn't really good with LLOB, what I came up with as a progression to full ZBLL was to orient 2 corners adjacent to each other during the insertion of the last F2L pair, with no regards to edge orientation, resulting in a T or U ZBLL or PLL. Once you are comfortable with those sets, you add in L, then S and AS, and finally H and Pi. Here's what I ended up with. For recognition, the pair is oriented in the UFL position, and the first letter refers to what face the U sticker of UBR is on, and the second letter refers to the U sticker's face on UFR.


Spoiler: Algs



U, U
L’ U2 R U R’ U2 L

U, R
U’ R’ F R F’

U, F
R U’ R’

B, U
U’ R' F R2 U R' U' F'

B, R
l U F' U' l'

B, F
R U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 R

R, U
U R U' R' U R U2 R'

R, R
U R U2 R’

R, F
R2 D R' U R D' R' U2 R'


As for the credit for the method, I think it goes to CriticalCubing and Teoidus because they are the ones who suggested using EO and ZBLL, which is what really made it viable.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jun 16, 2017)

This has already sort-of-been proposed 
This is the thread:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/zz-blah.8849/

And this is the post where that comes up
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/zz-blah.8849/#post-125479


----------



## Hazel (Jun 16, 2017)

Possible ZZ variant method:

Setup: F2 D2 F2 R2 D F2 U R2 U L2 B2 F' D2 U' L' B' D L2 R D' F'

z2 F2 R2 D' R' B D F' // EOLine (7/7)
U R L U' D2 R U L U2 D2 R // Layer (11/18)
U2 R2 U' R U2 D2 L' U' D2 R2 // Separate edges into correct layers (10/28)
U' R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R' // OLL (9/37)
U' L2 U2 L2 U2 L2 // PLL setup (6/43)
y' L' U' L F L' U' L U L F' L2 U L // PLL (13/56)

(Usually I would skip the PLL setup unless I had PLL parity, then just solve the E layer afterwards)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 17, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> This has already sort-of-been proposed
> This is the thread:
> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/zz-blah.8849/
> 
> ...


I s'pose, but mine is exclusively for LLOB, as it ignores EO, and is meant as a method of progression.


Aerma said:


> Possible ZZ variant method:
> 
> Setup: F2 D2 F2 R2 D F2 U R2 U L2 B2 F' D2 U' L' B' D L2 R D' F'
> 
> ...


The thing with this is that by building your D layer right after EOLine, you're restricting your moveset to <U>, essentially making anything non-algorithmic impossible. The effects of this are shown in the high alg count and high-ish movecount.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 17, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Could you point out where Hexagonal/ZZ-CT were first proposed? I've heard of Roux-CFOP hybrid and some other things being reinvented hundreds of times (LLOB included) but thought those two were relatively original.


The basic concepts are laid out in the M-CELL post where the ideas of leaving a corner or an edge of the first layer (usually both) and then solving it with the final layer. Although the documentation was definitely nowhere near the level which ZZ-CT is so I don't mind so much that I am not credited for it (though I believe that it is still very close to an intermediate variation of the ZZ variant of M-CELL). However, Hexagonal Francisco is much closer to M-CELL (and an almost identical approach is proposed in one of the M-CELL variants) I actually participated in the fb group for a while and it was actually acknowledged that M-CELL and HF where more or less one and the same. "Hawaiian Kociemba" is also very similiar.

With regards to LLOB, M-CELL is near identical (especially in one of the variants) and the "hyper phasing" concept is the key concept I based the method off (I wanted to create a "true" 1LLSLL). I never really documented the method with all necessary algs much as it never gained much attention (though L5E was an already existing alg set and ZZ-CT now has most of the other algs needed).

(incidentally of all the methods I proposed Briggs and B2 (Briggs2) are the only ones which had nothing to so with the method when I first proposed it though I decided that "Briggs" was just going to refer to any CO methods I came up with hence "Briggs2").


Aerma said:


> Possible ZZ variant method:
> 
> Setup: F2 D2 F2 R2 D F2 U R2 U L2 B2 F' D2 U' L' B' D L2 R D' F'
> 
> ...


This is something that I considered while trying to improve the "second phase" of SSC though I concluded I couldn't get it to work though I wouldn't say that it would be impossible to do so I would really encourage you to have a look at how to improve it. You may also find it interesting to look at L2L or L2L2 or L2L3 (however many there are of those. I think that there's maybe 4 main ones that some other variants like L2L4K).
e: Here's the wiki link anyway


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 18, 2017)

trigger style reduction method

a better inspection attempt 4

1a find out how to make a 1x1x3 block

1b imagine making the block and keep track of the corners

1c imagine placing corner A and corner F in the A and F slots (could be swapped) and find the inverse of the moves to get there

1d find the swap pair and use the inverse moves while keeping track of swap pair transformation
the current swap pair is the needed swap pair


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 18, 2017)

One again I'll recommend the 2GR recognition & tracking system (some links in my sig also explain the theory behind why they work). The method is more efficient in both time and working memory


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 18, 2017)

trigger style reduction method

2gr recognition and why it won't work

i never really understood it, although looking at it, studying it, for more than an hour, when i first found it

tsr does not permutate corners the same way 2gr does

if we do create a way for it to work, it would not have as an efficient movecount because rotating the right side (not including diagonal swap), permutation can be solved in an average of 1 move, yes 1 move average.(1.5 including diagonal swap)

i don't see a way for it to work using this recognition (i barely understand it, so of course i don't see a way)
if you do see a way (because you understand more than i do) please explain how this is better for movecount AND recognition speed.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 18, 2017)

Essentially, you're not reducing CP to <R,U>. You're reducing CP to <B,U>.

Actually, you're not really even doing that, you're reducing CP to a certain subset of key swaps that include the solved state wrt <B,U>; this subset is closed under triggers. 

Therefore what you can do is find all key swaps that are in this subset, recognize CP wrt <B,U> in inspection, track key swap wrt BU throughout the 3x1x1, and then use a single R move to send this swap to the subset you want.

When I speak of time/space efficiency I'm actually talking about inspection. The movecount will be the same (1 move average), and with the above you might be able to see why: while most CP methods try to reduce to 1 set of states (i.e. "solved CP"), your method makes it possible to reduce to a whole family of sets of states (i.e. those reachable by triggers).


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 18, 2017)

trigger style reduction method



Teoidus said:


> Therefore what you can do is find all key swaps that are in this subset, recognize CP wrt <B,U> in inspection, track key swap wrt BU throughout the 3x1x1, and then use a single R move to send this swap to the subset you want.



can you explain this? i still don't get it.

what you have incorrect about my method
you fix cp after building the 2x2x3 block not the 1x1x3 block
and no, "reducing to a whole family of sets of states", these states still occupy only 1/6 of combinations, same as normal corner permutation.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 19, 2017)

Using the 2GR recognition system, you can determine what CP fix is necessary in inspection by treating B and U as R and U and recognizing CP that way. 

Once you have a solution to the 1x1x3, you can determine what will happen to the corners by tracking CP through the 1x1x3 as in 2GR, with respect to the B and U faces. This will determine what CP fix is necessary after the 1x1x3 is solved.

Since you're performing reduction after 2x2x3, you will have to track this swap (or "transform" it, as you say) through the 2x2x3 solution. You can do this with the 2GR tracking system as well.

And yes sorry, you're right, triggers reach 1/6 of states. What I meant was more that, in the space of all possible key swaps, more of them are permissible under trigger reduction (compared to the single fully reduced state in normal CP reduction), and this is why movecount is lower.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 19, 2017)

trigger style reduction method

recognition v2 attempt 1

ok, i understand 2gr corner recognition now (i think, i have something good either way). i actually came up with something exactly like it (without auf)

the recognition i use orders the corners on top ccw in ascending order (1-4)
the FDR piece and spot is called "A", the BDR piece and spot is called "F"
imagine solving the bar. find piece A and F, find witch case it matches, then find at most a single swap that will cause the specific pieces to be in mod 4 increasing order.

A in spot A-F in spot F
any top 3 in ccw form

A in spot F-F in spot A
any top 3 in cw form

A above spot A-F above spot F
top 2 ccw+spot A

A above spot F-F above spot A
A+top 2 cw

A on top diagonal F on top
spot A+ccw piece A+spot F

A in spot A-F on top
ccw piece F+cw piece F+spot F

A in spot F-F on top
cw piece F+ccw piece F+spot A

F in spot F-A on top
spot A+ccw piece A+cw piece A

F in spot A-A on top
spot F+cw piece A+ccw piece A


i used the term transform due to R move effecting the swap pair in strange ways


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 19, 2017)

Lol, yeah, that's identical to 2GR recognition. For tracking, you may find that the next section on the site helps to describe the "strange ways" in which R moves transform things.


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 19, 2017)

An interesting way to recognize the relative permutation of 3 LL corners: methods for this usually revolve around using the identities of the corners or using color patterns where you imagine where bars and opposites would be if the corners were to be oriented properly.

I'm not sure how people are going about the latter, but I just realized that it can be adapted into the following fairly efficient process:
For corners A1 .. An:
Find the sticker counterclockwise of the yellow/white sticker on A1, and compare it with the sticker clockwise of the yellow/white sticker on A2.
For i = 2 .. n-1, compare the unexamined sticker on Ai to the sticker clockwise of the yellow/white sticker on A(i+1).

This way the skills needed to be practiced are "locating stickers clockwise of yellow/white" and "locating unexamined stickers," but of which could be made pretty mechanical.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 19, 2017)

trigger style reduction

(recognition v2 attempt 1) responding

this is not exactly 2gr recognition. the 3 pieces you need to look at are not the same because we are not permutating them the same way (not because of the fact i went ccw)

i already understand how the R moves affect the swap pair, due to my own studies

i won't be using this recognition style, because i prefer another recognition style i made (attempt 3)
i even explained how R moves affected the swap pair in this post.


----------



## ShyGuy1265 (Jun 24, 2017)

Are we still talking about Ribbon? Here is how I like doing it:

1. 2x2x2 block
2. Last 2 D layer edges + 1 E slice edge
3. 2 F2L pairs
4. Ribbon OLL
5. TTLL

I like this better because making ribbons is hard


----------



## JTay (Jun 25, 2017)

@ShyGuy1265 You can solve the Ribbon Slot at any point in the F2L. The later you do it, the less efficient it becomes, but you could technically just wait until the last slot and throw the edge in. I usually solve it either first or second if I see a full pair. 

I've got my average within a second of my CFOP average now with only knowing about 40 new cases, with a PB of 9.63. Learning full TTLL first, then diving into the orientation algorithms. Also, Ribbon OLL is referred to as TOLS now, for Twisted Orientation and Last Slot.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 25, 2017)

trigger style reduction method

skip chances

one target 1x1x3 block formed from the scramble
1/12096

1x1x3 block formed from scramble for colour neutral solvers
i dont know how to do this

at most 1 move from 1x1x3 block for colour neutral solvers
i dont know how to find this

one target F2L pair formed anywhere on the cube after step 1
1/18

any F2L pair formed anywhere on the cube after step 1
i dont know how to do this

both F2L pairs formed anywhere on the cube after step 1
i dont know how to do this

one F2L pair in place + another F2L pair anywhere else on the cube after step 1
1/2160

one F2L pair anywhere on the cube after placing first F2L pair
11/180

DF+eo skip after step 2
1/80

2gll skip after step 3
1/324

i will update this when i find another skip chance
the reason i put this in this section is because this is information about my method


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 25, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> 1x1x3 block formed from scramble for colour neutral solvers



I think this is Pr(free pair) * Pr(corner attached to the free pair) = (1 - 1/e) * (1/21)

You should probably ask these questions in the big probability thread


----------



## Teoidus (Jun 25, 2017)

Sure, I'm just saying that there are people that check the probability thread that don't check this one. They might be able to help find these probabilities. In general, I think it's probably more reasonable to post the probabilities once you actually know what they are...


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 26, 2017)

Hi guys. I'm just wondering if there is a tcll variant for eg1 or eg2?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 26, 2017)

this variant does not exist yet, i believe.(it could)
this set will contain 773 algorithms
many of the algorithms will be hard to preform
this does seem to be a great way to two look the 2x2 more efficient (probably)

except i just realised that you will need an algorithm for any bottom swap (the D layer cannot be rotated) 
there will be 18 subsets for the D layer containing 43 cases each (including solved)


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 26, 2017)

new? 2x2 method (unnamed)

step 1 orient one side, and on the opposite side, permutate the 4 corners

step 2 solve the cube using 1 of 23 algerithms

the only advantage i see is this is a 2 look method with a low algorithm count


----------



## DGCubes (Jun 26, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new? 2x2 method (unnamed)
> 
> step 1 orient one side, and on the opposite side, permutate the 4 corners
> 
> ...



Oooh, seems like a cool intermediate method. So basically you reduce it to an EG case with the top layer corners permuted? I don't know enough about 2x2 to say for sure, but if these specific EG cases are good, I like this idea.

Just one question though: for step one, would you do the first face and the "PLL" simultaneously, or would you do the first face and then permute the corners with a short alg? I'm also a bit concerned about the recognition for the permutation step. The algs would be nice (F R U R' U' F' is a diag swap, and R U R' U' R' F R F' is an adjacent swap), but I'm not sure how quickly you can tell which case they are and which angle to do them from.


----------



## efattah (Jun 26, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Hi guys. I'm just wondering if there is a tcll variant for eg1 or eg2?



Yes there is. It is called TEG-1 which stands for Twisty EG-1. There are extensive posts in this thread and other threads about it and it has been almost completely generated and posted online. Twisty EG-1 gives little advantage for 2x2. The primary reason it exists is for WaterRoux (3x3), since Twisty EG-1 allows the almost impossible to believe chance of 1-looking the first Roux block AND all the remaining 6 corners of the cube during the inspection, and even with TEG-1 this is quite difficult and not possible on every solve, but on the solves where it is possible, WaterRoux has the capacity to produce incredible singles both in speed and low move count. Because it was developed for WaterRoux, the first block is already done, so only a subset of TEG-1 has been generated, four sets, where the two swapped corners are twisted (FR+, FR-, FL+, FL-) each has around 43 algorithms and used TCLL recognition (172 algorithms). To 1-look the corners with WaterRoux requires CLL, LEG-1, plus the four TLEG-1 sets (252 algorithms). Twisty EG2 is useless for WaterRoux since the first block is solved.

EDIT: Just to be clear there is a difference between EG-1 (bar on the back) and LEG-1 where the bar is on the left. Similarly there is TEG-1 and TLEG-1. TLEG-1 is the ideal set for WaterRoux although both TEG-1 and TLEG-1 are mostly generated at this point.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jun 26, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Just one question though: for step one, would you do the first face and the "PLL" simultaneously, or would you do the first face and then permute the corners with a short alg?



you simultaneously solve the corner permutation while orienting the first face for the best movecount, or you can orient a side then permutate the other, or even permutate a side then orientate the other. permutation can be seen easily with practice.


----------



## Neuro (Jun 27, 2017)

Alright everyone, so for my 200th post I decided I would officially finish off the HD Method, and it's finally done! I'll be making a formal thread on the forum so if you have any questions/comments/concerns, please talk with myself and the other makers of the method and we will be sure to answer ASAP! All credit goes to Thermex and Sue Doenim for proposing the method, Shiv3r and I are simply proponents and alg genners. EDIT: Thread

Also, I decided I'd post some of my more random projects to see if anything sticks here

3CFCE- All algs needed to solve in this style
ZZ-D- New system that Teoidus and I came up with a while ago

2GRoux- Roux variation of 2GR that (may) be more efficient and is designed with easy inspection in mind. Solves to come

1: CP Line, pair and then last corner+CP. Held on DL for most solvers
2: FB, solve <RrUu> and <ME>
3: SBPP, solve SB while setting up ULUR or UFUB
4: OLL, pseudo2gen
5: LSE, very efficient because of Pinkie Pie setup

4x4 Direct Solving Method with no name lel

1: LR Centers
2: FB
3: L4C

Differences start here

4: SB using modified K4 comms, can be fully pseudo 2gen if you periodically flip wings
5: L2E, build DBDF using comms
6: CLL
7: ELL, I use a 3 look system like most people

I like it well enough, I find that SB is actually pretty fast but that L2E can sometimes be a pain. And of course the 1st 3 steps are just Meyer so yeah they're pretty fast lol

Let me know your thoughts, put a lot of time into this post so I hope everyone enjoyed it!

EDIT B lol: I think that 3CFCE is pretty good for 3x3, but it's actually really good for 4x4 and beyond if you are good with M moves!

This is basically a Yau/Hoya variation so I won't go into too much detail. I prefer Yau so I'll just go over that variation

1: LR Centers
2: 3 Cross Pieces
3: L4C and one random edge in last cross slot (good efficiency and prebuilt edges are nice)
4: Edge Pairing

5: F2L- DF (make use of F and M!!!) avg unknown, move efficient than normal CFOP though 
6: CLL (also fix OP if present) | my algs give an avg of 10.35 moves
7: DF+EO | my algs give an average of 7.7 moves
8: EPLL+Parity | my algs give an avg of 10.6 moves

Solve with new 4x4 method, I suck at edge pairing but this method should be about the same efficiency or better than Yau. I think I'm going to use this as my main 4x4 method


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 1, 2017)

Hi guys. I am a beginner cuber who wants to become fast. I know cfop with 4LLL, zz, and roux. I average about a minute with all of them. I want to finally choose one and use it. I've seen many things about the pros and cons of each one but I want to find something about what method suits me for the way I solve the cube and I can't seem to find anything on that. As a side note I don't mind learning Algs and I'm into oh and big cubes. Lastly I have looked into methods like lmcf and water roux.


----------



## efattah (Jul 1, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Hi guys. I am a beginner cuber who wants to become fast. I know cfop with 4LLL, zz, and roux. I average about a minute with all of them. I want to finally choose one and use it. I've seen many things about the pros and cons of each one but I want to find something about what method suits me for the way I solve the cube and I can't seem to find anything on that. As a side note I don't mind learning Algs and I'm into oh and big cubes. Lastly I have looked into methods like lmcf and water roux.



Well you are most of the way there if you have already learned these methods, I would suggest just choosing your favorite one and working from there. They can all be fast but beware that if you choose the Roux path, documentation is harder to find, the many tricks that Rouxers like Mansour and Lau use are poorly documented. Eventually you will need to learn advanced LSE (lots of algs) and multiple CMLL's to modify the edge orientation, lots of block building tricks like misaligned and miscolored blocks, etc. But for now your path is clear and everything you need is at your fingertips.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 1, 2017)

Honestly it's going to be a personal desicion. We could give you all the answers in the world, but we cant decide for you 

CFOP while inefficient is really good because it requires little to no thought while solving. It also uses a lot of rotations and is really good for big cubes. OH can be challenging if you aren't good at doing y moves mid-solve. Use CFOP if you are really good at spamming TPS (easy to achieve because not much thought needed)

Roux is nice all around if you like a slight challenge while solving. It requires some thought while solving, but 1/2 of the solve is pseudo 2 gen, one of the fastest movesets there is if used correctly. Use of M slices in OH can be tricky but with practice it gets pretty fast. Big cubes can be tricky past 4x4, but it's still good. Use Roux if you are a fan of intuition, M slices, and a more "fluid" style of solving.

ZZ is really good for OH and normal solving but not so much for big cubes. It really shines in OH though. It uses intuitive F2L, but this iss still pretty easy to lookahead and spam TPS with practice. It requies zero rotations, making it really good for OH, but it can be hard to use on big cubes (look at NS4 and Z4/ZZ4, edge pairing is hard) ZZ is kind of a mix of the 2 previously listed; it uses a fluid style of solving and uses intuition but is still easy to spam TPS. However, it is very hard to use for big cubes.

I personally use Roux and have used all 3 of these methods in the past. For me, CFOP was decentt but it had no real challenge and wasn't as efficient as I would've liked. ZZ was actually really great for me, but unlike Roux and CFOP, lookahead from 1st step to 2nd was severely lacking, and EO Line took too much thought for me to do it super fast, and thus my times suffered. Roux is good for me because I like the intuitive nature and fast moveset (and LSE is really fun) but it's all personal preference. Again, all these methods are good methods, so it needs to be you to decide what you will use!

EDIT: Here's a 2GRoux solve I'm pretty proud of, 36 STM

R2 F U2 L2 B' D2 B2 R2 B2 L2 U2 R B' U' F' U L2 D' L2 B U'

x y r f R'//Pair (3/3)
F2//CP Line (1/4)
u' R U' R u2//FB (5/9)
U r' U' M2 U' r2 U2 R U r U2 M' U2 M//SBPP (14/23)
U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R'//OLLCP (8/31)
U' M2 U M2 U2//LSE (5/36)


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 1, 2017)

Thank you guys for your responses but I want to know why it is more advantageous to do an eo line rather than a eo cross?


----------



## Hazel (Jul 1, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Thank you guys for your responses but I want to know why it is more advantageous to do an eo line rather than a eo cross?


EOLine can easily be seen completely in inspection for someone with practice, but EOCross would be much more difficult given that you would have to solve 4 edges _while_ solving EO, instead of just 2. Even EO --> cross would be less efficient because you wouldn't be solving them simultaneously, but instead seprately. Also, EOCross would mean you wouldn't really be able to blockbuild, which is one reason ZZ is really efficient.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 3, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Honestly it's going to be a personal desicion. We could give you all the answers in the world, but we cant decide for you
> 
> CFOP while inefficient is really good because it requires little to no thought while solving. It also uses a lot of rotations and is really good for big cubes. OH can be challenging if you aren't good at doing y moves mid-solve. Use CFOP if you are really good at spamming TPS (easy to achieve because not much thought needed)
> 
> ...


 Roux is really fun to use but I have one problem. Lookahead during the blocks is really hard for me and I don't like having to look around the entire cube. Do you have any tips to help me


----------



## Neuro (Jul 3, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Roux is really fun to use but I have one problem. Lookahead during the blocks is really hard for me and I don't like having to look around the entire cube. Do you have any tips to help me


FB takes a long time to master but you'll get there in time. What I usually do unless there is a premade pair or something is put in DR immediately after FB. I recommend doing slow blocks for a while as well as practicing both of the steps individually. Tracking helps a lot to make it more fluid (ie solve DR but follow where DFR and FR end up so you can build that pair) If you decide to use Roux, Kian and Kavin got together a while ago and made a really nice video series on all of the steps as well as inspection, lookahead, and other things like that and it's really helpful so be sure to watch it!


----------



## Jlvs2run (Jul 3, 2017)

efattah said:


> beware that if you choose the Roux path, documentation is harder to find, the many tricks that Rouxers like Mansour and Lau use are poorly documented. Eventually you will need to learn advanced LSE (lots of algs) and multiple CMLL's to modify the edge orientation, lots of block building tricks like misaligned and miscolored blocks, etc.



Roux is relatively easy to learn, has a low move count, is fast, and easy to remember over time. The first 2 blocks are intuitive, corners take only 3 algorithms, and LSE quickly becomes intuitive. From there more positions can be learned, with the block trainer for first 2 blocks, and plenty of fast and slow solves for the last 10 pieces. I picked Roux for the opposite of reasons you said.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jul 3, 2017)

Seeing all these posts has reminded me of an often discarded idea: method neutrality. CFOP, of course, is lame, so I'm not going to include it. My idea was that you could quickly scan the cube for a 1x1x2 pair. If one is found, use it to build a first block, and continue on with a Roux solve. If none is apparent, plan an EOline and use ZZ. After manually checking 100 scrambles from Twisty Timer, my timer app, I found that 57 had one such pair made, and 43 did not. Does anyone have a better way to do this, or know the actual probability?


----------



## TDM (Jul 4, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Seeing all these posts has reminded me of an often discarded idea: method neutrality. CFOP, of course, is lame, so I'm not going to include it. My idea was that you could quickly scan the cube for a 1x1x2 pair. If one is found, use it to build a first block, and continue on with a Roux solve. If none is apparent, plan an EOline and use ZZ. After manually checking 100 scrambles from Twisty Timer, my timer app, I found that 57 had one such pair made, and 43 did not. Does anyone have a better way to do this, or know the actual probability?


Firstly, I don't think CFOP is worse than ZZ. I don't think enough has been done with EOCross for us to make much of a full comparison just yet, but if we're doing EOLine, then I'm fairly sure that CFOP is faster.

Secondly, method neutrality is far too much work. It requires double the practice to become only a little faster than you would be using just one of those methods. If you spent all the time on one method, you'd be faster. I'm currently about the same speed with each of the three methods you mentioned, and I know I could be so much faster if I had dedicated my time to a single method.

As for the probability of a pair being solved, the probability is approximately 1 - 1/e, or 63%.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 5, 2017)

Cfop/ZZ-CT variant:
The first part of the solve is like cfop. You build your cross and do two f2l pairs. Then you create a third pair but before you insert it you do an algorithm that orients the edges and inserts the pair. Then you can do tsle/ttll. Does this sound good?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jul 5, 2017)

the answer to the question of is this better than cfop relates to the question, is it faster to create 2 pairs or a pair+eo? 
this, i think relates to your ability to track side piece orientation.
the other way to view your question, does this method work? yes.


----------



## Hazel (Jul 5, 2017)

I've also been thinking of a similar idea to Rubik's cubed, sort of a Last 2 Slots Last Layer subset where you insert the second to last slot while solving EO of any LL edges that are on the last layer, then insert your last slot using Winter Variation so you're guaranteed an OLL skip every solve.
Here's an example:

setup: R2 F' U2 R2 B F' U' B' U' F2 U2 R2 U2 R' U R'
R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' y R U R' // Third slot + EO
U L' U2 L' D' L U' L' D L U2 L // Fourth slot canceling into Winter Variation
U2 R U R' y' R2 Uw' R U' R' U R' Uw R2 U2 // G perm


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 5, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Cfop/ZZ-CT variant:
> The first part of the solve is like cfop. You build your cross and do two f2l pairs. Then you create a third pair but before you insert it you do an algorithm that orients the edges and inserts the pair. Then you can do tsle/ttll. Does this sound good?


It's better to use Ribbon.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 5, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> It's better to use Ribbon.


What's ribbon?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jul 5, 2017)

(new)
trigger style reduction-W
(TSR-W?)

0. find a way to make a 1x1x3 block and find the swap pair to reduce to trigger cp

1. make the 3x1x1 block in DB, then use F moves, triggers, and wide triggers (ex: R u R') to turn the 1x1x3 block into a 2x2x3 block, while keeping track of the swap pair.

2. solve eo, trigger cp, and DF intuitively

3. place the 2 remaining pairs trigger style

4. 2gll (84 algs)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 5, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I've also been thinking of a similar idea to Rubik's cubed, sort of a Last 2 Slots Last Layer subset where you insert the second to last slot while solving EO of any LL edges that are on the last layer, then insert your last slot using Winter Variation so you're guaranteed an OLL skip every solve.
> Here's an example:
> 
> setup: R2 F' U2 R2 B F' U' B' U' F2 U2 R2 U2 R' U R'
> ...


MGLS is probably better.


----------



## JTay (Jul 5, 2017)

@Rubik's cubed This is the link to the main description of Ribbon: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzm7fHMKOwCBb201b29RaUlHYms

This is the updated algorithms for every case (constantly updated): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D26FLNRhHs5RBXswyfjaKzL_5bboleo6YxYKq3osYGQ/edit?usp=sharing 

I'll try to create a Speedsolving Wiki page for the method on Friday if I'm not too busy.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 6, 2017)

JTay said:


> @Rubik's cubed This is the link to the main description of Ribbon: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bzm7fHMKOwCBb201b29RaUlHYms
> 
> This is the updated algorithms for every case (constantly updated): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D26FLNRhHs5RBXswyfjaKzL_5bboleo6YxYKq3osYGQ/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> I'll try to create a Speedsolving Wiki page for the method on Friday if I'm not too busy.


This method seems very good and I might use it as my main method. I love ZZ-CT but I'm really bad at eo line and block building during F2L but I'm pretty good at cross and F2L.(I'm not very good, my PB is 32.03). This method is basically CFOP-CT so it's perfect for me. And the speedsolving wiki says CT has an average move count of 53 and if 47-50 for ribbon is true than it can be even better than CT! But I also have a few questions. first why do you put that edge in during the cross stage instead of doing cross, three F2L pairs and then put in the edge? Second, this isn't only for you but for anyone who would like to answer. For the method I came up with how many algs would it be to do third pair + eo? And lastly I did a solve on alg.cubing.net with ribbon but I couldn't figure out which ttll I had. Can you tell me? also as stated before I'm still more of a beginner so the ribbon and F2L probably could've been done quicker.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 6, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> This method seems very good and I might use it as my main method. I love ZZ-CT but I'm really bad at eo line and block building during F2L but I'm pretty good at cross and F2L.(I'm not very good, my PB is 32.03). This method is basically CFOP-CT so it's perfect for me. And the speedsolving wiki says CT has an average move count of 53 and if 47-50 for ribbon is true than it can be even better than CT! But I also have a few questions. first why do you put that edge in during the cross stage instead of doing cross, three F2L pairs and then put in the edge? Second, this isn't only for you but for anyone who would like to answer. For the method I came up with how many algs would it be to do third pair + eo? And lastly I did a solve on alg.cubing.net with ribbon but I couldn't figure out which ttll I had. Can you tell me? also as stated before I'm still more of a beginner so the ribbon and F2L probably could've been done quicker.


 oops I forgot to add the link!https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=D2_U2..._R-_U_R//F2L
R-_F_R_U_R-_F-_R_F_U-_F-//OLL
U_


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jul 6, 2017)

TDM said:


> Firstly, I don't think CFOP is worse than ZZ. I don't think enough has been done with EOCross for us to make much of a full comparison just yet, but if we're doing EOLine, then I'm fairly sure that CFOP is faster.
> 
> Secondly, method neutrality is far too much work. It requires double the practice to become only a little faster than you would be using just one of those methods. If you spent all the time on one method, you'd be faster. I'm currently about the same speed with each of the three methods you mentioned, and I know I could be so much faster if I had dedicated my time to a single method.
> 
> As for the probability of a pair being solved, the probability is approximately 1 - 1/e, or 63%.


Yeah, I guess I was kind of rude towards CFOP users. I was kind of thinking the people in this thread will certainly have more exposure to other methods, and realize that CFOP is maybe not lame, but certainly not the only feasible method. I dismissed it because I greatly prefer ZZ over CFOP, and having more that 2 methods at your disposal is kind of excessive. I personally still don't think method neutrality should be dismissed, and I will likely continue to use it as I described; however, since I'm really slow anyway (low 20s), I don't think it will have much of an impact, and it saves me the effort of switching methods every month or so, like I do. Besides, Feliks has many world records, and he uses several LL methods interchangeably.

This leads me to another thing I've thought about: CFOP/CFCE neutrality. Is this a good idea? It just means more algs to drill and slightly more difficult LL recognition, as for the first step you have to take into account not only EO and CO, but also CP.


Rubik's cubed said:


> This method seems very good and I might use it as my main method. I love ZZ-CT but I'm really bad at eo line and block building during F2L but I'm pretty good at cross and F2L.(I'm not very good, my PB is 32.03). This method is basically CFOP-CT so it's perfect for me. And the speedsolving wiki says CT has an average move count of 53 and if 47-50 for ribbon is true than it can be even better than CT! But I also have a few questions. first why do you put that edge in during the cross stage instead of doing cross, three F2L pairs and then put in the edge? Second, this isn't only for you but for anyone who would like to answer. For the method I came up with how many algs would it be to do third pair + eo? And lastly I did a solve on alg.cubing.net with ribbon but I couldn't figure out which ttll I had. Can you tell me? also as stated before I'm still more of a beginner so the ribbon and F2L probably could've been done quicker.


I think the ribbon can be solved pretty much whenever you want, but it's easier to get it over with during the cross. If the pair is already made, you would have 16 algs, if not, several hundred. Your TTLL is U' R2 U2 R U' R' U R' U2 R2 U R U R'.
Pretend that's in the same font.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 6, 2017)

one last question. how is this method for oh/big cubes/ feet?


----------



## efattah (Jul 6, 2017)

Regarding the ancient debate of method neutrality, it seems to me that the best way to approach that idea is to use two methods for one phase of the solve only. This is already done where people will use OLL/PLL or ZBLL for the last layer, as an example. Another variant is neutrality between Roux and WaterRoux; after solving the first block, the difficulty of the second block dictates whether the next step is the 2nd block + CMLL with Roux or TLEG-1 with WaterRoux, but both methods converge again at LSE. Neither of these options address the ideal neutrality which would start at the scramble itself and converge prior to the halfway point to the same method.

By being neutral at only one phase of the solve the extra work is way less than a whole different method, and the gain is still big.


----------



## JTay (Jul 6, 2017)

Just as good for OH as CFOP is for OH as they share ergonomics. Save a few moves over standard CFOP as well so it is technically better. I've enjoyed using it in big cubes and my 5x5 PB now ends with a Ribbon 3x3 stage. It's very easy if you do Yau or Hoya in which you solve the cross to also solve one of the E-Layer edges, letting you already have the full Ribbon done before you arrive at your 3x3 stage, effectively cutting your move count down. I also don't see any reason why Ribbon would not be good for feet.


----------



## Thermex (Jul 6, 2017)

Hey everyone,
Apologies for being away from this thread for so long and not following up on a lot of the collaboration methods I was working on. I had to finish up a lot of stuff in school and broke my wrist, so I decided to take a solid 2 month break from cubing. Now my wrist is healed and summer's started, so I plan to sort of re-join this thread and get back into cubing. Is anyone able to catch me up on some of the ideas/methods produced in this thread recently? And also some of the methods I was supposed to work on (TEG, HD) that I never got around to? Thanks.
~Thermex


----------



## Neuro (Jul 7, 2017)

HD is completed and a thread has been made on the forum! TEG I don't know. I created 2GRoux, a 2GR variant that is more similar to Roux (obviously) and has a lower movecount with easier steps and inspection IMO. I did a mega-post earlier talking about many different things, so look out for that. Ribbon has been greatly expanded, with OH algs being made, optimizations to TOLS, and I am almost done with Ribbon Beta, which is usually more efficient (reduces to ZZLL) A new guy popped up with a new CP Method but it's not finalized yet. And that's about it for new stuff on the thread, hope this helped!

EDIT: Here's a really cool solution I got using CFOP+Ribbon Beta. I saw a 6 move X Cross but quickly realized I could plan all the way up to PLS! So I had a 12 move F2L+Edge, and the rest of the solve was slightly less efficient than normal but I still got 39 moves

D2 F2 L2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 U' L2 U B' D' R F L U2 R F2 D2

y2 R' D2 R F B u U2 B U B U' B y2//F2L+E (12/12)
U R U2 R' U R' F R F2 U2 F//PLS (11/23)
U R' D' L U' D R' D R U R' D2 L' D R2 U2//ZZLL (16/39)

Also, this scramble gets to L4C in 15 moves if anyone wants an FMC challenge

y2 R' D2 R F B u U2 B U B2 y2//F2L-1 (10/10)
R B U2 B' R'//L4C Setup (5/15)


----------



## Thermex (Jul 7, 2017)

Neuro said:


> HD is completed and a thread has been made on the forum! TEG I don't know. I created 2GRoux, a 2GR variant that is more similar to Roux (obviously) and has a lower movecount with easier steps and inspection IMO. I did a mega-post earlier talking about many different things, so look out for that. Ribbon has been greatly expanded, with OH algs being made, optimizations to TOLS, and I am almost done with Ribbon Beta, which is usually more efficient (reduces to ZZLL) A new guy popped up with a new CP Method but it's not finalized yet. And that's about it for new stuff on the thread, hope this helped!
> 
> EDIT: Here's a really cool solution I got using CFOP+Ribbon Beta. I saw a 6 move X Cross but quickly realized I could plan all the way up to PLS! So I had a 12 move F2L+Edge, and the rest of the solve was slightly less efficient than normal but I still got 39 moves
> 
> ...


Thanks Neuro! I already created the wiki page on the HD method (link here: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/HD_Method) but I still need you guys to put some links to the alg sheets. I think I'll probably just PM effatah about TEG, I feel kinda bad about not genning those algs. Is it alright if you explain Ribbon beta a bit more? I'm pleasantly surprised by the success of the method but would like to somehow contribute to the alg-genning a little more now that I have more free time.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 7, 2017)

Ribbon is being divided into several variants that go by the Greek alphabet. Ribbon-Alpha is the OG, sollving TOLS and ending in TTLL. Ribbon-Beta is my variant, with PLS and ZZLL as the steps. Beta is more consistent and generally more efficient than Alpha with less algs (if you factor in the OLL's) PLS setup is super simple and takes a max of 3 moves, simply insert the last F2L edge in either oriented or disoriented. In PLS, one will insert the LC and orient as well as phase the LL edges, which leaves you with ZZLL to solve the puzzle. Almost every solve I have done with it has been under 30 moves for LSLL, where Alpha is is usually just over 30 and standard LS OLL and PLL is slightly higher than Alpha. The only real problem is getting used to recog as it varies from standard CFOP drastically. PLS requires you to look at a lot of pieces but it's not too bad (and it's easyish to predict) and ZZLL is actually not bad at all with practice.

For minimal OLS in ZZ, why not learn sets for when the corner is in the slot (all orientations), CLS, and WV/SV? It seems like the setup would be efficient enough that learning 500+ OLS cases would be kinda pointless. I'd only suggest this until TTLL gets much better algs (as CT is better) but hey it's an interesting concept if you want PLL every time


----------



## Thermex (Jul 7, 2017)

Oh, so ribbon-beta was that method you posted a while ago. I like both but I think many CFOP users will find Ribbon-Alpha a little more concrete with easier recog, although it does look like beta is slightly more efficient. I know WaterRoux did kinda get forgotten but I do plan on reviving soon with a new variant I've been thinking about the last few days. Well, doesn't seem like I've missed too much on this thread, so I'm probably gonna get back to work on TEG and WaterRoux. Thank you for the responses, Neuro.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 9, 2017)

Hey so I just came up with a pretty cool LLOB variant, not sure what to call it but it looks like it could be really fast

1: FB- Self explanatory
2: F2L-1 corner
2a: SB - 1 corner (this is really easy, just build one square and insert LE)
2b: DF and DB, MU
3: TOLS
4: TTLL

This has much less algs than standard LLOB (266 with OLL and PLL counted in comparison to 493) while having easier recog. Aside from algs, you may have one rotation in the solve but it's really not an issue. It's less efficient but it's not so far off that a user can't get the same times using either. This is about the same as reg Roux in terms of efficiency.

F2B is really fast (maybe faster than F2L {Kian propaganda}), MU is really fast but it's definitely the worst portion of the solve (although with practice it can probably be done sub-2 easily), and TOLS/TTLL is just a matter of drilling algs which are all pretty fast (optimization=sub 1 all algs). This should yield very fast solves if used correctly.

Considering using this as my main method, it looks really nice right now!

Here's a pretty standard solve using this, 46 moves

L B2 L U2 L U2 B2 L2 F2 R B2 D' F' U F D2 R' B' L R F2

y M2 F' B' R U B2
r' U r U r2 U' r' U' R M U M' U2 M U2 M2
y U2 r U r2 F2 r2 U' r2 F2 r
U' R2 D U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R2 D' R2 U2


----------



## JTay (Jul 9, 2017)

Perhaps a better option than that, @Neuro, as much as I love my Ribbon algs, would be to do EO+DFDB, leaving you with only CLS into PLL. I believe it has comparable movecount, but with only half of the algorithms. However, as I have not experimented much with Roux and LLOB, I can't confirm how difficult or easy that middle step would be.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 10, 2017)

In mine it's pretty easy. EO+DFDB wouldn't be terrible, but it's probably slower/harder to recognize. I suspect that CLS/PLL would get around 55-60 moves, while mine is about 48 on average. It could be better for OH though, it just depends on how far TOLS can be optimized for it. I made a list of potential variants of LLOB and I will test them all thoroughly to see efficiency (probably 50 solves each, maybe more if I have time)

1: ZBLL- Put in DFDB while doing EO (full FB/SB) and solve with ZBLL
2: O/P- Put in DFDB (full FB/SB) and finish with CFOP
3: CLS/P- Put in DFDB while doing EO (1 corner sissing) and so CLS+PLL
4: RA- Put in DFDB (1 corner missing) and do TOLS+TTLL
5: RB- Put in DFDB (1 corner missing) and do PLS+ZZLL

And if you are Jabari (won't be testing these, likely impractical)

A: Put in DFDB (full FB/SB) and 1LLL
B: Put in DFDB while correcting CP (full FB/SB) and 2G1LLL (for you wannabe Jabari's )



Here's a pretty crazy solve using LLOB Ribbon Alpha (maybe RAOB?) 33 moves!

D2 F2 L' U2 R B2 L U2 B2 D2 R U' R U2 L' F' D F2 L U2

z2 y' F2 r F' D B2//FB (5/5)
U' r' U' M U' r' U R' U2 M2 U M' U' M//F2L-C (14/19)
y R' D' R U2 R' D R//TOLS (7/26)
R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2//TTLL (7/33)


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 10, 2017)

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here, but let's not forget that roux with just 42 algorithms doesn't exactly come up short on that scramble either:
D2 F2 L' U2 R B2 L U2 B2 D2 R U' R U2 L' F' D F2 L U2
x y2 r u' F u U R u'
U R' U R U2 r2 U R' U2 R
U2 r' U r U r' U' r U R2' F R F' R
U' M U2 M U M' U2 M U2 // 40 stm

I know there's been a lot of discussion recently on this LLOB stuff, but I think in this case the simplest approaches might still be the best.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 10, 2017)

I think that Roux is an excellent method, I just like to have fun with this kind of stuff  Roux with Tyrannical Caterpillar could be pretty insane and even Roux with just CMLL/standard LSE is really good. But I do believe that LLOB is still a method with serious potential. But if I'm wrong, at least I had some fun with it and inspired some people to help progress cubing methods.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 11, 2017)

Is it true that you can get faster times with CFOP with less effort than with Roux or ZZ. And that Roux and ZZ are faster than CFOP but with more effort?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Is it true that you can get faster times with CFOP with less effort than with Roux or ZZ. And that Roux and ZZ are faster than CFOP but with more effort?



yes for zz, zz will only be faster if you completely mesmerise full zbll.
no for roux, it really just depends on if your intuition or mesmerization is better.
roux vs cfop, neither is absolutely proven dominant in speed over the other.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 11, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Is it true that you can get faster times with CFOP with less effort than with Roux or ZZ. And that Roux and ZZ are faster than CFOP but with more effort?



I would say that cfop generally takes the least amount of effort to progress. 

I would say that roux is likely to be faster than cfop, but you need to put in more work unless your brain is really good at patterns and intuition. Kian Mansour only took a few years to get world record speed with Roux.

A lot of people claim that zz has a ton of potential if you learn all of the algorithms. No one has managed to prove this(not even at home). I used to solve with zz, and besides the group of people that are learning ZZ-CT, I think that the community is shrinking as a whole as people are losing faith in the method.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 11, 2017)

Also how are columns first methods for speedsolving?


Abram Lookadoo said:


> yes for zz, zz will only be faster if you completely mesmerise full zbll.
> no for roux, it really just depends on if your intuition or mesmerization is better.
> roux vs cfop, neither is absolutely proven dominant in speed over the other.


I agree that ZZ is only good with ZBLL and we're still waiting for someone to get good with ZZ-CT. ZZ Should really only be used if you want to be really good at OH just like Phil Yu.​


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jul 11, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Also how are columns first methods for speedsolving?



columns first methods, we meet again.
its actually a good method, the only problem i see in this is how it is not easy to see where the edges will be after cllms, and how inefficient l8e can be somtimes.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 11, 2017)

Watch out for Andrew Nathenson AKA Colorful Pockets, I think he's getting close to sub 10 with CT. He's pretty good at OH also, if I remember right he gets about 13 secs.

As for columns first, it doesn't seem all that great to me, although I can't say for certain as I've never used it/spoken with someone who uses it. It seems like lookahead for edges would be difficult and fixing centers would be a pain. Also, it doesn't seem very efficient, and that paired with the odd ergonomics and lookahead makes it look to me as though it isn't capable of being as good as Roux/CFOP. But who knows, I've been wrong before. If you want to try it, go for it!


----------



## bren077s (Jul 11, 2017)

My friend mains roux, but solved with columns first for a while. His opinion is that columns first is basically a worse version of roux. Though, if you are terrible at block building, columns first can be easier than roux.


----------



## ananonymouscuber (Jul 11, 2017)

New unnamed zz/roux varient

Step one: Orient all edges as in ZZ.

Step two: Do f2l, *ONLY* f2l and no cross, don't use f and b moves.

Step three: Orient last layer corners (if you want to have an epll for pll you can use cmll).

Step four: Insert edges with roux insert M' U2 M.

Step five: PLL.


----------



## JTay (Jul 11, 2017)

@Neuro He stopped using ZZ-CT because he wasn't happy with his results with the method. He's just using normal ZZ for now.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 11, 2017)

JTay said:


> @Neuro He stopped using ZZ-CT because he wasn't happy with his results with the method. He's just using normal ZZ for now.


How do you know? He rarely uploads anymore and in his las competition he used CT.


----------



## JTay (Jul 11, 2017)

@Rubik's cubed He posted in the ZZ Cubers Facebook group about it.


----------



## Hazel (Jul 11, 2017)

I think it's time we take a break from trying to create new 3x3 methods, it's been quite a long time since somebody proposed one that actually went somewhere. We should start working more on methods for different cubes, like 4x4 or big cubes.


----------



## efattah (Jul 13, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I think it's time we take a break from trying to create new 3x3 methods, it's been quite a long time since somebody proposed one that actually went somewhere. We should start working more on methods for different cubes, like 4x4 or big cubes.



I wouldn't necessarily say that methods don't go anywhere. A big problem is the huge time commitment needed to explore, tweak and master any new method, and while many people are willing to quickly 'hash out' a new method, very few are willing to make the huge investment of time to master it. I proposed LMCF 1.5 years ago and I'm still practicing and modifying it in many ways and making great progress but it is all irrelevant until I can register some official results. WaterRoux, ECE/SSC have potential but no one has invested the time to actually get good at them (yet). Same for a number of the other proposed methods.

In my own experiments I have found that [L,l,U,M] sets are WAY faster than the generally preferred [R,r,U,M], at least for me as I use left ring for M moves and a very unusual method of fingering L moves (I hold left hand below the cube and use right index on L, just the same way as you hold left ring for M). This style of fingertricking makes [L,l,U,M] sets very fast, although in theory you can reverse the finger trick style and use the same style for [R,r,U,M] if you can do M moves with right ring finger. Right now I am mostly working on improving lookahead from corners to E2L transition and also extending the transition to solve more U layer edges, forcing the remaining E2L into [L,l,U,M] drastically improving the ergonomics of the E2L phase while maintaining the same low movecount from before.

After watching Feliks' walkthrough of his 4.73 where he saw the cross and 3 pairs (4+2+2+2 = 10 pieces) in the inspection, I am wondering which method allows you to see the most moves in the inspection? My personal best was 10 pieces when I saw a CLL skip (8) + 1st E2L pair (2) in the inspection. We theorized in WaterRoux that on rare occasions you could see the whole first block (5) + the remaining 6 corners [11 total] in the inspection. 

Can anyone share (A) largest number of pieces ever seen in the inspection, and (B) method that sees the most in the inspection in general? LMCF allows a 2x2 start so you normally see 8 pieces in the inspection; most expert CFOP solvers see the cross and 1 pair [6] and rarely the XCross and 1 pair [8], and I suppose extremely rarely, 10 pieces like Feliks saw. I've heard that Alex Lau has seen both Roux blocks in the inspection (true or false?) that would be 10 pieces as well.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 13, 2017)

On average, I think 2GR plans 11-13 moves in inspection, during which it solves 3 pieces and heavily reduces everything else.

Interesting figures about first steps:
After cross, there are 8! CP * 3^7 CO * 8! EP * 2^7 EO / 2 permutation parity = 227,546,313,523,200 possible states.
After FB, there are 6! CP * 3^5 CO * 9! EP * 2^8 EO / 2 permutation parity = 8,126,654,054,400 possible states.
After EG, there are 12!/2 EP * 2^11 EO = 490,497,638,400 possible states.
After Ribbon, there are 8! CP * 3^7 CO * 7! EP * 2^6 EO / 2 permutation parity = 14,221,644,595,200 possible states.
After EOLine, there are 8! CP * 3^7 CO * 10! EP * 1 EO / 2 permutation parity = 159,993,501,696,000 possible states.
After 2GLine, there are 120 CP * 3^5 CO * 11! EP * 1 EO / 2 permutation parity = 581,986,944,000 possible states.
After 2x2x2, there are 7! CP * 3^6 CO * 9! EP * 2^8 EO / 2 permutation parity = 170,659,735,142,400 possible states.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 13, 2017)

@Teoidus Are there any videos that you know of for the 2GR method?


----------



## Neuro (Jul 13, 2017)

He started a series on it a few weeks ago, check out his channel!


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 13, 2017)

bren077s said:


> @Teoidus Are there any videos that you know of for the 2GR method?


I started a series, but I've been too busy to really sit down and write out a good script for the CPLine videos.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jul 13, 2017)

BeltFOP:

Cross+2/4 Belt or Full Belt (2/4 Belt > Solve 2 F2L with empty belt slot)
KeyholeZZ-F2L
OLL/COLL
PLL

Beginner BeltFOP:
Belt
Cross+EO (RouxVH) or without EO
KeyholeZZ-F2L
Easy COLL (do 2-look OLL first if LL edges arent oriented) 
PLL
(or 4LLL)


----------



## Nicholas Kang (Jul 14, 2017)

I just got the dumbest scramble ever. I'm pretty new to 2x2 and I only use Ortega but this scramble had the yellow face already set up and the solution was (F sexy sexy F') and then that was it. 

SCRAMBLE: R U2 R2 U' R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 

Just a note, these scrambles may not be a rare occurance for everyone else, but for me who is new to 2x2 I thought this was pretty dumb.


----------



## EntireTV (Jul 14, 2017)

This is supposed to go In the easy/lucky/weird scramble thread


----------



## Nicholas Kang (Jul 14, 2017)

haha thanks i'm new to this so i'll just delete this thread


----------



## Nicholas Kang (Jul 14, 2017)

Nicholas Kang said:


> haha thanks i'm new to this so i'll just delete this thread


"ill just delete this thread" as in i'll pretend i never posted this


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Jul 14, 2017)

Nicholas Kang said:


> "ill just delete this thread" as in i'll pretend i never posted this


You could have a mod move it to the correct thread.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 14, 2017)

@Metallic Silver it looks good (for OH especially), but you would probably want to have it listed as 3/4 or half belt but usually half, and note that the cross doesn't need to be fully made in Inspection, it can be off by a move which makes it more efficient.

RA-OB (Ribbon-Alpha variant of LLOB) has gotten me many sub-40 example solves, I believe that the method can be really great. It looks like the average speedsolve will have the efficiency of standard Roux, but the average of the solves I've done thus far (about 50) is 43 using HARCS for blocks, but speed optimized TOLS/TTLL. To me at least, the ergonomics of the method, the speed of blockbuilding in Roux, and the TPS spam nature of the last 2 (even 2.5 with MU DF DB) steps can lead to a method that can rival (or even beat) CFOP quite easily.

Here's a 34 move solution from the example solve thread, F2L-C wasn't that great but had excellent TOLS/TTLL cases.

B D2 L2 F2 U2 R2 F U2 B' L D2 U L D U B L' U' R2

z2 y' M' D M B D'//FB (5/5)
U r U' R2 r' U' r U' R M U2 M' U2 M//F2L-C (14/19)
R' D' R U R' D R//TOLS (7/26)
U' R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2//TTLL (8/34)

When I get my camera in I'll post a tutorial on YT and I may start on an official document, let me know if you all think this is good enough to officially release to the public! Any feedback will be appreciated, and if you'd like to help PM me!


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jul 15, 2017)

Has anyone made a 2x2 algs of TSLE and TTLL? 2-look Last Slot on 2x2? >

(Besides TCLL)


----------



## bren077s (Jul 15, 2017)

Just take the algs from here and pick the shortest alg for each case if you ignore the edge pieces.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 15, 2017)

Look at the HD Method! The method is almost exactly CT on 2x2 but with several advancements! I made a thread on it on the forum so it should be easy to find. Good luck!


----------



## efattah (Jul 15, 2017)

I think we may have been taking the wrong approach to new method development. Right now we imagine what how we want the pieces to be solved, then we use an algorithm generator to find a way to create that transformation. The problem is the algorithms are usually non-ergonomic.

I am taking up a different approach with very promising results. The reverse approach is to try dozens or hundreds of the shortest, finger friendly move sequences, and then observe their effect on the cube. With this this ultra-fast 'set' of sequences, now design a method to use them.


----------



## Lie (Jul 16, 2017)

I have noticed for some time that I solve F2L differently than pretty much everyone, so I want to share my F2L method and get some inputs about this way of doing F2L. I also would want to know if this has ever been done before.

I called my method Sideways F2L. Sideways F2L starts after finishing a cross like a regular CFOP F2L, but instead of holding the cube with yellow on top, I would hold my cube sideways so the (white) cross is on the left and last layer (yellow) is on the right (reverse this if you're a leftie). I'll then be pairing and inserting using mostly just l/l', U/U', and R/R'.

Pairing is done intuitively, and is pretty simple as there are significantly less cases than with standard F2L as we can eliminate mirrors and backsides with l and R rotations.

There are two basic insertion algorithms, which I call Thumb Insert (U' R U) and the Pinkie Insert (U R' U') with l or R rotation to choose the side to insert to. Pretty much any pairs can be inserted efficiently to any positions with just those two insertion algorithms. There are also Sledgehammer variants for both Thumb and Pinkie pair inserts, which are useful for LL edge control.

Some advantages I noticed of Sideways F2L is that it is easy to learn intuitively while allowing high speed pairings and insertions. Since Sideways F2L uses l/l' instead of Y/Y', you never need to do two hands Y/Y' regrips, so you don't need a separate rotationless algorithms to avoid clunky Y/Y' regrips. Also, most of the work is done with your dominant hand so that's a plus if you have a strong preference on your handedness. Doing lookahead is also not too difficult, but it requires a somewhat different lookahead techniques than standard F2L.

I usually also do Sideways Cross, which transitions nicely to Sideways F2L, though I've never been that good at neither regular nor sideways cross. When finishing F2L, I usually insert in the last pair using fingertrick variants that leave the last layer on top, and then just do a standard last layer. Recently, I've also been incorporating edge control for inserting the last pair, which works very well because most Sideways Sledgehammer insertions have fingertrick variants which will also rotate the cube to leave the last layer on top.

I always average about 5-10 seconds faster using Sideways F2L than with regular F2L, even though I practice both roughly equally (my current average is 30s). So it works well for me so far, though since most of the very fast people are using standard F2L, I've also been wondering if I would benefit from focusing on just one way to do F2L rather than trying to practice both.


----------



## Lie (Jul 16, 2017)

efattah said:


> I am taking up a different approach with very promising results. The reverse approach is to try dozens or hundreds of the shortest, finger friendly move sequences, and then observe their effect on the cube. With this this ultra-fast 'set' of sequences, now design a method to use them.



That's what I've been doing as well in my solves. My most frequently used movesets are mostly composed of algorithms that have great ergonomic, easy to execute quickly (avoids F, D, B, and M unless another move had left the finger where it's easy to do those), allow good lookaheads, and somewhat TPS spammy. There are also a number of OLL/PLL cases that I prefer solving using two quick algorithms instead of one clunky ones.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 16, 2017)

Lie said:


> I also would want to know if this has ever been done before.



Yes 

I think this way of solving F2L is very interesting. I never liked y rotations and this replaces them with Lw moves, which is nice. Though, I've also heard lookahead can be harder and there is of course the mandatory z' after F2L is finished.


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 16, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I never liked y rotations and this replaces them with Lw moves, which is nice.



Not just that; you also have to replace lefty F2L algs with either ⟨R,D⟩ algs (okay for three-move inserts, terrible otherwise), an x2 rotation (lolrotations), or do the z' early and continue with F2L on bottom (essentially negates the benefits of COL).



Lie said:


> I always average about 5-10 seconds faster using Sideways F2L than with regular F2L, even though I practice both roughly equally (my current average is 30s). So it works well for me so far, though since most of the very fast people are using standard F2L, I've also been wondering if I would benefit from focusing on just one way to do F2L rather than trying to practice both.



As a cross-on-left person myself, I don't think cross-on-left is good in the long run. Looking ahead is complicated by that you can barely see the right face (unless you hold the cube at an awkward angle), which is an important source of information about F2L pieces, and to a lesser extent, that your right hand will often be partially obstructing your view of the front face.

If your goal is to get fast as quickly as possible, focus on the standard cross-on-bottom, imo.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 17, 2017)

How good would Roux be with tyrannical caterpillar and EOLR?


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 17, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> How good would Roux be with tyrannical caterpillar and EOLR?


good


----------



## efattah (Jul 17, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I think that Roux is an excellent method, I just like to have fun with this kind of stuff  Roux with Tyrannical Caterpillar could be pretty insane and even Roux with just CMLL/standard LSE is really good. But I do believe that LLOB is still a method with serious potential. But if I'm wrong, at least I had some fun with it and inspired some people to help progress cubing methods.



I think LLOB w/DFDBEO + ZBLL has excellent potential primarily by allowing CMLL recognition during DFDBEO, eliminating the huge problem in Roux of the pause during CMLL recognition. Tyrannical caterpillar may actually make the pause worse, as now you have to recognize CMLL and also track/identify the FR edge and decide which M/U variant to use. LLOB w/ZBLL tries to eliminate the CMLL recognition pause much like WaterRoux does, but in WaterRoux w/TLEG-1 it is still extremely difficult to see the corner solve in the inspection so LLOB takes a more realistic approach to eliminate this pause. I have made great progress modifying LMCF (which also tries to eliminate the CLL recognition pause), I have created a new variant where you use modified ELL's to solve the first block (after solving the corners) in one algorithm, which is turning out to be extremely fast since all the edges on the cube are free, so the algorithms are extremely short and super ergonomic, and this also fixes the ergonomics problem of LMCF since once the first block and corners are solved the rest of the solve is RrUM.


----------



## Neuro (Jul 18, 2017)

If a good prediction/recog style can be done based on CLL cases in ZBLL, it would be absolutetly insane. I will certainly take a look at it. RA-OB (LLOB with Ribbon Alpha) is really great too, so if I can't come up with something we certainly have something to call back on 

That LMCF variant seems interesting, I'm a little confused on it though. Do you have to put the edges in a certain way before solving FB or is it mostely intuitive? Other than that, good luck and I hope to see how it turns out!

WaterRoux for me is a good idea in theory but it seems completely unrealistic for a majority of people. Sure the efficiency is nice, but lookahead is subpar and there are a lot of algs to learn with a very tedious last step. I may finish it someday, but as of now it doesn't strike me as good enough if a method to do so. Perhaps this new variant of LMCF will be the "next phase" of WaterRoux, I think I'll play around with LMCF and see what I come up with!


----------



## efattah (Jul 18, 2017)

Neuro said:


> That LMCF variant seems interesting, I'm a little confused on it though. Do you have to put the edges in a certain way before solving FB or is it mostely intuitive? Other than that, good luck and I hope to see how it turns out!



The state of the cube with all corners solved, and no edges solved, is one of the most amazing states since you can move 3-4 edges in ultra short algorithms of 3-5 moves that are ridiculously fast and ergonomic (in fact, you literally look for super ergonomic 3-7 move sequences and just see what they do to the edges...) The big shift from previous LMCF is to try to accomplish a lot more during the transition phase, solving edges on the U layer before switching to R/L solving.

To make use of this requires a very effective method of edge recognition & lookahead. This is what I have been working on. The idea is after solving the corners, you are already looking ahead at the U layer edges. By the time the corner algorithm is finished you have already identified the U layer edge set up which will consist of some combination of edges destined for U, D, and 'junk' edges from the E-layer. The idea is to solve U layer edges on the U-layer, sometimes adding an E-layer edge destined for U, and sometimes pushing a top layer edge down to D and solving it (by doing a D/D' before hand to make sure it goes in the right place). The end effect is you can solve 2-4 edges almost instantly, you then do a z rotation and finish Waterman style RrUM. Furthermore, during the U-layer edge 'algorithm', you are also setting up the first E2L (ERL) pair. I'm still tweaking the system but it has huge promise and reduces the move count even more (due to the incredible efficiency of these 3-7 move sequences). The fastest case is when you finish the corners and find (by chance) that you have 3 U layer edges already in the U layer but unsolved (actually happens quite often). Now an extended ELL set allows you to solve them all at once, and the ELL-style algorithms are FAR shorter than normal ELL's because the whole rest of the cube is free to be broken up.

In addition I have been tweaking the algorithms & finger tricks for the Waterman L6E. Now that I actually know a significant fraction of this large set I am finding it truly useful and incredibly fast; you can never really be sure about how something works until you start using it in real, full speed solves. 

Having said that, although this LMCF variant has promise, I honestly think that LLOB w/ZBLL is the best method developed thus far. In the LLOB thread I proposed the name ZBRoux = Zebra for it. However ZBRoux only shines with full ZBLL (I'm trying to convince Anthony Brooks to switch since he already knows ZBLL). Therefore ZBRoux, kind of like WaterRoux, is one of those methods that really only shine with a huge algorithm set.


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 19, 2017)

I apologize for not having read the whole thread, so all of this may have been already suggested. I mentioned these ideas in the ZZ vs. CFOP etc. thread, but they probably fit better here. Has anybody tried:
Instead of EOLine going EO[2x2x3]Block? I can't even plan full EOLine in inspection, but if somebody was really good at ZZ it seems like it could combine the best of ZZ and Petrus.
Secondly, and this is truly half-baked: let's assume you do an EOBlock on the bottom left as described above, then build the easiest 1x2x3 block instead of the one that goes on the bottom. Would recognition be too difficult to finish the solve with ZBLL, AUF, ARF?


----------



## efattah (Jul 19, 2017)

Just a quick update, I have eliminated the fixed rotation in LMCF by creating E2L pair algorithms that rotate the cube as part of the algorithm. I am wondering if this has ever been attempted in any other method? Examples for embedded z/z' are: 
R F' M' B u'
F r E' R' B'
These are reasonably fast and don't require regrips.


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 19, 2017)

I believe some COL last slot cases effectively do a z/z' as well, usually through wide moves.


----------



## Arc (Jul 21, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> I apologize for not having read the whole thread, so all of this may have been already suggested. I mentioned these ideas in the ZZ vs. CFOP etc. thread, but they probably fit better here. Has anybody tried:
> Instead of EOLine going EO[2x2x3]Block? I can't even plan full EOLine in inspection, but if somebody was really good at ZZ it seems like it could combine the best of ZZ and Petrus.
> Secondly, and this is truly half-baked: let's assume you do an EOBlock on the bottom left as described above, then build the easiest 1x2x3 block instead of the one that goes on the bottom. Would recognition be too difficult to finish the solve with ZBLL, AUF, ARF?


Building an EO 3x2x2 in one step is too hard. The best Petrus solvers can't generally plan the 3x2x2. Might as well use Heise if you're going that route. 

Your second idea is just a pseudo block. It has an advantage in move count by a little and a disadvantage in recognition depending on what LL you use. Generally I think the consensus is that it's not worth it.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 23, 2017)

EDIT: Apparently (and not surprisingly) this is already a thing.

I was doing untimed solves and solving F2L when I ran into this LS case:






and then I thought, since this case happens a lot and is pretty annoying, would it be possible to solve the case and the OLL at the same time?

Although I haven't tried generating any algorithms for this, I played around with different ways of solving the pair and what effect they have on the OLL. I'll show a few examples later.

Let's say this turns out to be a good idea, people find good algs, and it becomes one of those advanced subsets you can learn, along with things like WV, SV, CLS, pure OLL, etc. The question that follows is, how many algorithms are there in this set? Would it be manageable or a large commitment like VLS or ZBLL?

Normal OLL has 58 cases (including a skip), but there are 216 possible ways to orient the pieces, as you would find out if you tried learning VLS. However, most (51) OLL cases are counted 4 times in the 216 figure, because they can occur from 4 different angles. 5 of them are only counted twice, and 2 of them are only counted once. That accounts for all 216 cases, 51*4+5*2+2*1=204+10+2=216.

With this set, however, the OLL will have an odd number of edges flipped, so none of the cases are symmetrical. Therefore, every case is counted 4 times in the 216 orientations, so there are *54 cases*.

I would divide the cases up first into the two EO cases, 3 edges oriented or 1 edge oriented. This gives two sets of 27. Each set would consist of:
4 S
4 -S
4 T
4 U
4 L
4 π
2 H
1 O

The specific case could be determined by where the flipped (if 3 edges are oriented) or oriented (if 3 edges are flipped) edge is with relation to the corners.

Here are a few algs I found:







(U) R U' R' U y' R' U2 R U2 R' U R







(Dw) R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' y R U R'

Okay, fine, those are just inverses of each other, but those aren't the only way to flip the FR edge, I have a lot of tricks up my sleeve. (I'll make a google doc with more algs if people are interested)


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 24, 2017)

I may be wrong, but my guess is that this is a large enough alg set with a specific enough application that it's probably not worth it. What would almost certainly be worth learning is the 2 algs necessary to solve edge orientation from that position. The alg you give is the one I've figured out, except I would usually try to avoid the y rotation and finish with F U moves instead of R U.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 24, 2017)

One Wheel said:


> I may be wrong, but my guess is that this is a large enough alg set with a specific enough application that it's probably not worth it. What would almost certainly be worth learning is the 2 algs necessary to solve edge orientation from that position. The alg you give is the one I've figured out, except I would usually try to avoid the y rotation and finish with F U moves instead of R U.


54 isn't awful; some people learn ZBLL without always solving EO which means knowing almost 500 algs that you can only use maybe a third of the time. I think you're absolutely right about EO though, and I found an alg for the other case but I can't remember it right now. I think this could be a set like WV where most people don't learn every case because some of them are bad, but some are very useful and easy to recognize, for example this new one I found:





F R' F' R y' R U2 R2' U' R2 U' R'


----------



## One Wheel (Jul 24, 2017)

Sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. I thought you were saying there were 216 cases. 54 is a lot better. I still think it's probably not worth forcing that last slot to get a specific OLL set, and probably not worth learning the set if you aren't going to force the slot. As far as ZBLL, you can always fix EO first, with F R U R' U' F' or F U R U' R' F' to force a ZBLL case.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 24, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I was doing untimed solves and solving F2L when I ran into this LS case:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



https://sites.google.com/site/babbyandhunny/3x3x3/ols-fe


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 24, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> https://sites.google.com/site/babbyandhunny/3x3x3/ols-fe


or you could just use petrus


----------



## Thermex (Jul 24, 2017)

@efattah I have a quick question that relates to LMCF/WaterRoux that could help with the development of future methods. I feel like the problem with WaterRoux is the fact that having the DL, FL, and BL edges solved after solving your corners with TEG is not really that helpful. Not enough edges are solved on the cube to be able to solve the remaining 9 edges in two more steps that are under 500 algorithms total. So I've been wondering: what are the most efficient edges to have solved with the corners after you solve the corners? I feel like maybe if you did something like..

1. 2×2 block on back left
2. Solve the seven reamaining 7 corners somehow
3. Solve the rest of the 9 edges in 2-3 algs

...it could turn out more efficient than solving the edges the way you do in WaterRoux (I doubt the example I just showed was faster, that was just for demonstration purposes).


----------



## efattah (Jul 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @efattah I have a quick question that relates to LMCF/WaterRoux that could help with the development of future methods. I feel like the problem with WaterRoux is the fact that having the DL, FL, and BL edges solved after solving your corners with TEG is not really that helpful. Not enough edges are solved on the cube to be able to solve the remaining 9 edges in two more steps that are under 500 algorithms total. So I've been wondering: what are the most efficient edges to have solved with the corners after you solve the corners? I feel like maybe if you did something like..
> 
> 1. 2×2 block on back left
> 2. Solve the seven reamaining 7 corners somehow
> ...



After some months of experimenting I no longer think that solving any edges then corners is feasible, as it is already hard enough to 1-look the corners even if you just start with the corners and almost impossible to 1 look the corners if you also solve edges before them. With that I went back to optimizing LMCF and my latest variant is almost like a reverse WaterRoux and I think it is the best by far I have developed thus far:
1. Solve corners with EG or TEG
2. Look ahead during last corner algorithm moves, to as much of the cube as you can, and decide which sub-method you finish with based on the 'lucky' draw you get after the corners
3. Based on a certain draw, you can finish with this variant: Using either a single algorithm or a string of intuitive moves, solve 3 edges of the U-layer while simultaneously executing a z rotation as part of the algorithm. My new favorite is f R U' M' U R' B'. The key here is that the definition of 'solved' is complicated. You are allowed 1 disoriented U layer edge (either in correct position or not), and this counts as solved. You are also allowed a second solved but disoriented edge on the U layer and this also counts as solved. 
4. Now you are in Waterman configuration except unlike Waterman the semi-solved face is on R. You now solve the remaining L and R edges using Waterman algorithms, the last of which orients the M slice while solving the last two ledges/redges.
5. Permute M-Slice

This 'optimized' LMCF/Waterman has drastically improved ergonomics, with most solves having no rotations and many solves having almost no regrips either.

However the method is still not fully viable. The huge 'problem' when solving corners first is that after the corners you essentially have a random 'draw' on the edges. The 12 cube edges will be (obviously) in a random configuration, but it will never be totally disorganized. In approximately 90% of situations the edges actually have some type of lucky organizational principle. For example, with the above variant, if you have (by luck) 3 U layer edges already in the U-layer, then a single (expanded) ELL solves them all at once. That is a good scenario. But other times the clustered edges may be on another face, or you can have a scenario where the U and D layer edges are essentially 'swapped' and can be easily exchanged, then U and/or D can be solved via ELL algorithms. My point is this method needs certain decision trees after the corners where you choose one of several sub-methods to finish the edges maximizing your 'luck', since at least one of the several sub-methods will have a 'lucky-draw' after the corners. Right now the above variant works well in around half the solves and really well in about a quarter of them. But I still need to develop variants for the other fraction where it doesn't work that well.

TEG1 is very useful for this method since it makes 1-look on the corners even much easier.


----------



## Thermex (Jul 25, 2017)

@efattah Hmm. That sounds interesting and hopefully can be a sub 40 movecount method (you could call it "LerMCF" ). The only problem I see with with it is that although I do think most commited cubers could learn this and it is very efficient/ergonomic, many people wouldn't be willing to learn this because of how "un-concrete" the steps are, if that makes any sense. It's a lot easier to just recognize a case and solve it with a simple, memorized algorithm. This LMCF variant seems to require a bit more intuition and thinking to solve the edges, which is partly what makes it so fast, but I think a lot of people would therefore find it too difficult. I also think if you showed some example solves it would probably help, and I'd certainly be willing to learn it as it sounds effiecient and fun.

With all that said, I would like to try to make some WaterRoux-like variant that is similar to this in that the last couple of steps are solving edges, but with more "concrete" steps. I would like the steps to have the same format as WaterRoux:

1. A block that consists of at least two edges and one corner
2. Finish solving the corners (I've actually made specefied methods for solving 5, 6, and 7 corners on a 3×3 that could be used here)
3. 2-3 algorithms that solve the remaining edges

... but maybe with something different than a 1×2×3 block as the first step. Like you said, I definitely don't think anybody could 1-look the corners AND the block (unless you made something useless like a 1×2×2 or a 1×1×3), but thats not the point of the method. I just want to try to make something similar to WaterRoux that could be easier for some cubers to learn, but similar in efficiency to your method. So, any ideas which edges are most efficient to solve in the first step? (I've tried a couple of combinations of pieces with no luck).

P.S. have you finished any TEG algs yet? I sent you a message about that but you haven't responded yet. (I'm nearly done with the DFL set, I'll post those algs here on Wednesday when I'm finished with them.)


----------



## Teoidus (Jul 26, 2017)

iirc, the non-concreteness is what really puts the LM in LMCF. A big selling point is being able to branch out to one of many possible next steps in order to take advantage of lucky cases. Each step is, in a way, multiple rolls at the luck die instead of just the single roll that you get in normal methods.


----------



## applezfall (Jul 28, 2017)

Here I is a simple method I thought about is similar to columns and cfop and it requires no new algs to solve if you know cfop I call is fcop where you solve 4 pairs(they don't need to match the centers) then you solve the centers and as many cross edges as you can then you do ll this method has a lower movecount than cfop most of the time but look ahead can be a bit harder what do you think of these method


----------



## efattah (Jul 28, 2017)

applezfall said:


> Here I is a simple method I thought about is similar to columns and cfop and it requires no new algs to solve if you know cfop I call is fcop where you solve 4 pairs(they don't need to match the centers) then you solve the centers and as many cross edges as you can then you do ll this method has a lower movecount than cfop most of the time but look ahead can be a bit harder what do you think of these method



The problem with this method is creating F2L pairs is very difficult since the edge piece you are looking to pair could be on the D slice where the cross normally would be. Further since you have 4 more 'random' edge floating around during F2L pair creation, you are less likely to catch sight of the next edge you are looking for...


----------



## applezfall (Jul 28, 2017)

efattah said:


> The problem with this method is creating F2L pairs is very difficult since the edge piece you are looking to pair could be on the D slice where the cross normally would be. Further since you have 4 more 'random' edge floating around during F2L pair creation, you are less likely to catch sight of the next edge you are looking for...


That's why I said it's hard to look ahead and even if the edge is in the D layer is not that many moves and f2l is more efficient in this method than in cfop


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jul 31, 2017)

As I was on my 9 hour car ride home from a vacation, I was experimenting with 4x4 and came up with this direct solution method.

1) Solve the L face center and "solve" the R center by filling it with R and U colors. This will ensure that the F, D, and B centers wI'll be easily accessible for the next few steps.
2) Solve a 1x3x4, off of the L center, as in the Meyer method.
3) Expand the 1x3x4 into a 2x3x4. The best way I have found to do this is to loosely follow these steps:
a) Solve the half-center on the D face.
b) Solve the remaining pieces by building 2 1x1x3 blocks, made of 2 centers and an edge, and insert them. This sounds rather inefficient, but shortcuts can be made. In a way, it's similar to building F2L pairs.
4) Expand the 2x3x4 into a 3x3x4 using the same procedure.
5) Solve the rest of the F3L. The best way I have found to do this is as such:
a) Rotate the unsolved side to the F face. Build the 2 1x1x3 corner-edge-edge pairs and place them.
b) Solve the 2 remaining D face edges.
c) Solve the remaining centers with commutators.
OR (probably better)
b) Solve one D layer edge and 3/4 of the last 2 centers.
c) Solve the last edge and centers using one of ~32 algs, excluding commutators and mirrors.
6) CLL
7) K4 style ELL

Looks pretty promising to me. It seems decent on 5x5. I haven't tried it on bigger cubes. I'll try to get around to an example solve sometime tomorrow.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 31, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> As I was on my 9 hour car ride home from a vacation, I was experimenting with 4x4 and came up with this direct solution method.
> 
> 1) Solve the L face center and "solve" the R center by filling it with R and U colors. This will ensure that the F, D, and B centers wI'll be easily accessible for the next few steps.
> 2) Solve a 1x3x4, off of the L center, as in the Meyer method.
> ...


This is more or less OBLBL with a k4 LL though as far as I'm aware OBLBL has not been experimented with much so good luck with your development.


----------



## CantGetSub15Seconds (Jul 31, 2017)

I'm thinking of a possible CFOP subset for the *cross*. It should be a one-look cross but I would have to generate too many algs, but it would be good I guess?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 31, 2017)

Why would you have this alg set when you can already 1 look cross without algs?


----------



## TDM (Jul 31, 2017)

CantGetSub15Seconds said:


> I'm thinking of a possible CFOP subset for the *cross*. It should be a one-look cross but I would have to generate too many algs, but it would be good I guess?


Three are over 190,000 cross cases for each colour. Symmetries still won't reduce this to the point where humans could learn it. And as Shadowslice said: would we _need_ this? It's not usually difficult to see a near-optimal cross in inspection.


----------



## Y2k1 (Jul 31, 2017)

I was thinking about using the the Lin method for squan (I'm sub-25 with noob EP), and I was wondering if it would be even better if you used 2 algs for each CP + Edge insert, with one solving parity and the other not, then you could eliminate W-perm and adj. swap for the last step.


----------



## CantGetSub15Seconds (Aug 1, 2017)

If you would use this method, you can easily look ahead to the F2L pairs, thus improving your times. I plan to only make this for people with a fixed color cross (mainly white) and people can easily adapt it to other color crosses.


----------



## CantGetSub15Seconds (Aug 1, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> I was thinking about using the the Lin method for squan (I'm sub-25 with noob EP), and I was wondering if it would be even better if you used 2 algs for each CP + Edge insert, with one solving parity and the other not, then you could eliminate W-perm and adj. swap for the last step.


uhh this is 3x3


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 1, 2017)

CantGetSub15Seconds said:


> uhh this is 3x3


What is?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 1, 2017)

this thread is not for 3x3 only


----------



## DGCubes (Aug 1, 2017)

CantGetSub15Seconds said:


> If you would use this method, you can easily look ahead to the F2L pairs, thus improving your times. I plan to only make this for people with a fixed color cross (mainly white) and people can easily adapt it to other color crosses.



Can you though? If you just have random algorithms memorized and you don't understand why they work, that doesn't make it easier to look ahead to F2L. Intuition is always better for lookahead, because you can understand where the pieces are going and why they're going there. Think about how hard it is to predict PLL before you do OLL. Besides, if you're willing to put the time into learning the impossible amount of algs (190K+, according to TDM; equivalent to learning ZBLL over 385 times) that this method would require, your time would be much better spent working on lookahead.

Also, like others have mentioned, it's not that hard to get an optimal/near optimal intuitive cross with practice. I just pulled up a random scramble on csTimer: F2 R D L' U2 B' D F R F2 D2 L' B2 L' U2 L2 D2 L2 D'
I solved cross on green intuitively like this: x' y R' F2 D F D F2
csTimer's "Solve Cross" feature gave this: x' B' R2 D R D R2
Which is exactly the same thing; I just added a rotation to make it more fingertrick friendly. No algs necessary.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 1, 2017)

Recently on vacation, I thought of a pretty cool LLOB-ZZ hybrid that went like this (I call it "cantelope" because I was eating a cantelope when I thought of it).

1. FB (1×2×3 block on left, ~7 moves)
2. SB (1×2×2 on back right, ~9 moves)
2.9. Use an M/ M' to orient the FR edge (~0.5 moves)
3. Solve the FR edge into its slot while orienting the corners (this is just TSLE in ZZ-CT but you don't need to preserve EO, so probably ~7 moves)
4. EOFB (Orient the edges while solving the DB and DF edge, same step as most LLOB methods, ~8 moves)
5. TTLL (~12 moves)

This method seems pretty decent, it could very good for someone switching from ZZ to Roux (or any casual solver) and probably averages in the ballpark of 44-46 moves (with AUFs). Anybody think this is worth genning algs for?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 1, 2017)

Your movecount estimates are on the low side:
7 FB
8 SBsq
0.5 EO
10 CO+FR (EO does not matter as much as you think)
8 EOFB
14 TTLL + 1.5 AUF

= 49


----------



## Y2k1 (Aug 1, 2017)

CantGetSub15Seconds said:


> If you would use this method, you can easily look ahead to the F2L pairs, thus improving your times. I plan to only make this for people with a fixed color cross (mainly white) and people can easily adapt it to other color crosses.





CantGetSub15Seconds said:


> uhh this is 3x3





shadowslice e said:


> What is?





Teoidus said:


> this thread is not for 3x3 only



Well that didn't go as I expected, It was a question about square-1 substep for the Lin method and generating the CP and one edge insert + parity for it.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 1, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Your movecount estimates are on the low side:
> 7 FB
> 8 SBsq
> 0.5 EO
> ...


Whoops looks like I mixed up the average PLL movecount (12) with TTLL (14). I stil think the method would be around 45 moves, as I doubt the TSLE step would be 10 moves on average since a lot of cases are <5 moves and the original TSLE is about 9-10 moves on average.


----------



## CantGetSub15Seconds (Aug 1, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Can you though? If you just have random algorithms memorized and you don't understand why they work, that doesn't make it easier to look ahead to F2L. Intuition is always better for lookahead, because you can understand where the pieces are going and why they're going there. Think about how hard it is to predict PLL before you do OLL. Besides, if you're willing to put the time into learning the impossible amount of algs (190K+, according to TDM; equivalent to learning ZBLL over 385 times) that this method would require, your time would be much better spent working on lookahead.
> 
> Also, like others have mentioned, it's not that hard to get an optimal/near optimal intuitive cross with practice. I just pulled up a random scramble on csTimer: F2 R D L' U2 B' D F R F2 D2 L' B2 L' U2 L2 D2 L2 D'
> I solved cross on green intuitively like this: x' y R' F2 D F D F2
> ...



i need the possible combinations for one cross color lol


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 1, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Whoops looks like I mixed up the average PLL movecount (12) with TTLL (14). I stil think the method would be around 45 moves, as I doubt the TSLE step would be 10 moves on average since a lot of cases are <5 moves and the original TSLE is about 9-10 moves on average.


As someone that genned some preliminary algs for this exact substep: yes, it is 10 moves on average. TSLE is not 9-10 moves, it is 10 moves (and that is without AUF even)


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 1, 2017)

CantGetSub15Seconds said:


> i need the possible combinations for one cross color lol


12 * 11 * 10 * 9 EP * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 EO = 190,080 cases, just as @TDM said.
You can reduce by LR, FB, and (if you really want) UD reflections and mirror across FR/RU/UF diagonals to make that into ~2970 cases, but even then (and mind you I would love to see someone try to mirror across FR on the fly) the case count is really high


----------



## CantGetSub15Seconds (Aug 2, 2017)

frick told everyone no one would use this lol


----------



## CantGetSub15Seconds (Aug 2, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> 12 * 11 * 10 * 9 EP * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 EO = 190,080 cases, just as @TDM said.
> You can reduce by LR, FB, and (if you really want) UD reflections and mirror across FR/RU/UF diagonals to make that into ~2970 cases, but even then (and mind you I would love to see someone try to mirror across FR on the fly) the case count is really high


Maybe I could make this like only one edge inserted or I do 999-look last layer


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 2, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> Well that didn't go as I expected, It was a question about square-1 substep for the Lin method and generating the CP and one edge insert + parity for it.


Haha RIP. I for one think it's a nice idea. Honestly the best judge would be to test it out.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Aug 5, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> + 1.5 AUF



umm... auf is only + .75


----------



## Thermex (Aug 5, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> umm... auf is only + .75


Pretty sure @Teoidus is talking about total AUFs in the solve


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 5, 2017)

Yes there are two AUFs

Edit: Actually, there should even be a third AUF before CO+FR. So really it's 49.75 total


----------



## Thermex (Aug 5, 2017)

This might be a decent maegaminx LSLL method, although I certainly worry about the alg count...

1. Solve a 1×2×2 block on the back left
2. Orient the rest of the pieces while inserting the FR edge into its slot (probably >200 algs)
3. TTLL (probably not much more than 100 algs here considering there's a 1×2×2 solved already)

As I said, I feel like step 2 would be way too many algs but I feel some good ideas could be built off this method layout that could have less algs.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 6, 2017)

Thermex said:


> This might be a decent maegaminx LSLL method, although I certainly worry about the alg count...
> 
> 1. Solve a 1×2×2 block on the back left
> 2. Orient the rest of the pieces while inserting the FR edge into its slot (probably >200 algs)
> ...


Step 2 is way too many algs. It becomes feasible if you solve the corner at the same time but that basically becomes minitripod which is not bad but I haven't been bothered to learn all the algs so use a reduce version atm.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 6, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Step 2 is way too many algs. It becomes feasible if you solve the corner at the same time but that basically becomes minitripod which is not bad but I haven't been bothered to learn all the algs so use a reduce version atm.


What do you mean by "if you solve the corner at the same time"? Wouldn't that add more algs? Also would this be a feasible method (algwise) if you did EO before all the steps?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 6, 2017)

Thermex said:


> What do you mean by "if you solve the corner at the same time"? Wouldn't that add more algs? Also would this be a feasible method (algwise) if you did EO before all the steps?


I do the second step intuitively. I mean leave just the 4 LL corners (and 3 edges but I usually solve them though as said before I use a rediced alg set).


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 6, 2017)

I have an idea for a roux last slot finish, and I'm confident that it will blow the traditional roux finish out of the water. My idea is to orient last 5 corners while inserting the last slot edge, eo+df+db, and finally ttll. And by the way, you would have to solve the first square of the second block in the back


----------



## Thermex (Aug 6, 2017)

@Spencer131 Lol I literally just proposed this method a page or two back, you might want to check that out


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 6, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Spencer131 Lol I literally just proposed this method a page or two back, you might want to check that out


Hey cool! I think it is absolutely worth it to make the algs and we should totally work on this together


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 6, 2017)

Spencer131 said:


> I have an idea for a roux last slot finish, and I'm confident that it will blow the traditional roux finish out of the water. My idea is to orient last 5 corners while inserting the last slot edge, eo+df+db, and finally ttll. And by the way, you would have to solve the first square of the second block in the back



This approach is actually less efficient than traditional roux:
10 OL5C + last edge
8 EODFDB
14 TTLL + 1.5 AUF
= 33.5 moves for LS + L10P

vs traditional roux:
5 last pair
9 CMLL
14 LSE
= 28 moves for LS + L10P

You can question my OL5C estimate, since I really only genned a random sample of 6-7 to get an idea (some were 8-9 moves, others 13-14), but I am confident in my other estimates (they're backed pretty solidly by HARCS analysis). Sure, OL5C might be off, but I would have to be off by 33.5 - 28 = 5.5 moves *just to break even *with traditional roux; that would mean OL5C has an average movecount of ~4.5... I dont' think this is the case.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 6, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> This approach is actually less efficient than traditional roux:
> 10 OL5C + last edge
> 8 EODFDB
> 14 TTLL + 1.5 AUF
> ...


I'm a bit skeptical about some of the Roux estimates as well as the OL5C estimates, this is more or less what I would predict...

Roux:
6-7 move pair (you can get some nasty cases here such as FR edge stuck on the d-layer and DRF corner oriented)
10 move CMLL (I know optimal is 9 moves but I've heard from Kian Mansour and other experts that their CMLLs average ~10 moves)
14 move LSE
~30-31 move LS

This other method:
8 move OL5C (I have a feeling none of the algs you genned included any of the 4-6 ultra fast cases)
8 move EOFB
14 move TTLL
~30 move LS

I definitely think you're right that this doesn't blow Roux out of the water, and in terms of movecount it's about the same. But I've tried using this a couple of times and find it a bit more ergonomic than Roux, especially because although TTLL=L6E movecount, TTLL only requires 1 alg that could executed fluently whereas Roux L6E uses 2-3 algs that require some pauses if you're not super practiced. I personally think I have to agree with you that a 1-2 move reduction and slightly better ergonomics isn't really worth it to learn 100 extra algs, but I can see the appeal of this method. I'd be willing to generate algs for it since all that needs to be generated are the optimized TSLEs that don't require EO to be preserved, but I don't really know who would be interested in learning it.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 6, 2017)

Roux:


Thermex said:


> 6-7 move pair (you can get some nasty cases here such as FR edge stuck on the d-layer and DRF corner oriented)


You can get these nasty cases, but with proper blockbuilding you should be averaging ~5 for last pair. These block movecounts are taken from an avg100 of mine (and I would hardly say my blox are optimal).



Thermex said:


> 10 move CMLL (I know optimal is 9 moves but I've heard from Kian Mansour and other experts that their CMLLs average ~10 moves)


You're right about this, I keep getting 9 stuck in my head for COLL/CMLL for some reason. Sorry about that. CMLL should be 10 + 0.75 AUF.

= 5 pair + 10.75 CMLL + 14 LSE = 29.75 total

This other method:


Thermex said:


> 8 move OL5C (I have a feeling none of the algs you genned included any of the 4-6 ultra fast cases)


Sure, I'll give this to you. I'm skeptical (just because there are some ultra fast cases doesn't mean the average can be brought down by 2 whole moves), but I don't have any data. I'll try running a HARCS analysis on this step.
However, I will add 0.75 AUF.



Thermex said:


> 14 move TTLL


Don't forget your AUFs: they add 1.5 moves on average.

= 8.75 OL5C + 8 EODFDB + 15.5 TTLL = 32.25 total



Thermex said:


> I definitely think you're right that this doesn't blow Roux out of the water, and in terms of movecount it's about the same.


Even if it breaks even (which I am skeptical of), you are learning around 5 times as many algs. With the number of algs you're learning, you might as well learn ZZ-b and match roux movecounts with easier lookahead and <R,U,L> rotationless F2L (make of that what you will, I know some people prefer RrUM but RUL F2L sounds pretty damn nice to me).



Thermex said:


> although TTLL=L6E movecount


This is false.



Thermex said:


> TTLL only requires 1 alg that could executed fluently whereas Roux L6E uses 2-3 algs that require some pauses if you're not super practiced.


Have you seen Kian execute LSE? Yes, it takes practice, but it's pretty much pauseless (except when he sometimes fails on 4c recog), and I'm not sure TTLL is exactly 0-pause either.



Thermex said:


> I personally think I have to agree with you that a 1-2 move reduction and slightly better ergonomics isn't really worth it to learn 100 extra algs, but I can see the appeal of this method. I'd be willing to generate algs for it since all that needs to be generated are the optimized TSLEs that don't require EO to be preserved, but I don't really know who would be interested in learning it.



To be completely blunt, I'm not sure I see the point. I don't see the 1-2 move reduction and all I'm seeing in exchange is a higher alg count, worse recognition, inability to build FR square without doubling alg count, and potential rotations in the solve (if you stick with CT's 33% 2gen TTLL) that never would have been there in traditional roux.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 6, 2017)

Alright, @Arc ran a HARCS analysis: 10000 simulated solves on the proposed method ("TSLE" is OL5C + FR edge)

Looks like we were both off, the avg is around 9.125.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 7, 2017)

Just as an aside, can we call the orient 5 corners step something other than OL5C because that could get confusing.


----------



## Rafael Paulino (Aug 7, 2017)

I've kind of made a new cross variation. I'm currently calling it C2FE (or cross with 2 flipped edges) where you make the cross but with 2 opposite flipped edges. I think this would help if you are not color neautral or if there is a hard cross. When you get to last layer, instead of doing full oll or f sexy f',you put the 2 flipped edges in the F and B, and you do M' U' x4 (or M' U x4). You do that when you have a L case and you put the 2 already oriented edges in the front and left. This is like a double edge sword though, as it can make your cross easier but can make you LL harder. It depends though in which is more important.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 7, 2017)

Rafael Paulino said:


> I've kind of made a new cross variation. I'm currently calling it C2FE (or cross with 2 flipped edges) where you make the cross but with 2 opposite flipped edges. I think this would help if you are not color neautral or if there is a hard cross. When you get to last layer, instead of doing full oll or f sexy f',you put the 2 flipped edges in the F and B, and you do M' U' x4 (or M' U x4). You do that when you have a L case and you put the 2 already oriented edges in the front and left. This is like a double edge sword though, as it can make your cross easier but can make you LL harder. It depends though in which is more important.


Is this actually any better than making a bad cross? 

Here your adding at least 8 moves on compared to maybe 4 for a bad cross and the extra moves for the cross would be more ergonomic and executed more quickly as you're not using the same moves each time.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 7, 2017)

I’ve been thinking about a 2-look Last Slot Last Layer method recently:

The first part is MLS. MLS (Manning Last Layer) involves inserting the last F2L pair while orienting all 4 LL corners using 1 of 26 algorithms. It’s basically Winter Variation, but with better algs since you don’t have to preserve the EO.

The second part is MMLL (Miranda Manning Last Layer). MMLL is a 1LLL subset where all the corners are already oriented. I’m fairly certain that there’s a total of 133 algorithms, excluding regular PLL cases, but somebody else will have to check this.

MM (as I call it) is pretty much a reverse ZB: instead of solving EO during your LS before doing 1LLL, you do CO instead (before doing 1LLL). Full edge control has fewer algorithms than full corner control, but it dramatically reduces the LL alg count from 493 to only 133.

ZB pros:
- ZBLLs occur naturally (i.e. without intentionally affecting LL during LS) much more often than MMLLs
- More developed, good algs have already been found
- there’s a lot of easy cases
Cons:
- *ALG COUNT*

MM pros:
- *Significantly* fewer algs than ZBLL
- slightly easier/faster CP recognition
- If you know full ELL, you already know over 1/5 of MMLL
Cons:
- algs aren’t as good, mainly due to not as much work having been put into them, and none of them can be pure 2-gen
- not as many short, easy cases

Overall, I think that MM has potential to be really great! It has all the benefits of ZBLL, but without having _nearly_ as many algs. I have tested out recognition myself to an extent, and it really doesn’t seem to be that bad. I feel that with more time spent with organization and development, and with practice, recognition could be very quick. All of the algs I've made so far can be found here.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 7, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I’ve been thinking about a 2-look Last Slot Last Layer method recently:
> 
> The first part is MLS. MLS (Manning Last Layer) involves inserting the last F2L pair while orienting all 4 LL corners using 1 of 26 algorithms. It’s basically Winter Variation, but with better algs since you don’t have to preserve the EO.
> 
> ...


I think this has been proposed before (as Anti-ZBLL or something but don't quote me on that). The main reason that it isn't used is the same reason no one uses CFCE: the algs suck and are significantly worse than ZBLL (and that's not because they aren't very "developed"- someone tried to push it a year or so ago and they concluded that abut half of the cases have no real good algs compatable with even the worse ZBLL and the set as a whole is much more inefficient due to WV being longer and anti-ZBLL longer than ZBLL).

Basically the only advantage it has is that there is a lower alg count.

E: actually it's called COALL


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 7, 2017)

I have a set of 26 algs that does CO+FR in 8 moves on average. You actually do an average of 2 moves to set up a case, and then perform an alg which is 6 moves avg. And if I add a few more algs it will get rid of the bad setup cases which take like 5 moves. This is less moves than tsle, and a lot less algs


----------



## efattah (Aug 7, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> The main reason that it isn't used is the same reason no one uses CFCE: the algs suck and are significantly worse than ZBLL



I constantly hear people saying ELL algorithms are bad. This hasn't been my experience (recognition is a different story). Has anyone ever posted a time-attack of ELL or ELL algorithm timings?


----------



## Arc (Aug 7, 2017)

Spencer131 said:


> I have a set of 26 algs that does CO+FR in 8 moves on average. You actually do an average of 2 moves to set up a case, and then perform an alg which is 6 moves avg. And if I add a few more algs it will get rid of the bad setup cases which take like 5 moves. This is less moves than tsle, and a lot less algs



Feel free to post it. HARCS was using optimal <R,U,M,r> algs. Mixing in <R,U,F,r> or <R,U,D,r> at discretion would probably result in a lower move count. If @mDiPalma made custom states work in analysis (pls) I would have numbers for pure <R,U,F,r> and <R,U,D,r> optimal too.


----------



## crafto22 (Aug 7, 2017)

1. 2x2x3 (12/12)
2. F2L Pairs (10/22)
3. Corners (10/32)
4. L5E (12/44)

Plain and simple lol.

Example:

U2 B' R2 B U2 F' R2 B' R2 B2 U F2 U' R' B2 D2 U' L F' D2

z2 y F2 L2 U' F' R2 (D U) r2 U2 r2 // FB (9/9)
y R U' R' U' F' y' U' R' U R' F R F' // Pairs + easy CP case (12/21)
R' U' R U' R' U2 R // Corners (7/28)
d M U' M U' M2 U' M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2 // L5E (13/41)

Sorta lucky but even so, this could definitely be sub-45 STM.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 8, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> 1. 2x2x3 (12/12)
> 2. F2L Pairs (10/22)
> 3. Corners (10/32)
> 4. L5E (12/44)
> ...


I actually used this method for a little while, it's pretty great for having 50 algs but I never found myself doing 12 move 2×2×3 blocks  pretty fun method but not really more efficient than Roux in any way.


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 8, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> 1. 2x2x3 (12/12)
> 2. F2L Pairs (10/22)
> 3. Corners (10/32)
> 4. L5E (12/44)
> ...


If you're doing l5e the same as one would do l6e, then what's the point? It's also pretty similar to a trick in roux where you do 1 square of each block, and then go fill in the pairs. I only do that if it's a good case though.

Also here are the algorithms I mentioned. To use them you orient the FR edge and pair it up with any corner, and then execute the algorithm.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfN473PAZPdsukiR3H-MAFIEx2nI0r910mBpIFWWxKo/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Thermex (Aug 8, 2017)

@Spencer131 you just gave me a great idea! This is kinda like WaterRoux in its format but more ergonomic and with less algs. This has an LMCF-like movecount with a fourth of the algs:

1. Two 1×2×2 blocks on the left side of the cube (basically a 2×2×3-the DR edge, ~10 moves)
2. Solve the last 6 corners (~11 moves) by
a. Orienting them (42 algs)
b. Permuting them (~50 algs?)
3. Do a y rotation and solve the FR and and FL edge (no sure how this would be done, ~7 moves?)
4. LSE (~12 with EORL)

I feel like this has potential (around 40 moves with <200 algs). Opinions?


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 8, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Spencer131 you just gave me a great idea! This is kinda like WaterRoux in its format but more ergonomic and with less algs. This has an LMCF-like movecount with a fourth of the algs:
> 
> 1. Two 1×2×2 blocks on the left side of the cube (basically a 2×2×3-the DR edge, ~10 moves)
> 2. Solve the last 6 corners (~11 moves) by
> ...


Most of your estimates looks pretty good except there is NO way you're solving 6 cornerrs in 11 moves. I would love to be proven wrong though XD. The FR and FL edge step would probably be like one of those edge pair thingies that efettah does in lmcf


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 8, 2017)

A couple things I just figured out.
1 - The last 6 corners thing might actually average close to 11 moves like you thought, which is amazing news
2 - The FRFL step could also be ULUR instead because it's basically the same thing


----------



## Neuro (Aug 8, 2017)

I know it's been a little since it was proposed initially, but I like the idea of SB-1 and inserting LE while doing orientation, EODBDF and TTLL: seems more efficient than LLOB with Ribbon Alpha. once I'm done running tests with proposed LLOB variants I may look into this further.

Making 2 1x2x2 blocks in that style would be very difficult to plan in inspection and corner permutation would likely be difficult to recognize. Not sure on FLFR, could be decent.

Have a few projects I'm looking at doing and I would like to know what you guys would like to see. 

A: Optimized OH/2H EOLS
B: 1LLL, subset pseudo 2gen
C: Righty OH ZBLL
D: Full OLS for CFOP (all 42 CFOP LS cases solving F2L alongside)
E: TCMLL for Roux, both front and back slot algs


----------



## calci (Aug 8, 2017)

Have anyone thought of forcing every LL cases into T-ZBLL or U-ZBLL after F2L is done by using a fast alg like *F R U R U' F' *or *r U R' U R U2 r'*?
I know Feliks uses the first alg but I want to expand it into something more?


----------



## crafto22 (Aug 8, 2017)

@Thermex Oh really? Well if you can solve FB in around 7-8 moves, it shouldn't take more than 4 or 5 more moves to add in the last two pieces. Also, what you proposed could be done much more easily like this:

1. Squares (10/10)
2. Last two corners (5/15)
3. CMLL (10/25)
4. FRFL (7/32)
5. L6E (12/44)

Only 42 algs, except you might as well just use Roux at this point.

Edit: This might actually be good. FRFL is probably closer to 6 moves, according to the few test solves I've done, so if corners can be solved in 11, that leaves us with:

1. Squares (10/10)
2. Corners (11/21)
4. FRFL (6/27)
5. L6E (12/39)

Sub-40 moves...


----------



## crafto22 (Aug 8, 2017)

Just did a little test solve with the method using a hand scramble and got these numbers:

Square in 11 moves
Corners in 12 moves using CubeExplorer to generate the orientation and permutation algs
FRFL in 4 moves
L6E in 12 moves

So the total was 39 moves, exactly as I predicted . Jk, I know this probably doesn't reflect the real move count, but I'll do some more tests to get a better idea of what we're working with here.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 8, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I know it's been a little since it was proposed initially, but I like the idea of SB-1 and inserting LE while doing orientation, EODBDF and TTLL: seems more efficient than LLOB with Ribbon Alpha. once I'm done running tests with proposed LLOB variants I may look into this further.
> 
> Making 2 1x2x2 blocks in that style would be very difficult to plan in inspection and corner permutation would likely be difficult to recognize. Not sure on FLFR, could be decent.
> 
> ...


Glad you think this Roux variant has potenetial, I feel like with the set @Spencer131 came up with it's much better; it has far less algs and is more ergonomic than TSLE. I still am a bit skeptical about the method, like @Teoidus said, it's still pretty close in MC to Roux and with 50 more algs, but I still prefer it over Roux since I find learning algs so fun.

As for this new method I proposed yesterday, I've been thinking about it for a little. I believe there are people (?) who can one-look 2×2×3 blocks, and the two blocks made in this method are literally the same thing-1 edge, so although they're more difficult to one-look than, say, a 1×2×3 in Roux, it could definitely be done with some practice. As for the OC+PC steps, I'm not too worried about PL6C recog, as long as you understand the way OL6C moves the pieces around you could look ahead to see your P6C case. I also proposed this exact method a while ago for 2×2, so I think it could definitely be transfered to 3×3 pretty smoothly. You could also use the Twisty-EG algs I'm making here if you already knew them.
For L8E, I'm really not sure what to do. The obvious approach would be to do what @Spencer131 said and solve ULUR and then do an x rotation into LSE, but I feel like there's a more efficient strategy that could be used here.



crafto22 said:


> @Thermex Oh really? Well if you can solve FB in around 7-8 moves, it shouldn't take more than 4 or 5 more moves to add in the last two pieces. Also, what you proposed could be done much more easily like this:
> 
> 1. Squares (10/10)
> 2. Last two corners (5/15)
> ...


I'm glad FBs can be done in 10 moves, that makes this even lower in terms of movecount. My main goal for a while now has been to create a method compareable to Roux in movecount and algs but that utilizes L6C (it's almost as easy to solve 6 corners as it is 4 corners). I feel like this method is it, and it would be kinda pointless to use CMLL during the third step as you proposed. After a bit more feedback here are my estimates (for the method in it's current state):
1. First Blocks (10/10
2. L6C (11/21)
3. URUL (6/27)
4. L6E (13/40)
(This is including AUFs)



calci said:


> Have anyone thought of forcing every LL cases into T-ZBLL or U-ZBLL after F2L is done by using a fast alg like *F R U R U' F' *or *r U R' U R U2 r'*?
> I know Feliks uses the first alg but I want to expand it into something more?


If I understand what your saying correctly, basically you form your LS pair, insert it with VHLS, and then use an alg to force a certain type of ZBLL case? I don't really think it's worth it for an average cuber, but maybe a good strategy if you know like half of ZBLL and you're still learning the rest.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 8, 2017)

One more thing, if no one wants to work with me on this method, I'll probably just call it "Higgs" (my last name) but otherwise I think this name makes sense:

*B*locks
*O*rient corners
*P*ermute corners
*E*dges

"BOPE"


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 8, 2017)

When I said that you could do ULUR instead of UFUR, I meant that you could do either one and have 2 different options during the solve. I didn't mean to do ULUR every time instead of UFUR.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2017)

Thermex said:


> 1. First Blocks (10/10
> 2. L6C (11/21)
> 3. URUL (6/27)
> 4. L6E (13/40)
> (This is including AUFs)



L6C is going to be a lot of algs and have pretty bad recognition.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 8, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> L6C is going to be a lot of algs and have pretty bad recognition.


It's done in two steps (orientation & permutation) each are like 5-6 moves and 50 algs.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2017)

So you are orienting 6 corners in 5-6 moves, and then permuting 6 corners in 5-6 moves?

I am very skeptical that those movecounts are right... permuting 6 corners I could plausibly see with y <R2 U> y' stuff, but then that'd force 2 rotations.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 8, 2017)

@Teoidus You're actually right. After doing a couple of algs, I would say it's more like 4-5 move orientation algs and 6-7 move permutation ones.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 8, 2017)

Wow, 4-5 move orientation??
Can I see some of the cases + solutions?

EDIT: Oh wait, nevermind. I believe it.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 9, 2017)

I think that with the right ergonomics the method can be fast. You solve to L8E in ~20 moves which is pretty insane, you need good algs for the cases and a decent recog system for the second half of corners. And from there it's pretty solid IMO. Little hesitant on the squares, but I think that this has some pretty incredible potential so GG; you beat WaterRoux with under half the algs  I'd like to help with this at some point

Decided that I'm probably just going to do a bit of all the things I said earlier, just one at a time. Won't be on the forums much as I'm heading off to University in a week or so but I'll try and update on the projects or if I have a good idea.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 9, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I think that with the right ergonomics the method can be fast. You solve to L8E in ~20 moves which is pretty insane, you need good algs for the cases and a decent recog system for the second half of corners. And from there it's pretty solid IMO. Little hesitant on the squares, but I think that this has some pretty incredible potential so GG; you beat WaterRoux with under half the algs  I'd like to help with this at some point
> 
> Decided that I'm probably just going to do a bit of all the things I said earlier, just one at a time. Won't be on the forums much as I'm heading off to University in a week or so but I'll try and update on the projects or if I have a good idea.


I'm glad everyone thinks this method is a good idea! This is really what be been aiming for ever since I joined this thread, to create an improvement to WaterRoux with less algs.

Tbh there's still a lot of stuff to work out though; although it seems like a good idea and not too many algs need to be generated, I'm still a bit skeptical about some steps, namely the Permute 6 corners step and how easy it will be to one-look the blocks. There also still needs to be an efficient sub-20 move method to solve L8E.

For @Neuro and anybody else that wants to contribute to this method, just PM me if you give me your email and I'll invite you to the Google spreadsheet I made for the LSC (this is what I propose calling the step where you solve the 6 corners) algorithms.

One more thing: I'll probably call this "Higgs" since I proposed it, but if anybody objects or has another name in mind I'll change it (I still kinda like "BOPE")


----------



## efattah (Aug 9, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Spencer131 you just gave me a great idea! This is kinda like WaterRoux in its format but more ergonomic and with less algs. This has an LMCF-like movecount with a fourth of the algs:
> 
> 1. Two 1×2×2 blocks on the left side of the cube (basically a 2×2×3-the DR edge, ~10 moves)
> 2. Solve the last 6 corners (~11 moves) by
> ...



I tried a variant of this a while back when tweaking LMCF. The method was 2x2x1 block on back left and back right, then solve the DFR and DFL corners randomly (they could be swapped), then use EG-1 or CLL (to solve the remaining corners), variants that don't damage the back blocks (turns out most of the existing algorithms don't damage them). Then finish with LMCF E2L/L6E and Waterman L6E. This was one of the several ways I tried to improve the ergonomics of LMCF. It has big potential, my problem is I'm not good at block building so I kind of abandoned it.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 9, 2017)

@efattah interesting... this method is pretty much the same thing but solves L6C in a more efficient way. I have a ton of trouble with the blocks as I myself can barely lookahead through a 1×2×3, but I'll probably get used to it after a lot of practice. Do you have any knowledge on the most efficient way to solve L8E? I have a feeling you could use an LMCF finish but I've always been a bit confused how you do the edges during E2L/L6E.

A crazy solve I just got with this method:

(Hand scramble)
FS: y z U2 r U2 r' (4/4)
SS: z' y' F' L' F' (3/7)
OSC: y U' F' U' F (4/11)
PSC: R2 x U R' D2 R U' R' D2 (8/19)
FLFR: y M2 U (2/21)
LSE: x' M U2 M U2 M U' M' U' M2 U M2 U (12/33)

Despite the unnecessary amount of rotations, I got a 14.98, which is pretty good for me especially considering I had like a 2-3 TPS and don't even have the algs genned for this method  I was able to cancel one move of the A perm during PSC to set up the F face to insert the FLFR edges, which was pretty cool.


----------



## crafto22 (Aug 9, 2017)

@Thermex I'd love to look into BOPE with you, it seems amazing! So how exactly does L6C work? How many algs?


----------



## crafto22 (Aug 9, 2017)

Just got a 10.58 with your method, @Thermex ! I've done around 2 or 3 hours of practice with it so far and am averaging around the same as I do with Roux (13-15 seconds).


----------



## Thermex (Aug 9, 2017)

@crafto22 Dang that's awesome! I'll start a private conversation with you, Neuro, Spencer131, me, and anyone else who wants to join where I include the link to the LSC doc. To solve LSC you need to a). Orient the corners, and b.) Permute them.


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2017)

This is an old method from a year ago, but only yesterday did I do some solves to get an idea of the movecount and it's actually better than expected. I did an Ao50 last night and got 34.3x moves after CPFB (attempting to use speedsolve solutions). Obviously this would have been more efficient than speedsolves no matter how much I tried to do things normally, but it's certainly around 35 moves after CPFB, and assuming CPFB is around 12 moves* this gives an *average of 47 moves*, which is nothing special, but certainly worth considering. The *algorithm count is 105, or ~165 with EOLR*, or 210-270 including mirrors, but they're incredibly easy algorithms to mirror since they're 2-gen and the mirroring is front/back.

* Teoidus was getting a little less than 12 moves with a fixed block, so take away a little bit assuming you'd have some amount of CN, and then add on a bit to make up for inefficiencies in speedsolves, and it's about 12. I don't know how to do CPFB yet so I'm using his movecounts.

*Steps:*

CPFB (12 moves/0 algorithms)
SB Square (9 moves/0 algorithms)
Solve corners, and insert edge with <U, M> at some point during the algorithm (12 moves/210 algorithms, or 105 with fixed square location/if you mirror the algs)
LSE (14 moves/60ish algorithms if using algorithmic EOLR)
Alternatively, step 3 can be solving the corners only, and then step 4 could be L7E split into (i) FR+EO (or BR+EO) and (ii) EP. However I'm expecting this to be even less efficient. Step (i) would be algorithmic.

It's certainly not a groundbreaking method by any means, but now I realise that the movecount isn't sup-50, I thought it was at least worth sharing.

E: Forgot to include an example solve. Here's the first scramble from qqTimer:
U L2 D L2 U2 F2 U' B2 F2 R2 U2 R U2 F2 D F R' B' L2 D L'

z2 R' U R' U R F' R2 U R2 B' // CPFB (10/10)
r U R U' R U2 R' U' R // SSquare (9/19)
U' R U R' U2 R U R' U M' U2 R U R' // Corners+FR (14/33)
U M U' M' U2 M U2 M U' M' U2 M U2 // LSE (13/46)
View on alg.cubing.net.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 10, 2017)

TDM said:


> This is an old method from a year ago, but only yesterday did I do some solves to get an idea of the movecount and it's actually better than expected. I did an Ao50 last night and got 34.3x moves after CPFB (attempting to use speedsolve solutions). Obviously this would have been more efficient than speedsolves no matter how much I tried to do things normally, but it's certainly around 35 moves after CPFB, and assuming CPFB is around 12 moves* this gives an *average of 47 moves*, which is nothing special, but certainly worth considering. The *algorithm count is 105, or ~165 with EOLR*, or 210-270 including mirrors, but they're incredibly easy algorithms to mirror since they're 2-gen and the mirroring is front/back.
> 
> * Teoidus was getting a little less than 12 moves with a fixed block, so take away a little bit assuming you'd have some amount of CN, and then add on a bit to make up for inefficiencies in speedsolves, and it's about 12. I don't know how to do CPFB yet so I'm using his movecounts.
> 
> ...


This is very similar to a method that I made a few months ago called 2GRoux. It used a 3 step CPFB and requires 57 algs

1: CPFB
1a: Pair- done the same way as in 2GR but no worries on EO
1b: Line- insert last corner while solving CP
1c: FB- solve FB using <RrUuME>
2: SB+PP- solve second block and do Pinkie Pie setup
3: OLL(CP)- solve OLL, can be <RrUM>
4: LSE- very efficient because of Pinkie Pie

I seem to remember this achieving mid-40 movecounts. CPFB probably can't be planned in inspection, but you could plan line and view step 2 as F2B+PP. My biggest issue with the method was transitioning from line to solving FB as well as not having full pseudo 2G OLL, but it is still the favorite of the 3x3 methods I have made this far


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> This is very similar to a method that I made a few months ago called 2GRoux. It used a 3 step CPFB and requires 57 algs
> 
> 1: CPFB
> 1a: Pair- done the same way as in 2GR but no worries on EO
> ...


I remember this being proposed. Sadly this method (I think) gives little-to-no advantage over regular Pinkie Pie for 2H because many of the 2-gen or pseudo 2-gen OLLCPs are relatively inefficient. In fact for regular CMLL, the 2-gen U and T cases are two of the worst ones. It may have potential for OH though, where anything pseudo 2-gen is very fast.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 10, 2017)

Here's a 3x3 idea:
Step 1: 2x2x2 block in DBL along with solving FL and RB edges
Step 2: use keyhole to insert DLU and DRB corners, then solve last CE pair
Step 3: COLL
Step 4: EO
Step 5: EP (probably 2 looks so there aren't way too many algs)

Example: B' D L2 R2 U L2 U R2 U' R2 F2 U' B D2 U B D' R U2 F2 D'

2x2x2+FL/RB: x2 U F R U' F2 R U' R L // (9/9)
Keyhole: (D U2) R U R' D2 U' R U R' U R U' R' D // (15/24)
last CE pair: U2 F' U2 F r U r' // (7/31)
COLL: F U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' F' // (14/45)
EO: U R U R' U' M' U R U' r' // (10/55)
L3E: y' U' R U R' U' R' U' R' U R U2 // (11/66)


----------



## Thermex (Aug 10, 2017)

@TDM I'm confused, are you talking about BOPE or something else? I don't recall any recent posts involving solving a CPFB...


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @TDM I'm confused, are you talking about BOPE or something else? I don't recall any recent posts involving solving a CPFB...


I should have been more clear: that was the first time I've posted about this method. I didn't think it was worth posting before. This is a "new" (new to most people) method.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 10, 2017)

TDM said:


> I remember this being proposed. Sadly this method (I think) gives little-to-no advantage over regular Pinkie Pie for 2H because many of the 2-gen or pseudo 2-gen OLLCPs are relatively inefficient. In fact for regular CMLL, the 2-gen U and T cases are two of the worst ones. It may have potential for OH though, where anything pseudo 2-gen is very fast.


Thanks for the feedback! While I do like the method and think it has some potential, I realized most of these things already, hence why I didn't do very much with it. Maybe we can get together and make a CP Roux variation that has some potential?

CPFB in my style also gives ~12 move solutions pretty easily and I believe that it's a lot easier than planning full FB and tracking CP with it.

What may have some amount of potential is L5C or TCMLL (basically what you proposed). It's also quite easy to break into 2GLL. Other than that, maybe so COLE (Corner Orientation Lase Edge), EODFDB, and TTLL. Throwing ideas around, maybe something will stick 

EDIT: Oh and if you want to go completely ham; do CPFB, F2L, and Pseudo 2G 1LLL. 600+ algs. I would not reccomend this to anyone besides someone who wants to rival Jabari


----------



## Hazel (Aug 10, 2017)

I also just came up with a weird Petrus-style method that is actually not too bad:
Step 1: solve 2x2x3 block
Step 2: solve last 2 CE pairs
Step 3: Insert last First Layer edge while solving EO (14 super easy M/U algs)
Step 4: ZBLL or COLL/EPLL

I just got a 19.53 Ao12 with it containing an 11.60-second single!

Example: L' D F2 B' R' D' B R' D2 L' U2 L2 F2 U' B2 U2 F2 L2 U2 R2 U'

z2 U2 D R' D L F U2 R B' R' // 2x2x3 (10/10)
U R U R' U' L' U L U' F U F' // F2L (12/22)
M' U M U2 M' U M U M' U2 M // LE+EO (one of the worst 2 cases) (11/33)
R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R2 F' R U R U' R' F U' // ZBLL (19/52)

Yeah I know 52 moves is a lot, but just ZBLL took up 19 of them so otherwise, it's pretty efficient.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 10, 2017)

@Aerma This is a great idea! Other than BOPE and maybe LMCF this is the closest I've seen a method get to being sub-40 moves. Here are my movecount estimates:

1. 2×2×3 (12 at best)
2. Pairs (~10 moves)
3. EODR (8 moves)
4. ZBLL (12 moves)

<45 moves with AUFS, probably around 42-43. Pretty ergonomic too, I'd be kinda surprised if this hasn't been proposed before.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 10, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Aerma This is a great idea! Other than BOPE and maybe LMCF this is the closest I've seen a method get to being sub-40 moves. Here are my movecount estimates:
> 
> 1. 2×2×3 (12 at best)
> 2. Pairs (~10 moves)
> ...


Clearly you haven't read M-CELL which covers quite a few methods such as this.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 10, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Aerma This is a great idea! Other than BOPE and maybe LMCF this is the closest I've seen a method get to being sub-40 moves. Here are my movecount estimates:
> 
> 1. 2×2×3 (12 at best)
> 2. Pairs (~10 moves)
> ...


Thanks! Probably the first concept I've come up with that isn't a total flop. I'll add a link to my original post to the EODF algs.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 10, 2017)

(sorry for the double post)
@shadowslice e, I'm not sure I understand what M-CELL is, I read the post on it but from what I understand it seems different. Could you explain how it relates to my proposal please?


----------



## Neuro (Aug 10, 2017)

WaterRoux, LMCF, LLOB with ZBLL, and ZZ with ZBLL all have movecounts that low.

I am positive this method has been proposed before or at least some variation of it. 

I do think it has potential, just fact check before you post. You can force this to solve in HK as well, would have less algs. It can be quite flexible if used correctly


----------



## sqAree (Aug 10, 2017)

Is there a document about BOPE or somewhere to read / learn, cause it's getting confusing to scroll through the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> WaterRoux, LMCF, LLOB with ZBLL, and ZZ with ZBLL all have movecounts that low.
> 
> I am positive this method has been proposed before or at least some variation of it.
> 
> I do think it has potential, just fact check before you post. You can force this to solve in HK as well, would have less algs. It can be quite flexible if used correctly


A little while back I proposed a very similar method but it was more CFOP-like than Petrus, and was much less efficient than this. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 10, 2017)

Aerma said:


> (sorry for the double post)
> @shadowslice e, I'm not sure I understand what M-CELL is, I read the post on it but from what I understand it seems different. Could you explain how it relates to my proposal please?


M-CELL describes the set of methods which leave an edge (and a corner) out of the F2L when solving then solve them either during LL or just before to give easier cases. There's a whole set of variants with lots of different things in them.

This is one variant for petrus;
1) 2x2x3
2) form one pair+insert(+orient?)
3) 2nd pair
Then the edge would be inserted (and permuted perhaps) then whatever's left is solved with an alg (such as ZBLL).

It can also produce extremely low movecount solves.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 10, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> M-CELL describes the set of methods which leave an edge (and a corner) out of the F2L when solving then solve them either during LL or just before to give easier cases. There's a whole set of variants with lots of different things in them.
> 
> This is one variant for petrus;
> 1) 2x2x3
> ...


Ah, okay. Every method I come up with is either bad or already made, I gotta come up with something more original


----------



## Neuro (Aug 10, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Ah, okay. Every method I come up with is either bad or already made, I gotta come up with something more original


Even if you weren't the first person to make it, if you like it enough than progress the method into something great. To make progress, sometimes we need to revisit old ideas.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> WaterRoux, LMCF, LLOB with ZBLL, and ZZ with ZBLL all have movecounts that low.
> 
> I am positive this method has been proposed before or at least some variation of it.
> 
> I do think it has potential, just fact check before you post. You can force this to solve in HK as well, would have less algs. It can be quite flexible if used correctly


I said the most efficient I'd SEEN, not the most efficient ever  There are probably plenty of methods dotted around this site with 42-43ish movecounts.



sqAree said:


> Is there a document about BOPE or somewhere to read / learn, cause it's getting confusing to scroll through the last few pages of this thread.


@sqAree because I proposed BOPE only about two days ago there are no current wiki pages or threads, most algorithms aren't even generated yet. But I think your right that it is confusing to flip through these posts, as this is a thread for ALL ideas not just BOPE. I'll probably start a thread for it soon so everybody can check out the method and I'll post any new developments/example solves there. Otherwise I won't create a wiki page until all the algs are actually done.


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Maybe we can get together and make a CP Roux variation that has some potential?


Hmm, are we going to be able to make much more progress with CP variants? I feel like we're starting to exhaust the possibilities...



> What may have some amount of potential is L5C or TCMLL (basically what you proposed). It's also quite easy to break into 2GLL. Other than that, maybe so COLE (Corner Orientation Lase Edge), EODFDB, and TTLL. Throwing ideas around, maybe something will stick ￼


Hmm, I don't think finishing with LL is necessarily a good idea. It's usually far less efficient. I'd imagine the "ideal" method would involve the least amount of solving pieces and then unsolving them while trying to solve something else.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 10, 2017)

Just sort of a random question, but how many algs is "twisty" TTLL? If it's <350 algs I have some ideas of maybe how to implement it into some CFOP 2-look LL+LS methods.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 10, 2017)

Depends on how the twist is done. If it's just the LS corner and the DFR corner it should be relatively low. If you include anything more, it will have a very very high algcount


----------



## Hazel (Aug 10, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Depends on how the twist is done. If it's just the LS corner and the DFR corner it should be relatively low. If you include anything more, it will have a very very high algcount


What about Twisty NLL on HD for 2x2? That way you could just skip LOLS on every solve.

Also, I have an idea for maybe an M-CELL Petrus variant using MLS (a subset I had in a previously proposed method) where you insert the LS while orienting all LL corners without regard to LL EO, then solve DF while solving EO as usual so you just have PLL rather than ZBLL.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 10, 2017)

There are already 36 NLL's and allowing any orientation of the L5C you have 24 possibilities. 864 algorithms. So unless you really REALLY like 2x2, this is impractical unless you reduce the number of NLL sets you can have and/or the L5C orientations.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 10, 2017)

@Aerma that 3×3 method is probably better than the last one you proposed, it has a similar movecount without the requirement of knowing ZBLL. You should gen some algs for it.

@Neuro by Twisty TTLL I meant DFR corner and one last layer corner twisted.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 10, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Aerma that 3×3 method is probably better than the last one you proposed, it has a similar movecount without the requirement of knowing ZBLL. You should gen some algs for it.
> 
> @Neuro by Twisty TTLL I meant DFR corner and one last layer corner twisted.


Oh ok thanks for clarifying! There's 72 TTLL's, x8 for possible # of 1 corner cases and you get 576 new algs. So I probably wouldn't reccomend it, sorry


----------



## Thermex (Aug 11, 2017)

@Neuro aw darn. sounds like T3LL (as I was thinking of calling it) isn't such a great idea. Okay, so I started up a thread for BOPE, anyone who wants to check it out can use this link: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/bope-higgs.65984/.
In this thread I'll answer questions about BOPE, post progress, ask for help on some things, etc. I'm actually leaving to go camping from Fri-Sun, so Neuro, Spencer131 and Crafto22 can answer questions and monitor that thread when I'm gone.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 11, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Aerma that 3×3 method is probably better than the last one you proposed, it has a similar movecount without the requirement of knowing ZBLL. You should gen some algs for it.


Cool, and good idea! I'm creating a spreadsheet with MLS cases/algs now.


----------



## efattah (Aug 11, 2017)

First example of the 'improved ergonomics and reduced rotation' LMCF:

Scramble: F2 U2 R' U2 F2 L F2 D2 L2 D2 R' F' D B' D' U' B' L R U2 B

z y // inspection
L U2 L' S' // green face on D
U R U' R2 U' F U' R2 U2 R // Solve corners EG1 L case
D f R U M' U' R' B' // Z-transform E2L pair with no regrips
x' U2 R' U M' U' R U2 // E2L pair
M2 L2 U l2 U' M' U l' L' U' // Waterman Set 2
M' U2 M' U2 M // Permute Midges
// 44 STM and only 1 rotation

I have also been working on expanding the E2L triplets set and this is working out quite well. On many solves the flow is now
1. Corners
2. First triplet
3. Second triplet
4. L6E

The triplet algorithms are 5-10 moves and all are sub-1 second executions with no regrips.

Furthermore the E2L triplet algorithms have tyrannical caterpillar style F/F' injections that can turn them into quadruplet algorithms in some cases, allowing you to solve 4 edges per 'pair'. The ideal solve would be an extremely easy corners case (0.90 seconds), followed by having 2 R/L edges pre-solved by luck which happens quite often; then doing a single E2L quadruplet (1.2 seconds), followed by a relatively quick L6E case (1.1 seconds).


----------



## Hazel (Aug 11, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I also just came up with a weird Petrus-style method that is actually not too bad:
> Step 1: solve 2x2x3 block
> Step 2: solve last 2 CE pairs
> Step 3: Insert last First Layer edge while solving EO (14 super easy M/U algs)
> Step 4: ZBLL or COLL/EPLL


Remember when I proposed this? Well, I've thought of 2 ways to make this an LL-skip method. One method would take 211 algorithms, one would take ~176 algorithms (excluding EPLL).
The first way is making use of TSLE/TTLL. You would first solve a Petrus block, then solve one F2L pair, then TSLE, then EODF, then TTLL.
The other is to make a Petrus block, solve one F2L pair, insert the last pair while solving CO and CP (27 MLS cases * 6 CP configurations = 162 algs), then solve EODF with M/U and cancel into EPLL.

Or you could just with go a simpler OLL-skip method route and solve a Petrus block, then 1 F2L pair, then the second with MLS, then EODF, then PLL.

*MLS, or Manning Last Slot, is an LSLL subset similar to Winter Variation where you orient the LL corners while solving your last slot, but it differs from WV because you don't have to preserve LL EO.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 11, 2017)

efattah said:


> First example of the 'improved ergonomics and reduced rotation' LMCF:
> 
> Scramble: F2 U2 R' U2 F2 L F2 D2 L2 D2 R' F' D B' D' U' B' L R U2 B
> 
> ...


This sounds awesome! I feel like an expanded set of triplet algorithms not only helps the efficiency of the LMCF method but opens the doors for many other edges-last styled methods like BOPE. The one thing I've never quite been able to understand in LMCF is what edges are solves in the triplets; in other words, do you solve all the ledges in one alg and then all the redges in one alg, or is it 2 ledges and 1 redge in the first algorithm followed by 2 redges and 1 ledge in the second alg? Also the "idea solve" you have there is insane, it's a matter of time until someone really fast starts using this and gets a sub-3 single 



Aerma said:


> Remember when I proposed this? Well, I've thought of 2 ways to make this an LL-skip method. One method would take 211 algorithms, one would take ~176 algorithms (excluding EPLL).
> The first way is making use of TSLE/TTLL. You would first solve a Petrus block, then solve one F2L pair, then TSLE, then EODF, then TTLL.
> The other is to make a Petrus block, solve one F2L pair, insert the last pair while solving CO and CP (27 MLS cases * 6 CP configurations = 162 algs), then solve EODF with M/U and cancel into EPLL.
> 
> ...


I like some of the ideas your coming up with, I think there's a lot of potential in Petrus-like methods like this but nothing in particular stands out to me. I think you should continue exploring 2x2x3+BR pair methods though, I see a lot of potential for sub-42 movecounts and good big cube methods there.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 12, 2017)

Yet another Petrus M-CELL variant:
1: 2x2x3 block
2a: One F2L pair
2b: Insert second F2L pair with CPLS
2c: EODF
4: 2GLL


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 12, 2017)

I had a couple of new method ideas (more long car rides).


Spoiler: SSC/WaterRoux hybrid



SSC/WaterRoux hybrid, kinda vague. ATM is used, as there are a lot of U/D moves going on.
1) Solve FL and BL; set up for SSC style OL5C with BR and either DL or DR, oriented, as the pseudopair/-triplet. ~9 moves?
2) Execute OL5E alg (edge orientation can be ignored) and put BR and DL/DR edge into R-face belt; if possible, orient unused DL/DR edge with Rw move or influence next step otherwise. ~7 moves?
3) Separate corners, choose either Rw2 or R2 moves to ensure unused DL/DR edge is on U. ~5 moves?
4) Permute corners, make sure BR is solved and DL/DR is in RF. ~7 moves?
5) Insert DL and DR with R U/U' M2 U'/U R' or similar. ADF so blocks are solved. ~6.5 moves.
6) WaterRoux L7E. ~17 moves.
~51.5 ATM projected , but I think movecounts are rather high.
Example solve: {Movecounts will be (ATM step/ATM total) [STM step/STM total]}
Scramble: B L U2 F2 L' U R2 L B' D' F2 R U2 R F2 L' D2 B2 R2 L' D2
1) x' (F2 B) (U' D) M (U' D') M' U2 (6/6) [9/9]
2) R2 U R' U' R2 (U' D2) Rw (7/13) [8/17]
3) (U D2) Rw2 (2/15) [3/20]
4) (U D) R2 U' R2 (U D) R2 D' R2 (8/23) [11/31]
5) R U M2 U' R' D' (6/29) [6/37]
6) M' U M' x M' U M U M' U M U x' M' U2 M' U' M U2 M U (19/48) [19/56]
48 ATM, 56 HTM. Maybe not that great.





Spoiler: LLOB/ WaterRoux hybrid



This one's interesting. I haven't finalized it, but it seems really promising.
1) Pseudo FB: basically, you make 2/3 of a ZBLL face. Make sure all edges are oriented and only corners from the correct layer are used. There is a lot of flexibility here: you can phase it, force certain CO's, even permute corners (rather in depth, edges must also be arranged such that there is no parity error and extra algs must be learned later on). ~4 moves.
2) Solve R-layer corners: I haven't yet decided how to do this. Maybe put L-layer corners in L-layer and do CLL on R. This would be really nice because very little has to be preseved. You could also learn extra algs to solve CP for L-layer. However, this would take 126 algs, double that with CP. Since this step is so close to inspection (~4 moves PFB and 2-3 setup) it can be easily seen in inspection. ~9 moves?\
3) ERL: solve 2 R-layer edges, like in WaterRoux. ~8 moves, right?
4) L7E: again like WaterRoux. ~17 moves.
5) ZBLL: Do a z rotation and solve the case. Since EP is recognizable from inspection and CLL case is apparent past step 2 (also done in inspection) you can practically recognize ZBLL from inspection, which is crazy. ~14 moves I think.
Projected movecount of 52. I guess that's not as good as I thought either.
Exmaple solve:
Scramble: B L U2 F2 L' U R2 L B' D' F2 R U2 R F2 L' D2 B2 R2 L' D2 (again)
1) y R F' Rw' F B' (5/5)
2) U2 R U R' F R2 F' U2 (8/13)
3) R U M' U' R U M' U2 M U (10/23)
4) I didn't realize until now that you have to make sure the edges have no parity problem when building the first block. Whoops. Well, you get the idea.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 14, 2017)

TDM said:


> I remember this being proposed. Sadly this method (I think) gives little-to-no advantage over regular Pinkie Pie for 2H because many of the 2-gen or pseudo 2-gen OLLCPs are relatively inefficient. In fact for regular CMLL, the 2-gen U and T cases are two of the worst ones. It may have potential for OH though, where anything pseudo 2-gen is very fast.


So, I did some testing with my variant of Roux w/ CP alongside yours, and it appears that you get very similar movecounts. While mine has less algs and easy recog, TCMLL can be entirely <RU> until inserting LE and is still pretty easy to recognize. It would be personal preference if you ask me, as both are good CP-based Roux methods. Perhaps use them in conjunction? If full SB is really easy use mine and if only block is seen (more likely) use yours? You could do PP setup+block+LE, insert the last corner while doing EO, and LSE as well. Other than that, I can't come up with much else to expand CPRoux methods


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 14, 2017)

I finally got around to making algs for my idea from way back when.


Sue Doenim said:


> OLLCP with half the algs- use phasing to make sure misoriented edges are opposite of each other.


Note that this is meant for a Roux (Pinkie Pie) solve; the first step is to place a UL/UR edge at DF/DB, meant to be done after second block, like orienting centers.


Spoiler: Algs



UL/UR in DB (mirror for in DF)

Arrow
UR/UL
M’ U/U’ M
UF
U/U’ M’ U’/U M
UB
U2 M’ U2 M
DF
M’ U/U’ M U’/U M’ U2 M

1/1
UB
M’ U/U’ M U/U’ M’ U/U’ M
UL/UR
M’ U/U’ M U/U’ M’ U’/U M
UF
M’ U2 M
DF
M’ U/U’ M U’/U M’ U2 M

Adj
DF
M’ U M U2 M’ U M +mirror
UB (mirror for UL)
U M’ U M
UF (mirror for UR)
M’ U M U2 M’ U’ M

Opp
DF
Skip
UL/UR
U’/U M’ U2 M
UF/UB
U/U’ M’ U’/U M

4-flip
DF
Skip
UB/UF/UL/UR
M’ U2 M U/U’ M’ U/U’ M


Also, I'm thinking about combining ZBLL blocks with regular Roux. I'll explain more later.
EDIT: Never mind, that's not actually that good of an idea. More algs, higher movecount. ZBLL psuedo-blocks are a cool idea, but I cant find a super good way to use them. Some other ideas I've had: During Roux SB, ZZ left block, BOTH blocks (really not a good idea), WaterRoux "second block". Mostly, in my attempts, I've tried to force 2GLL blocks, but that's really too hard and takes away the minimalistic movecount bonus. I'll experiment a bit more with them.


----------



## TDM (Aug 14, 2017)

Neuro said:


> So, I did some testing with my variant of Roux w/ CP alongside yours, and it appears that you get very similar movecounts. While mine has less algs and easy recog, TCMLL can be entirely <RU> until inserting LE and is still pretty easy to recognize. It would be personal preference if you ask me, as both are good CP-based Roux methods. Perhaps use them in conjunction? If full SB is really easy use mine and if only block is seen (more likely) use yours? You could do PP setup+block+LE, insert the last corner while doing EO, and LSE as well. Other than that, I can't come up with much else to expand CPRoux methods


Hmm, they're very different methods, which could make neutrality difficult: if the difference is so small, the times saved changing methods may be less than the time taken deciding to change methods!

Also my method doesn't use TCMLL so I don't know where you got that from


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 15, 2017)

Based on watching others have to explain 2GR on Discord, I've made significant simplifications to the CPLine page of the tutorial: http://teoidus.github.io/dump/2GR/CPLine/CPLine.html

I hope this version is more understandable! Let me know what you find confusing--CP is (despite not being that hard once you get it) annoyingly hard to explain, and I'd love to get feedback from you all.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 15, 2017)

TDM said:


> Hmm, they're very different methods, which could make neutrality difficult: if the difference is so small, the times saved changing methods may be less than the time taken deciding to change methods!
> 
> Also my method doesn't use TCMLL so I don't know where you got that from


Yeah I know it isn't TCMLL, I just call it that bc I can't think of a better/proper name 

Interesting point, could be true. The only other thing I can think of would be OLS+Pinkie Pie but that would be a pain to set up in solves. @Teoidus that's great news! At the moment I'm debating between Roux and LLOB+ZBLL, but CP Roux may just be a contender now


----------



## Arc (Aug 16, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Yeah I know it isn't TCMLL, I just call it that bc I can't think of a better/proper name
> 
> Interesting point, could be true. The only other thing I can think of would be OLS+Pinkie Pie but that would be a pain to set up in solves. @Teoidus that's great news! At the moment I'm debating between Roux and LLOB+ZBLL, but CP Roux may just be a contender now


As far as CP Roux goes, myself and Shadowslice have both tried to find a way to abuse CPFB, but nothing notably good so far. Not to mention that idk if anyone can actually do an efficient CPFB in a speed solve yet.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 17, 2017)

I've heard once that the only major downside of ZZ-CT is that you have to use ZZ. So I've come up with a Roux variant (a CFOP variant has already been made, Ribbon, but it has many many algs).
Step 1: Standard Roux FB
Step 2: 2x2x1 block in BRD
Step 3: TSLE
Step 4: EO+D layer (14 super easy M/U algs)
Step 5: TTLL

Example: L' R2 B U2 F U2 B2 F' R2 U2 F D R' D U L' D2 U2 B'
z2 L F' D' L2 F D' B' // FB (7/7)
U2 R2 U' R U' R // SB (6/13)
R U R' U' R U R' U' R U2 R' // TSLE (11/24)
U' M U2 M2 U M U M' U M U2 M' U2 M // EO+D (14/38 - pretty bad case I think)
R U' R U' R' U R' U R2 D' R U R' U' D R U2 // TTLL (17/55)

Not the best solve, but could anybody figure out what the average movecount would be?


----------



## TDM (Aug 17, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I've heard once that the only major downside of ZZ-CT is that you have to use ZZ.


Not at all. The worst part of ZZ-CT is the CT part: see Matt's graph here.


----------



## Arc (Aug 17, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I've heard once that the only major downside of ZZ-CT is that you have to use ZZ. So I've come up with a Roux variant (a CFOP variant has already been made, Ribbon, but it has many many algs).
> Step 1: Standard Roux FB
> Step 2: 2x2x1 block in BRD
> Step 3: TSLE
> ...


The major downside of ZZ-CT is that it has high move count and high alg count compared to similar LSLL approaches. Roux-CT was suggested twice in the past few pages. Though I would like to see your 14 super easy <M,U> algs for EODFDB.



Thermex said:


> Recently on vacation, I thought of a pretty cool LLOB-ZZ hybrid that went like this (I call it "cantelope" because I was eating a cantelope when I thought of it).
> 
> 1. FB (1×2×3 block on left, ~7 moves)
> 2. SB (1×2×2 on back right, ~9 moves)
> ...


----------



## Hazel (Aug 17, 2017)

Arc said:


> The major downside of ZZ-CT is that it has high move count and high alg count compared to similar LSLL approaches. Roux-CT was suggested twice in the past few pages. Though I would like to see your 14 super easy <M,U> algs for EODFDB.


The way I do it is solve DB while correcting centers, then insert DF with EODF: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cCDVpuPzUXq_c2lItT3dBg0r2HscVXtT8ptqkD19c6I/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Neuro (Aug 18, 2017)

EO+LE can be a good approach but it can be extremely inefficient. What may be good is to generate a few sets of algs for-say-when the edge is swapped or have opposite centers (like dots LSE) 

Doing EODFDB intuitively is pretty easy for me though so I don't see a whole lot of use for it other than a few cases here and there. May make seeing your corner case easier if you use algs though.


----------



## Sion (Aug 18, 2017)

Since I'm twisting my main method around, I decided I'd go ahead and post up what I'm trying to do.

1: PCMS style CE pairing. PCMS has a wonderful system for finding small movrecount proper columns and pairing them effectively. I'm keeping that.
2: orient 'LL corners. This could end in an a case, an e case, or a solved set of corners. This is to improve recognition because I'm not looking for too much. Because there are technically only three last layer corner cases, recognition will be faster for the final step.
3: Down edges and L5eop. This is very fast and quickly done, not much to be said.
4: pll. While this would seem less efficient, from a recognition point of view, it is easier since you familiarize yourself with the corners during the prior step.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 18, 2017)

@Sion I believe this idea is mentioned in the original columns/PCMS wiki page, check that out.


----------



## Sion (Aug 18, 2017)

Thermex said:


> @Sion I believe this idea is mentioned in the original columns/PCMS wiki page, check that out.



It's similar, but this has l5eop instead


----------



## Thermex (Aug 19, 2017)

Sion said:


> It's similar, but this has l5eop instead


Whether it's L5EP, L5EOP, L5E or whatever for the edges step, Columns first really isn't worth it. The ergonomics are bad and in general PCMS variants are pretty inefficient. For newer method designers looking to make variants of things I would recommend LMCF, CFOP LL+LS and even Petrus/HF variants much more than columns first and Roux variants.


Lately I've been experimenting with Megaminx LS+LL subsets and I've ran across a couple of interesting ideas, I'll throw them out here for you guys to judge:

Idea 1 (megiminx MGLS):
This could be good, I see no major flaws in it. It's a fairly efficient 3-look LL+LS idea without a rediculous number of algs. The main problem is that Minx PLL kinda sucks :/

(In cases you've never heard of MGLS, it goes as follows):

1. FR edge+EO
2. DFR corner+CO
3. PLL

Idea 2: Phasing?
Maybe phasing could be utilized on megaminx? I have no idea how it would be used or how it would work since there are 5 edges on a Minx, but who knows, phasing could be useful on Mega.

Idea 3:
This is a cool concept I came up with today, basically you:

1. Orient edges
2. Permute edges
3. Oreint corners
4. Permute corners

Because of how well EO+EP flow this is essentially a 3-look last layer with ~100 algs, seems great but I haven't really done much experimenting with this yet.

Idea 4:
Probably worse than the last idea, but still pretty decent with even less algs (maybe):

1. 2×2 block (Oriented and Permuted pieces)
2. Expand the block to a 2×2×3 (The pieces you add on don't need to be permuted)
3. Orient the 7 remaining pieces while inserting the FR edge (this can't be too many algorithms)
4. TTLL (greatly reduced alg set since there's a 2×2 solve in the back)

Opinions?


----------



## Neuro (Aug 19, 2017)

What I've long thought would be good but suspected it'd been done before is doing EOLS. And then you get easy 3LLL; CO, CP, EP.

Method design takes time and dedication, not to mention a little bit of math skills & being able to discern what's good and what's not. I agree start with basic things/ideas and learn some basic skills (cube explorer and harcs are essential IMO) and have a good understanding of several pre-existing variants/methods.

Officially in university now, so probably won't be posting very often or working on my projects. If/when I have time to do that stuff I'll update. But in the meantime, good luck to everyone on here!


----------



## Thermex (Aug 20, 2017)

Neuro said:


> What I've long thought would be good but suspected it'd been done before is doing EOLS. And then you get easy 3LLL; CO, CP, EP.
> 
> Method design takes time and dedication, not to mention a little bit of math skills & being able to discern what's good and what's not. I agree start with basic things/ideas and learn some basic skills (cube explorer and harcs are essential IMO) and have a good understanding of several pre-existing variants/methods.
> 
> Officially in university now, so probably won't be posting very often or working on my projects. If/when I have time to do that stuff I'll update. But in the meantime, good luck to everyone on here!


EOLS+3LLL is pretty good for only like 50 algs but not really what I'm shooting for. I've been looking for a pure 3 look LL+LS that's more efficient than the current best approach (pair, OLL, PLL) and preferably 30 moves. I'll try to gen some of the algs for these methods myself, but does anyone know of any other megaminx solving programs other than ksolve? That would be helpful. @Neuro GL at university


----------



## Arc (Aug 20, 2017)

Am I missing something here? EOLS is just LS + EO right? Like ZBLS? That's 302 algs on 3x3, and orders more on mega. If what you're doing is making a pair first and then EO while inserting it, that's VHLS and would be 5look LSLL. If you want something more efficient than OLL PLL, perhaps you could look into making fish and chips on mega.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 20, 2017)

Arc said:


> Am I missing something here? EOLS is just LS + EO right? Like ZBLS? That's 302 algs on 3x3, and orders more on mega. If what you're doing is making a pair first and then EO while inserting it, that's VHLS and would be 5look LSLL. If you want something more efficient than OLL PLL, perhaps you could look into making fish and chips on mega.


Yes you are missing something, you first connect the pair THEN insert it. And as you said it's a pretty decent 4/5LLL approach for 50 algs but there could be better. A couple posts back I threw out some of my best ideas, and I think I'm gonna try to start generating algs for the third one. Problem is I don't have anything that can gen megaminx algs :/


----------



## Arc (Aug 20, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Yes you are missing something, you first connect the pair THEN insert it. And as you said it's a pretty decent 4/5LLL approach for 50 algs but there could be better. A couple posts back I threw out some of my best ideas, and I think I'm gonna try to start generating algs for the third one. Problem is I don't have anything that can gen megaminx algs :/



I don't know if VHLS is really worth it. It's the same looks, just in slightly different order and with some more algs. Probably not going to save more than a handful of moves. Certainly better than just insert and EO but definitely nowhere close to OLL/PLL.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 20, 2017)

Arc said:


> I don't know if VHLS is really worth it. It's the same looks, just in slightly different order and with some more algs. Probably not going to save more than a handful of moves. Certainly better than just insert and EO but definitely nowhere close to OLL/PLL.


I didn't just propose VHLS for megaminx, that was Neuro. I think you're right that it's better than regular insert+4LLL but not that much better. I'm still trying to (intuitively) generate algs for the method I proposed a couple of pages above (EO, EP, CO, CP, all without the last pair solved), but it's difficult. It might turn out really good (sub 30 moves?) and if it is I'll post it, but I seriously need a megaminx algorithm generator...

Some other ideas I had recently:

Square-1 BOPE: I'm still working on 3×3 BOPE (OSC is done but PSC algs still need to be generated, I also have thought of some ideas for L8E that I'll post today on the BOPE thread), but I think I've thought of a pretty good way to transfer BOPE to square-1, it goes as follows:

1. FB on d-layer (DFL+DBL corners, DL+DB edge, basically just a regular 1×1×3 plus the DB edge)
2. PSC (same step as BOPE PSC, similar algs too)
3. Solve the remaining 6 edges (DF, DR, and all of the U-layer edges) in one algorithm.

This seems pretty efficient and would probably be around 120 algs. Opinions?

My second idea is just skewb TCLL, I know I've proposed this before and others have said skewb TCLL algs have been made before, but I've never actually seen a doc with the algs. I'd be willing to generate them if they don't already exist, but if they do, where can I find them??


----------



## ananonymouscuber (Aug 20, 2017)

New method for 2x2
1. 3/4 of a face
2. Winter Variation
3. PBL

It would be good if you already had 3/4 of a face.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 20, 2017)

ananonymouscuber said:


> New method for 2x2
> 1. 3/4 of a face
> 2. Winter Variation
> 3. PBL
> ...


This has already been created. It's called "SS" and I believe there's a wiki page on it. It's pretty much irrelevant considering HD is 3-4 moves less on average and has about 15 fewer algorithms.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 21, 2017)

VHLS is incredibly easy to perform intuitively, even on Mega


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 21, 2017)

One thing I've experimented with is doing EO and building the pair, inserting the pair and permuting edge, and solving CO then CP. It works pretty well.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 21, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> One thing I've experimented with is doing EO and building the pair, inserting the pair and permuting edge, and solving CO then CP. It works pretty well.


I was literally writing out that exact idea as you posted it... that works pretty well, although I slightly prefer to just do EO without connecting the pair, inserting the edge while solving EP and then doing CO+CP with the last slot corner unsolved. Your idea is way less algs but mine is slightly more efficient.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 21, 2017)

That'd make sense. There'd be a lot of opportunities for partial corner control and such, I think. EO and EP will probably be intuitive, CO would be around 3 times as many algs as OCLL, so 51, and L6CP would be CPLL plus 5 possible corner out of slot cases times 5!/2, so 17+5*60, 317, making ~368 algs. Maybe look at ways to reduce alg count?


----------



## Thermex (Aug 21, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> That'd make sense. There'd be a lot of opportunities for partial corner control and such, I think. EO and EP will probably be intuitive, CO would be around 3 times as many algs as OCLL, so 51, and L6CP would be CPLL plus 5 possible corner out of slot cases times 5!/2, so 17+5*60, 317, making ~368 algs. Maybe look at ways to reduce alg count?


317 algs? I don't really get your calculation, I was thinking if you move the LS corner to the UFR spot the number of cases would just be the 17 CPLL cases+5!, which gives you 127 cases, less than half of what you got. I'm not an expert on this sort of math or anything, and I could easily be wrong, but I feel like maybe you mixed in EP or something...


----------



## VenomCubing (Aug 22, 2017)

I don't know if this method exists or not, but here goes! it is a pyraminx method that I call "Hook". 

Step 1, Hook: Create a "hook", by solving 2 centers and 2 edges on the bottom layer. (One solved edge must be adjacent to both solved centers)

Step 2, C+E: Without destroying the hook, simultaneously solve the remaining center on the bottom and place one of the edges that goes on the top so that its colors match up with the top center (the top center doesn't need to be solved.)

Step 3, L3E: Solve the last three edges, and auf.

Example solve:

*Scramble: l r' u' U' R' L' R' U' B R' L U R' U' B U L B' U R B' U B' L' B

Hook: l' R B U' B'

C+E: r u B' R' B

L3E: U L' U' L R' L R L'

Pros:

Hook is easy to plan out during inspection.

L3E requires very few algorithms.

Cons:

C+E can be tricky to do, and can take time to get used to.


* Sorry the scramble was so long, I got it from the WCA's website.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 22, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> I don't know if this method exists or not, but here goes! it is a pyraminx method that I call "Hook".
> 
> Step 1, Hook: Create a "hook", by solving 2 centers and 2 edges on the bottom layer. (One solved edge must be adjacent to both solved centers)
> 
> ...


I mean... this is basically just L4E but you solve one of the u-layer edges to reduce it to L3E. I actually used something like this for a while while I was learning L4E, the main difference is that I would just solve all three centers and an edge through blockbuilding and then as I inserted my second edge I would try to force one u-layer edge to be solved. So, yeah, this is a good stepping stone toward L4E that's often more efficient than LBL with only 4 "algorithms", but I would just stick with blockbuilding instead of solving a "hook".

While we're talking about pyraminx, I've been thinking of a couple of top-first variants. First one is a super alg-heavy (~100) version of 1-flip, instead of solving the d-layer centers and THEN solving the edges after you make your top, you could just mash both of those steps into one and make it way easier to one look solves. Would this idea just tack on unnecessary algs with no gain or could it actually be viable?

My other idea is just doing keyhole but instead of inserting the last "top" edge and then solving edges, you do an x rotation and then solve the rest with an L4E alg.


----------



## VenomCubing (Aug 22, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I mean... this is basically just L4E but you solve one of the u-layer edges to reduce it to L3E. I actually used something like this for a while while I was learning L4E, the main difference is that I would just solve all three centers and an edge through blockbuilding and then as I inserted my second edge I would try to force one u-layer edge to be solved. So, yeah, this is a good stepping stone toward L4E that's often more efficient than LBL with only 4 "algorithms", but I would just stick with blockbuilding instead of solving a "hook".



Thanks for your feedback! while I see your point, I think that this is more of a variant of L4E than a stepping stone. I plan to use both this and L4E as my main methods, and use whichever one most fits the scramble.

Also, I think your 1-flip esque method could be used, but only if it could be one-looked easily. Maybe you could call it 1-look 1-flip, or 1L1F. That would be cool.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 22, 2017)

VenomCubing said:


> Thanks for your feedback! while I see your point, I think that this is more of a variant of L4E than a stepping stone. I plan to use both this and L4E as my main methods, and use whichever one most fits the scramble.
> 
> Also, I think your 1-flip esque method could be used, but only if it could be one-looked easily. Maybe you could call it 1-look 1-flip, or 1L1F. That would be cool.


Your idea is a viable method but I'm not really understanding why someone would use it if they knew L4E... L4E is basically the same thing but you just don't have to solve any u-layer edges while solving your bottom, making it easier to blockbuild. I think this idea is better than both keyhole and LBL since the L3E algs are like 5 moves on average as opposed to some of the 7-8 move algs in LBL, but it's maybe a bit confusing for newer cubers.

I would still like a bit more feedback on "1L1F" (I think a better name needs to be made for it) before I commit myself to making 100 pyraminx algs with ksolve, but it might be worth it. It's possible solving the centers and edges at the same time makes it a little easier 1-look a solve but doesn't really save any moves, in which case I really don't think the algs are worth generating. 

Actually now that I think about it the only way to figure out is probably to start making the algorithms and seeing how they turn out... so I'll update people if I decide to continue it and eventually release it.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 23, 2017)

Thermex said:


> 317 algs? I don't really get your calculation, I was thinking if you move the LS corner to the UFR spot the number of cases would just be the 17 CPLL cases+5!, which gives you 127 cases, less than half of what you got. I'm not an expert on this sort of math or anything, and I could easily be wrong, but I feel like maybe you mixed in EP or something...


Yeah, I think I overcalculated quite a bit. I didn't account for rotational symmetry. However, the good news is, you did too. You didn't account for parity, so it would only be 77, and even then the number would be cut down by mirrors. As for the pyraminx idea, I don't really think it's worth it, but as you said, the best way to find out would be to gen some algs.


----------



## VenomCubing (Aug 23, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Your idea is a viable method but I'm not really understanding why someone would use it if they knew L4E... L4E is basically the same thing but you just don't have to solve any u-layer edges while solving your bottom, making it easier to blockbuild. I think this idea is better than both keyhole and LBL since the L3E algs are like 5 moves on average as opposed to some of the 7-8 move algs in LBL, but it's maybe a bit confusing for newer cubers.
> 
> I would still like a bit more feedback on "1L1F" (I think a better name needs to be made for it) before I commit myself to making 100 pyraminx algs with ksolve, but it might be worth it. It's possible solving the centers and edges at the same time makes it a little easier 1-look a solve but doesn't really save any moves, in which case I really don't think the algs are worth generating.
> 
> Actually now that I think about it the only way to figure out is probably to start making the algorithms and seeing how they turn out... so I'll update people if I decide to continue it and eventually release it.



I just realized that I could also make my Hook method into a 1-look method as well. It would just require ~125 algorithms to solve the other bottom center and l4e at once. I wish you luck with 1L1F!


----------



## Hazel (Aug 23, 2017)

Well, here's a 3x3 idea:
1) Corner-permutation block: Solve a 1x1x3 block in DL while solving corner permutation
2) Expand into Petrus block using any moves but F and B: I like to do this by solving a Roux block, then expanding
3) EO while preserving CP: this can be done by using Edge-only OLL algs, you should only need one of the three per solve unless 6 edges are misoriented (then you need 2)
4) F2L-1: Basically just a 2x2x1 in the back-right.
5) 2G1LLSLL: 2-gen 1-look last-slot + last layer, or maybe just MMLS. Just what it says: Solve the last slot + last layer in one look after pairing up the LS, every case can be solved with only R/U moves, but some cases may not be 2-gen simply to make things more efficient. I'm not sure exactly how many algs there would be, but definitely less than 340. The recognition isn't actually too bad, I think it's easiest to recognize when you put the last slot in the back-left (when it's an R U2 R' away)

I'm not usually the best at method-making, but I have a feeling this could be a pretty efficient method. It's rotation-less, too, and I'd say pretty ergonomic. Could somebody figure out what the average move count would be?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 23, 2017)

Approximate movecount: 6 CPLine + 12 Petrus block + 7 EO + 7 sq + 5 pair + 13 LL&pair = 50


----------



## Thermex (Aug 23, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Yeah, I think I overcalculated quite a bit. I didn't account for rotational symmetry. However, the good news is, you did too. You didn't account for parity, so it would only be 77, and even then the number would be cut down by mirrors. As for the pyraminx idea, I don't really think it's worth it, but as you said, the best way to find out would be to gen some algs.


Yay! I'll make those algs as soon as I figure out how ksolve works. I always forget I'm making algs for megaminx and not 2×2, that's why I never account for parity 



VenomCubing said:


> I just realized that I could also make my Hook method into a 1-look method as well. It would just require ~125 algorithms to solve the other bottom center and l4e at once. I wish you luck with 1L1F!


The "hook" variation you're thinking of could be good, but I recommend you do some tests with it to see how many moves on average it actually saves from doing regular L4E. It might not be worth genning ~125 algs if they only save 1-2 moves. As for 1L1F, I think I've come up with a better idea that just expands L4E and adds ~30 algs... So basically when you solve your centers, instead of trying to blockbuild two edges on the bottom layer to form a "V", you solve ANY 2 edges on the pyraminx. Most of the time you'll end up with two solved edges on the same layer, in which case you rotate the pyraminx so that that side is on the d-layer and you do L4E, but sometimes you'll have two edges solved that are on opposite sides of each other and end up leaving two u-layer edges and two d-layer edges unsolved. This could be a subest of L4E called "HLE" (the unsolved edges sort of form an H shape, plus H is the first initial of my last name, Higgs) or something like that, and would only be 20-30 algs. As a bottom-first solver myself I think this opens up a lot more options for blockbuilding during solves and is much more useful than learning 1L1F. I'll generate these algorithms as soon as I can, it does seem like a great subset to add on to L4E.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 24, 2017)

Here's another attempt at a 3x3 method:

1: Roux block + CP
2: 2x2x1 + FREO: Just a Roux block minus the FR Corner-edge pair. This is done while making sure whichever edge is in the FR slot is oriented, which adds maybe 1 or 2 turns to this step.
3: LLOB L6E orientation step: Orient all the edges on the last layer while solving DF and DB, with only M/U turns.
4: 2G1LLSLL: connect and insert the last slot while solving last layer all in one look, less than 340 algs and all 2 gen (and not terrible recognition). In my previous method proposal post I called this MMLS, which I might still if this method leads to anything


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Approximate movecount: 9 CPFB + 8 sq&FREO + 8 EODFDB + 5 pair + 13 LSLL = 43


----------



## Hazel (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Approximate movecount: 9 CPFB + 8 sq&FREO + 8 EODFDB + 5 pair + 13 LSLL = 43


Huh, that's pretty alright! and only <340 algs for 2-gen-one-look-last-slot-last-layer/MMLS. Maybe I should start generating the algs for it 

How would one go about solving CPFB with that few moves, though? What's the best/fastest way to solve CP?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Aerma said:


> How would one go about solving CPFB with that few moves, though? What's the best/fastest way to solve CP?



I think the easiest way to do CPFB is to build 3x1x1 + CP using 2GR recog/tracking and then insert the last 2 edges. However, that gets movecounts more around 10-11. To get ~9 moves I think you would have to blockbuild a square, and then insert last edge + corner + finish CP. All this could be done using the 2GR CP system, but it might be difficult.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Approximate movecount: 9 CPFB + 8 sq&FREO + 8 EODFDB + 5 pair + 13 LSLL = 43


Here's a cool CP roux variant, potentially sub-40 moves and less algs than @Aerma's:

1. CPFB (9-10 moves minimum)
2. EOsquare (11 moves?)
3. L5C (9 moves)
4. PL7E (~10 moves I think?)

These is just a layout and I'll optimize it later, but I can see something like this having potential.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

EOsquare sounds like a lot to tackle in 1 step, and L5C while preserving CP is probably going to be longer than 9 moves.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> EOsquare sounds like a lot to tackle in 1 step, and L5C while preserving CP is probably going to be longer than 9 moves.


Yeah, you're probably right, EOsquare would be tough. Maybe this would work? It's basically "PetrusCP":

1. 2×2×3 block+CP (~16 moves? The whole thing probably couldn't be planned out in inspection but I bet a lot of it could)
2. 1×2×2 square on BR (7 moves)
3. Insert the FR edge while solving EO (7 moves)
4. Solve the rest in one alg (this is probably about as many algs as ZBLL, but they're all 2 gen)

With AUFs this is probably about 40 moves. I like the last two steps but maybe the first two steps could be optimized, I found it hard to preserve CP while doing the square.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 24, 2017)

Also with my method, you can divide MMLS (2G1LLSLL) into 2 smaller steps if you like, TSLE and 2-gen TTLL, much fewer cases (than MMLS) but it's two-look rather than one.

@Thermex the 2x2x1 shouldn't be hard to make while preserving CP, just make sure you solve it with R, U, and slice moves only. Our two methods seem very similar, but (no bias intended) I think mine has some advantages. For one thing, by solving DB and DF during your first step you're making it harder to predict the whole first step in inspection, as well as making your EO more difficult because you'd have to use longer algs to make sure CP is preserved. If you solve EO and DB/DF at the same time, however, after you make the 2x2x1 in the back-right, you can limit it to M/U turns and therefore not have to worry about CP preservation. Then, you could just pair up the last F2L pair and insert it while solving LL in <340 R/U algs.


----------



## Arc (Aug 24, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Yeah, you're probably right, EOsquare would be tough. Maybe this would work? It's basically "PetrusCP":
> 
> 1. 2×2×3 block+CP (~16 moves? The whole thing probably couldn't be planned out in inspection but I bet a lot of it could)
> 2. 1×2×2 square on BR (7 moves)
> ...


Wow that is a lot. 2x2x3 itself is really hard to plan in inspection. Add in CP and it's far harder. After that, you're going to have misoriented edges which means that the square is going to be very difficult to make (not nearly 7 moves), especially since you can't orient them with F. You're basically going to be breaking and restoring DF/DB every other move. Solving EO while inserting FR will also be very difficult for the same reason.



Aerma said:


> Also with my method, you can divide MMLS (2G1LLSLL) into 2 smaller steps if you like, TSLE and 2-gen TTLL, much fewer cases (than MMLS) but it's two-look rather than one.
> 
> @Thermex the 2x2x1 shouldn't be hard to make while preserving CP, just make sure you solve it with R, U, and slice moves only.


TSLE TTLL is not a good LSLL. It was a neat idea but in application it's just not good. It's got a high case count and high move count, with mediocre ergonomics.
I honestly don't think that you will find a 2gen LSLL that beats F2L 2GLL. It's got excellent move count and ergonomics, easy recognition, and with only 84 algs, which is just over CFOP.

Also MMLS is 2 looks. You have a look to form the pair, then a look for the alg. The difference between this and F2L 2GLL is that you've got almost 4 times the algs, much harder recognition, and probably save maybe half a move on average. You could maybe save a whole move if you doubled the alg count to include the sexy insert setup in addition to the unsexy insert setup, but I think that that's less worth it. I will do some move count analysis and post the results.


----------



## efattah (Aug 24, 2017)

I always like to read this thread and check out the latest ideas, but in my opinion there is a great deal of postulating a new method (even a good one), then forgetting about it and postulating another method, without ever developing any one of them. I suggest picking what you feel is the most promising method and develop it for at least 3 months, and provide updates every few weeks as the method evolves, as the algorithms are tweaked for speed and finger tricks, lookahead is determined to be good or bad, etc...

I have been working on the same method for a year and a half and still have massive amounts of optimization to do, but I do feel focusing on one method is the better approach -- until and unless you feel the method is a dud and you move on to another one.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 24, 2017)

efattah said:


> I always like to read this thread and check out the latest ideas, but in my opinion there is a great deal of postulating a new method (even a good one), then forgetting about it and postulating another method, without ever developing any one of them. I suggest picking what you feel is the most promising method and develop it for at least 3 months, and provide updates every few weeks as the method evolves, as the algorithms are tweaked for speed and finger tricks, lookahead is determined to be good or bad, etc...
> 
> I have been working on the same method for a year and a half and still have massive amounts of optimization to do, but I do feel focusing on one method is the better approach -- until and unless you feel the method is a dud and you move on to another one.


I can honestly say I agree with this 100%. A lot of the time I have lots of method ideas but most of the time after only a little probing I find they're duds. This is why most of what I've done (I hope) has been reasonably new/good. 

Basically I just throw a load of ideas at a wall, see what sticks then take a cleaner to see which are really stuck and continue to focus on them more than anything else.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 24, 2017)

@Arc alright, yeah maybe MMLS is dumb, but what about the rest of it? CPFB, 2x2x1 in RB (+EO of FR), EODFDB, last slot + 2GLL.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Approximate movecount: 9 CPFB + 8 sq&FREO + 8 EODFDB + 7 LS + 13 2GLL = 45


----------



## Arc (Aug 24, 2017)

Aerma said:


> @Arc alright, yeah maybe MMLS is dumb, but what about the rest of it? CPFB, 2x2x1 in RB (+EO of FR), EODFDB, last slot + 2GLL.


I think that waiting to do LS after EO isn't helpful at all. It makes EODFDB not possible to do with pure MU and as a reward for your harder EODFDB, you get a harder LS too. Better just to do CPFB SB EODFDB 2GLL, since both EODFDB and LS will be easier.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Approximate movecount: 9 CPFB + 13 SB + 8 EODFDB + 13 2GLL = 43


----------



## Thermex (Aug 24, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> I can honestly say I agree with this 100%. A lot of the time I have lots of method ideas but most of the time after only a little probing I find they're duds. This is why most of what I've done (I hope) has been reasonably new/good.
> 
> Basically I just throw a load of ideas at a wall, see what sticks then take a cleaner to see which are really stuck and continue to focus on them more than anything else.


That's more I less what I'm doing, the reason I've proposed so many methods is just to see if anything sticks or if anything inspires someone to change it and make something really good. In the past this has worked: Ribbon was developed because I proposed a sorta meh method that JTay messaged me about and ended up optimizing, BOPE was also developed off a mediocre idea Crafto posted that I saw potential in. I think you're right though that eventually you have to stick with something, so I think I'll just stop posting mediocre ideas for a little while so I can work on BOPE and skewb TCLL.

@Aerma I think you and everyone else on this thread should continue to brainstorm CProux variants, I really don't know enough about CP to give much input but I'm sure something will come out of it. I honestly think right now the classic CPRoux Teoidus just proposed above is the best. CPRoux variant, but there might be something better.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Here's an idea:

1. Trigger pairs: Solve corners at DLB+DRB, solve edges at DL+DR, reduce remaining 6 corners to <R U* R', L U* L', U>
2. Expand pairs to squares, then F2B
3. EODFDB
4. 2GLL

Approximate movecount: 8 pairs + 8 squares + 12 pairs + 8 EODFDB + 13 2GLL = 49


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 24, 2017)

how about we reduce to <R2,L2,F2,B2,U,D> then we solve it

any thoughts???


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 24, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> how about we reduce to <R2,L2,F2,B2,U,D> then we solve it
> 
> any thoughts???


That's SSC


----------



## Thermex (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Here's an idea:
> 
> 1. Trigger pairs: Solve corners at DLB+DRB, solve edges at DL+DR, reduce remaining 6 corners to <R U* R', L U* L', U>
> 2. Expand pairs to squares, then F2B
> ...


This is basically "CPBope". Not a bad idea but I think the original CPRoux idea you posted is much more efficient.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Ok, on taking a closer look at BOPE I've been inspired to propose the following (which I will call the TT method for teoidus). The blocks are solved in a somewhat different order because I think this way will be more ergonomic and have better flow.

1. Big Block: instead of Blocks from BOPE, which solves 2 1x2x2s on L and R, I solve a single 1x2x3 on L. This allows for greater flexibility in blockbuilding (for example, attaching a 1x1x3 to another 1x1x3 or building 1x2x2 + a corner and then keyholing in the edge), reduces the remainder of the solve to pseudo2gen <R,r,U,M>, and takes care of one of the 6 corners that would have to be otherwise solved by OSC/PSC.
2. Square + corner: build a 1x2x2 on R + solve the DFR corner. Often the DFR corner solution can be cancelled into the square solution, yielding even further efficiency gains and solving a second of the 6 corners otherwise dealt with by OSC/PSC.
3. CLL (OSC+PSC in one step): since 2 of 6 corners have already been solved, we can simultaneously orient and permute the LL corners with an algset 42 wide, skipping PSC 100% of the time!
4. L7E: many strategies described by @shadowslice e can be employed in this step. The entire step is <R,U,M> so guaranteed to be ergonomic, and lookahead is as easy as in LSE.

Approximate movecount: 7 Big block + 10 sq&corner + 9 CLL + 17 L7E = 43

Additional algs could easily reduce L7E movecount. I could see this potentially averaging 35 moves or even less with additional algsets.


----------



## efattah (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Ok, on taking a closer look at BOPE I've been inspired to propose the following (which I will call the TT method for teoidus). The blocks are solved in a somewhat different order because I think this way will be more ergonomic and have better flow.
> 
> 1. Big Block: instead of Blocks from BOPE, which solves 2 1x2x2s on L and R, I solve a single 1x2x3 on L. This allows for greater flexibility in blockbuilding (for example, attaching a 1x1x3 to another 1x1x3 or building 1x2x2 + a corner and then keyholing in the edge), reduces the remainder of the solve to pseudo2gen <R,r,U,M>, and takes care of one of the 6 corners that would have to be otherwise solved by OSC/PSC.
> 2. Square + corner: build a 1x2x2 on R + solve the DFR corner. Often the DFR corner solution can be cancelled into the square solution, yielding even further efficiency gains and solving a second of the 6 corners otherwise dealt with by OSC/PSC.
> ...



Isn't this just one of the original WaterRoux variants? Crafto's L7E method is the only one that even approaches 17 moves and I think it was closer to 18. However I had some skepticism about its recognition and speed though.

Other than the LMCF that I am still working on, I would like to see concentrated development on BOPE, ZBRoux, and possibly other WaterRoux variants. Is anyone still working on ECE/SSC, 2GR, 2GRoux? Perhaps we can generate a list of the actual methods that are being seriously worked on.

I am still working on the Waterman Set 2 algorithms (48 on R, 48 on L), as well as set 7 (qty 24), I have been finger trick optimizing them and regenerating the bad ones, etc., it is time consuming but this particular set applies to all methods which finish with L7E.

What is most interesting is how using the left side reflections doesn't work at all. You need totally regenerated algorithms for the left side cases.

My favorite recent discovery is a set 7 algorithm on the left side:
F' R U M2 U' R' F
Swaps UL, FL (both disoriented), and orients midges (2 bad midges on DF, BD).
This algorithm can be done in 0.5 seconds or possibly much faster by an expert.

I would mention that the above algorithm was not discovered by an algorithm generator tool. I have stopped (for the most part) using algorithm generators. Instead I fiddle around with random highly ergonomic sequences and see what they do to the cube. The above sequence was discovered during these 'fiddle sessions' and I found it could replace an existing Waterman Set 7L algorithm. I spend around 30 minutes a day trying new ergonomic sequences and checking their effect. Once in a while the effect is really useful and can be incorporated into my method.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Ok, on taking a closer look at BOPE I've been inspired to propose the following (which I will call the TT method for teoidus). The blocks are solved in a somewhat different order because I think this way will be more ergonomic and have better flow.
> 
> 1. Big Block: instead of Blocks from BOPE, which solves 2 1x2x2s on L and R, I solve a single 1x2x3 on L. This allows for greater flexibility in blockbuilding (for example, attaching a 1x1x3 to another 1x1x3 or building 1x2x2 + a corner and then keyholing in the edge), reduces the remainder of the solve to pseudo2gen <R,r,U,M>, and takes care of one of the 6 corners that would have to be otherwise solved by OSC/PSC.
> 2. Square + corner: build a 1x2x2 on R + solve the DFR corner. Often the DFR corner solution can be cancelled into the square solution, yielding even further efficiency gains and solving a second of the 6 corners otherwise dealt with by OSC/PSC.
> ...


This is pretty different from BOPE, and I though of an idea a while ago that almost the exact same thing and maybe saves a move or two with less algs:

1. FB
2. BR square
3. VOP L5E: this solves the last 5 corners in a similar way to OSC/PSC
4. Crafto's L7E method

EDIT: I typed this up as @efattah posted his response, so you probably don't need to look through both. As he said, this sort of idea was proposed a while ago in the WaterRoux thread and is pretty good.

@efattah as far as I know the only methods that are really being worked on right now are our two methods, LMCF and BOPE. BOPE progress is slow, nobody's really helping me right now with OSC/PSC and I'm yet to find a great way to do L8E. One thing I've though about recently is using TEG with BOPE, it saves a move or two to use a TEG and potentially push Bope under 40 moves. I think it's only worth it to use TEG for LSC if you already know the algs from 2×2, though.

As for the other methods you mentioned, nobody's really found a CPRoux variant that has stuck, and I really think someone just needs to figure out how to do CPFB until it goes anywhere. I believe ZBRoux/LLOB has already been fully developed, as has 2GR. WaterRoux was sort of abandoned since Bope looks better, but it could make a resurgence.


----------



## efattah (Aug 24, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I believe ZBRoux/LLOB has already been fully developed, as has 2GR.



For ZBRoux the method is developed from a technical standpoint but there is still not a single person who knows full ZBLL and has the DFDBEO algorithms memorized, so we don't even have a sample size of 1, to get speed comparison estimates vs. CFOP or Roux... By 'developing a method' I mean to imply that there is at least one person who has memorized all the algorithms and can execute full speed solves with it, and has been using it as a 'main' method (even temporarily) for a few months.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Thermex said:


> This is pretty different from BOPE, and I though of an idea a while ago that almost the exact same thing and maybe saves a move or two with less algs:
> 
> 1. FB
> 2. BR square
> ...



This idea is very different from that method and from WaterRoux because it has more of a focus on ergonomics and takes much fewer algorithms and might be the first method to have the potential for sub-40 or even sub-35 movecounts. OSC/PSC are integrated into the other steps to skip PSC 100% of the time with just 42 algorithms. Additional algorithms can be learnt to solve the last edge + corners of last layer, reducing movecount even further (for example Tyrannical Caterpillar which I was inspired by partially and is less efficient than TT).

I think we all should start looking into TT method and variants to try and develop it. Perhaps you should try and modify BOPE to incorporate some of the more efficient aspects of TT instead and meanwhile I can investigate some ways to finish L7E in even less than 17 moves.


----------



## Arc (Aug 24, 2017)

Thermex said:


> This is pretty different from BOPE, and I though of an idea a while ago that almost the exact same thing and maybe saves a move or two with less algs:
> 
> 1. FB
> 2. BR square
> ...


I am doing Briggs (or a variation of it, semantics) which uses CPFB. It seems promising and has the most ergonomic solutions I've ever seen, with a comparatively low move count and 84 algs. The problem is just CPFB (this step is very hard) and EO recognition immediately after (9 edge EO).

(If you're curious):
CPFB
EO 2x2x3
F2L
2GLL




efattah said:


> For ZBRoux the method is developed from a technical standpoint but there is still not a single person who knows full ZBLL and has the DFDBEO algorithms memorized, so we don't even have a sample size of 1, to get speed comparison estimates vs. CFOP or Roux... By 'developing a method' I mean to imply that there is at least one person who has memorized all the algorithms and can execute full speed solves with it, and has been using it as a 'main' method (even temporarily) for a few months.


There aren't really EODFDB algs. It's extremely similar to EOLR. Besides that point, Tao Yu knows full ZBLL and said he would try ZBRoux out. However it's not _too _relevant, because the difference between ZBRoux with COLL/EPLL and ZBRoux with ZBLL is the same as the difference between ZZ with COLL/EPLL and ZZ with ZBLL. Since we know the difference (roughly, there's still contention) between COLL/EPLL and ZBLL, and we can do ZBRoux with COLL/EPLL, we can safely speak of ZBRoux with ZBLL. However your point on someone using it as a main method is definitely relevant. However the first two steps of ZBRoux are exactly the same as Roux, and that is _extremely _developed. Really what we are left with is EODFDB as the remaining unknown in the equation. I was actually using ZBRoux with COLL/EPLL myself for about a month and a half, and found EODFDB to be a little awkward (felt like a lot more M than M' when compared to LSE, in particular). However I don't consider myself an expert on it by any means and would still like to see other people play with the step. My gut feeling on it is that ZBRoux is a good method but that having multiple CMLLs for EOLR influence and still having fewer algs tips the scales slightly in the favor of Roux.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> This idea is very different from that method and from WaterRoux because it has more of a focus on ergonomics and takes much fewer algorithms and might be the first method to have the potential for sub-40 or even sub-35 movecounts. OSC/PSC are integrated into the other steps to skip PSC 100% of the time with just 42 algorithms. Additional algorithms can be learnt to solve the last edge + corners of last layer, reducing movecount even further (for example Tyrannical Caterpillar which I was inspired by partially and is less efficient than TT).
> 
> I think we all should start looking into TT method and variants to try and develop it. Perhaps you should try and modify BOPE to incorporate some of the more efficient aspects of TT instead and meanwhile I can investigate some ways to finish L7E in even less than 17 moves.


I don't really see how your idea here could achieve sub-40/35 movecounts, it's literally just Roux with the FR edge unsolved during LSE. Variants of this idea could be developed, but at the current moment I think both Tyrannical Catterpillar and BOPE are a bit better than "TT". I definitely would like to look into ways to solve L7E/L8E with you, though.

Btw using VOP for the last five corners is both more efficient and less algs than doing 1 corner+CMLL.


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 24, 2017)

efattah said:


> For ZBRoux the method is developed from a technical standpoint but there is still not a single person who knows full ZBLL and has the DFDBEO algorithms memorized, so we don't even have a sample size of 1, to get speed comparison estimates vs. CFOP or Roux... By 'developing a method' I mean to imply that there is at least one person who has memorized all the algorithms and can execute full speed solves with it, and has been using it as a 'main' method (even temporarily) for a few months.



Where can I find DFDBEO algorithms?

I just finished full ZBLL, and I'm decent at F2B and EOLR. I have been averaging 11-13 seconds with ZBroux. At least I'm trying?


----------



## efattah (Aug 24, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> This idea is very different from that method and from WaterRoux because it has more of a focus on ergonomics and takes much fewer algorithms



The very first proposal for WaterRoux was to omit the FR edge, do CMLL, then solve L7E (which is what you are proposing). Later CMLL was replaced with TCMLL allowing the FRD corner to be solved at the same time as the upper corners. Later full WaterRoux ignored the second block entirely and used TLEG-1.

All of these have potential, as well as tyrannical caterpillar. But I don't think any get sub-40 move counts, and indeed it is really starting to become clear that move counts are not really that important, ergonomics, high TPS, good look ahead are much more important.

As an example, I have been experimenting with dummy move injections. I have found that in certain algorithms, injecting dummy moves that have no effect can speed up an algorithm, by eliminating regrips. This increases the movecount and decreases the time to execute the algorithm.


----------



## efattah (Aug 24, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> Where can I find DFDBEO algorithms?
> 
> I just finished full ZBLL, and I'm decent at F2B and EOLR. I have been averaging 11-13 seconds with ZBroux. At least I'm trying?



Critical Cubing is the only one who has the algorithms, I think.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 24, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I don't really see how your idea here could achieve sub-40/35 movecounts, it's literally just Roux with the FR edge unsolved during LSE. Variants of this idea could be developed, but at the current moment I think both Tyrannical Catterpillar and BOPE are a bit better than "TT". I definitely would like to look into ways to solve L7E/L8E with you, though.
> 
> Btw using VOP for the last five corners is both more efficient and less algs than doing 1 corner+CMLL.



Without having done whole solves or seen some of the 6-move CLL cases I think you might not have noticed the efficiency gains of approaching LS/L10P in this way. In addition the solve flows much better compared to BOPE and does not require a pause during an algorithm as Tyrannical Caterpillar does. Overall this is to be the most efficient roux-like method for 3⊗3/BOPE variant, giving a PSC skip every time and being mostly <R,r,U,M> pseudo2gen so it is built around super fast move sequences like efattah has been suggesting recently. This method is an inspired combination of the best features of 3⊗3 method development that have been proposed so far and I think it has the potential to average sub-40 moves on average:

6-7 Big block (minimum?)
7 square + place DRF?
9 CLL + orient DRF (or even less? I've found several 7-8 movers for this step)
17 L7E ? or even less


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 24, 2017)

This thread seems to be a reasonable place to ask but what do you mean by a "compromise method" @efattah?


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Without having done whole solves or seen some of the 6-move CLL cases I think you might not have noticed the efficiency gains of approaching LS/L10P in this way. In addition the solve flows much better compared to BOPE and does not require a pause during an algorithm as Tyrannical Caterpillar does. Overall this is to be the most efficient roux-like method for 3⊗3/BOPE variant, giving a PSC skip every time and being mostly <R,r,U,M> pseudo2gen so it is built around super fast move sequences like efattah has been suggesting recently. This method is an inspired combination of the best features of 3⊗3 method development that have been proposed so far and I think it has the potential to average sub-40 moves on average:
> 
> 6-7 Big block (minimum?)
> 7 square + place DRF?
> ...


Until a sub-15 move method is created for solving L7E (which could probably be made) I really don't see how this could be sub-40 moves. FB is 7, SB+DFR is more like 9 in my experience (I have in fact done example solves with this method), CLL is 9, and L7E is 17. Mix in AUFS and the total is around 44 moves, just a bit higher than Bope. This is highly ergonomic and pretty low-algorithm, so 44 is really good, but as @efattah pointed out things like this (if not exactly this) were proposed during the early development of WaterRoux. And also I still think using VOP L5E is better than inserting the DFR corner and then doing CLL, it's about the same amount of moves with half the algorithms.


efattah said:


> The very first proposal for WaterRoux was to omit the FR edge, do CMLL, then solve L7E (which is what you are proposing). Later CMLL was replaced with TCMLL allowing the FRD corner to be solved at the same time as the upper corners. Later full WaterRoux ignored the second block entirely and used TLEG-1.
> 
> All of these have potential, as well as tyrannical caterpillar. But I don't think any get sub-40 move counts, and indeed it is really starting to become clear that move counts are not really that important, ergonomics, high TPS, good look ahead are much more important.
> 
> As an example, I have been experimenting with dummy move injections. I have found that in certain algorithms, injecting dummy moves that have no effect can speed up an algorithm, by eliminating regrips. This increases the movecount and decreases the time to execute the algorithm.


I'm just starting to realize this more as I cube. There are so many times when I create a TEG algorithm and the 10-11 moves RUF algs are way faster than the 7-8 RUFLxy ones, proving that really, it's just about how fast you can execute the solve. The obsession over movecount is a bit like the obsession over how FAST a cube is, theoretically if the cube turns faster you can get faster times, just like how theoretically if a method has less moves you could get faster times with it.
I see @efattah do this sometimes, and I think we should all start doing this along with movecount as it's just as important. Beside the number of projected moves of a step, also include how fast a Zemdegs-speed solver could do it. After all, cubing is for speed, not moves (unless you're doing FMC).

@Teoidus what I think we really need to do is just make methods (together if you have time) for solving L7E & L8E. Even if we disagree on which method is faster between Bope and TT, these algsets are relevant to both of our methods and any future ones too.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> Where can I find DFDBEO algorithms?
> 
> I just finished full ZBLL, and I'm decent at F2B and EOLR. I have been averaging 11-13 seconds with ZBroux. At least I'm trying?


There are no real "new" algs for ZBRoux, EODBDF is literally just EOLR but you pretend that the DF and DB edges are the LR edges. Good luck with ZBRoux


----------



## Hazel (Aug 25, 2017)

So... I kinda made a method that isn't super good or anything but is really fun at least:
1: 2x2x2 block
2: Solve remaining 3 F2L pairs
3: Insert one of the two last First Layer edges, then the second with EODF
4: COLL --> EPLL

I just got a 19.90 mean of 24 with a 14.83 single and 16.97 Mo3


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

Approximate movecount: 6 2x2x2 + 3*6 pairs + 3 DR + 7 EODF + 9 COLL + 8 EPLL = 51


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

And, on a more serious note: I did have to do some sincere investigation into L7E for "TT" and 17 move average is definitely possible. Here are the first few example solves I constructed. All solutions are found intuitively:

17 stm
17 stm
17 stm
17 stm
16 stm
18 stm

Here is the basic process I'm using:

```
if (<= 2 moves to solve place a solved edge at UR)
  M* U* R LSE R'
elif (FR oriented)
  EOFR L6EP
else
  EO+forceULUR/UFUB opposite FR L6EP
end
```


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> And, on a more serious note: I did have to do some sincere investigation into L7E for "TT" and 17 move average is definitely possible. Here are the first few example solves I constructed. All solutions are found intuitively:
> 
> 17 stm
> 17 stm
> ...


A 17 move L7E is definitely possible, as is a 17 move L8E. Now I know I've posted a lot of CPRoux garbage today, but I just thought of this one and it has to be one of the best methods ever proposed:

1. CPFB (minimum 9 moves, hopefully @Arc can update us how to do this most efficiently)
2. SB-DFR corner (probably around 9 moves as well, maybe 10)
3. EODFDB (8 moves)
4. Solve the rest in one alg (~200 algs? I have no idea. I actually think the recog for this step would be pretty good. ~10 moves, 2 gen too)

This has a lot going for it, it's ergonomic, pseudo 2-gen after the first step, rotationless, sub-38 moves and probably less than 250 algs. I would like some opinions before I work on this, but I think this has SERIOUS potential and is maybe the best method ever proposed.

EDIT: Looking back on this, I kinda think I might scrap Bope to work on this. I have no doubt in my mind that this'll be my main method. Should this just be called CPRoux or should we maybe make a more creative name?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

Approximate movecount: 9 CPFB + 9 SB-DFR + 8 EODFDB + 15 remainder = 41


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Approximate movecount: 9 CPFB + 9 SB-DFR + 8 EODFDB + 15 remainder = 41


15 moves for 1 alg?? I kinda doubt that, but you are the expert on 2GLL. You should run some tests on it (I don't have HARCS).


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> A 17 move L7E is definitely possible, as is a 17 move L8E.





efattah said:


> Crafto's L7E method is the only one that even approaches 17 moves and I think it was closer to 18.



thinking.gif


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> 15 moves for 1 alg?? I kinda doubt that, but you are the expert on 2GLL. You should run some tests on it (I don't have HARCS).



Maybe @Arc will run it or something, but I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Maybe @Arc will run it or something, but I wouldn't be surprised.


I gotta practice piano right now, but later I'll gen some sample algs to get an idea of the movecount. Even if it 15 moves, a 41 move total is still really good for ~250 algs.


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> 15 moves for 1 alg?? I kinda doubt that, but you are the expert on 2GLL. You should run some tests on it (I don't have HARCS).


2GLL is 13.15 HTM for optimal <R,U> algs.






Here is the analysis on your method. Note that these are optimal numbers. In a human speed solve, CPFB will likely be closer to 9, SB- will probably be around 9-10, EODFDB I'd say is closer to 9, and 15 for 2GLL+DFR since that is just algs, totaling at around 43, which is pretty good. Overall I wasn't expecting this to be this low. I don't have the beta version of HARCS that can give you the alg count for a step and I don't want to do that by hand.

Unrelated, here are some stats for Briggs:









And here is the HARCS run leaving out DFR and solving it with 2GLL:


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Arc said:


> 2GLL is 13.15 HTM for optimal <R,U> algs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, so the movecounts are a bit higher than I expected, but still potentially sub-40. I would use these movecounts and time splits for someone who maybe is about as fast as Feliks is with CFOP:

1. CPFB (9 moves that are planned out in inspection, ~1 second)
2. Square on BR+FR edge (9 moves, maybe 2 seconds)
3. EODFDB (really more like 8 moves since optimal solutions are probably the fastest when you're doing <MU> turning, about another second)
4. 2GLS (I actually would be willing to make some 3-gen algs for this step of they're a faster/more ergonomic than the 2-gen ones, so probably more like 12-13 moves. Algs could probably be recognized and preformed in around 1.5 seconds. @Arc are you able to test this step without it being 2 gen? That would be helpful)

With these splits, the method is about 40 moves and could be done in sub 6 seconds on average by someone who's mastered it. It's also rotationless and only about 250 algs, which are huge plusses. I think I'll go ahead and make the 2GLSLL algs in the upcoming week or so. Tomorrow I'll probably do a megapost on this method with proposed names, tricks, Alg samples and more.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> With these splits, the method is about 40 moves and could be done in sub 6 seconds on average by someone who's mastered it.



You can say the same of @shadowslice e 's 42- with just 42 algs


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> You can say the same of @shadowslice e 's 42- with just 42 algs


What method did he propose that was 42 moves? Whatever it is it probably isnt quite as ergonomic as this.


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> What method did he propose that was 42 moves? Whatever it is it probably isnt quite as ergonomic as this.


The method name is 42.

I don't think 1 second is realistic for CPFB. World class Roux solvers average about 1.3 for normal FB. They're obviously not perfect, but because CPFB is a bit harder I'd say that a Feliks-level+ solver of a method with CPFB could maybe get down to 1.2ish with x2 y color neutrality. At 7-8ish moves that is 6-7 TPS which is quite good for the somewhat awkward move group.

I don't think you will find much faster algs that aren't 2gen.


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> What method did he propose that was 42 moves? Whatever it is it probably isnt quite as ergonomic as this.


yo guys, roux is sub 40 moves too. the real question is how efficient these methods are in speedsolves.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Arc said:


> The method name is 42.
> 
> I don't think 1 second is realistic for CPFB. World class Roux solvers average about 1.3 for normal FB. They're obviously not perfect, but because CPFB is a bit harder I'd say that a Feliks-level+ solver of a method with CPFB could maybe get down to 1.2ish with x2 y color neutrality. At 7-8ish moves that is 6-7 TPS which is quite good for the somewhat awkward move group.
> 
> I don't think you will find much faster algs that aren't 2gen.


Sure, 1.5 seconds for CPFB. I'll check out 42 tomorrow, I gotta go to bed.


GuRoux said:


> yo guys, roux is sub 40 moves too. the real question is how efficient these methods are in speedsolves.


How do you get sub-40 with Roux? Like I've seen some pretty efficient variants but nothing sub 40. And you make a good point, we can't prove how fast any of this is until someone actually gens the algs and learns it.

P.S. I made a huge math error on the last step I'm calling PLS, I'll talk more about that tomorrow.


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> How do you get sub-40 with Roux? Like I've seen some pretty efficient variants but nothing sub 40. And you make a good point, we can't prove how fast any of this is until someone actually gens the algs and learns it.



just use a lot of tricks and think longer for more efficient blockbuilding. i probably can average around 40 doing minute solves and i would assume many others can too. the problem is that when speedsolving, not doing the tricks and looking for more efficiency is often faster. 

9 moves for CPFB would be awesome even just for regular roux; so i'm interested in that.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 25, 2017)

GuRoux said:


> yo guys, roux is sub 40 moves too. the real question is how efficient these methods are in speedsolves.


In defense of 42 the movecounts I use are the same movecounts which a reasonably good roux solver would get in a speedsolve and more advanced versions would be more efficient (16/8/17+AUFs)


Thermex said:


> What method did he propose that was 42 moves? Whatever it is it probably isnt quite as ergonomic as this.


There have been a few things that I proposed which can be sub-40 moves all of which are reasonably ergonomic- 42-, M-CELL and variants of SSC. I will concede that M-CELL requires a fair amount of algs to do so (~300 iirc) and the SSC variant is not really speedsolvable though 42- is pretty ergonomic, reasonably low algcount and the movecounts are achievable in a speedsolve.


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2017)

GuRoux said:


> 9 moves for CPFB would be awesome even just for regular roux; so i'm interested in that.


Generally solving CP during FB is as simple as throwing in an extra R or U where they don't affect any block pieces or by inserting the pair slightly differently. Meaning your CPFB solution will only be a move or two more than your normal FB solution. However, identifying these couple of moves is quite difficult. I'm using a slightly generalized version of @Teoidus' 2GR tracking. The jist is that you recognize your "key swap" via the identities of 3 specific corners based on the permutation of your DR corners in relation to your "base" corner, which is just whichever corner you put in the block first. Then you track how the key swap changes while you are building your square (this is the hard part) using a handful (12ish) 4-cycles of key swaps called quadruples. Finally it's trivial to insert the final pair while solving CP with knowledge of your key swap (the process is simply to move the second piece of the key swap to UBR before inserting the final pair with an F move, or more generally any move parallel to the F/B sticker of your base corner).

A few of us had come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it for Roux since the CP solved CMLLs aren't particularly better than the others, but you've got much more knowledge in that area so I'd love to hear your take on it. Another option to consider is forcing a diagonal swap, which is just as easy as forcing no swap. Forcing an adjacent swap is also the same, but the 4 adjacent swaps are identical when you get to CMLL because it's the orientation of the pieces that matters, not their identity, meaning you'd cut down to 2/3 the cases as opposed to 1/6 with solved/diag.


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Sure, 1.5 seconds for CPFB. I'll check out 42 tomorrow, I gotta go to bed.
> 
> How do you get sub-40 with Roux? Like I've seen some pretty efficient variants but nothing sub 40. And you make a good point, we can't prove how fast any of this is until someone actually gens the algs and learns it.
> 
> P.S. I made a huge math error on the last step I'm calling PLS, I'll talk more about that tomorrow.


Depending on how you divide it up, HARCS gives 38-40 for optimal Roux. Obviously human SB will be a handful of moves more, however the other steps are fairly close to optimal in human execution, and color neutrality and influencing EOLR during CMLL still drop quite a few moves off the solution. Simple EOLR L4E generally results in an LSE solution within a move of optimal.

Overall Roux is an superb method. Excellent move count, good ergonomics, and medium alg count (assuming two algs per CMLL). I'd say the largest drawbacks of Roux are CMLL recognition, leaving DB unsolved for so long, and the MU move group of LSE, all of which are minor.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 25, 2017)

Two easy questions for you, experts: How is called this method, and how many moves per step:

1. 1st Roux block (left)
2. EO-DFDB (=EO-line)
3. Right block
4. ZBLL

Many thanks


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> Two easy questions for you, experts: How is called this method, and how many moves per step:
> 
> 1. 1st Roux block (left)
> 2. EO-DFDB (=EO-line)
> ...


I have yet to see a name for this method, despite having used it myself. It is essentially Briggs without the CP part. Roux block is 7-8, F2L should be around 13, ZBLL is about 14. As for EODFDB, since you don't have CP solved, you have the option to use F/B. If you don't use F/B, it's around 10, I'm not sure what it is if you do.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> Two easy questions for you, experts: How is called this method, and how many moves per step:
> 
> 1. 1st Roux block (left)
> 2. EO-DFDB (=EO-line)
> ...



Approximate movecount: 7 FB + 10 EODFDB + 13 SB + 14 ZBLL = 44


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

GuRoux said:


> just use a lot of tricks and think longer for more efficient blockbuilding. i probably can average around 40 doing minute solves and i would assume many others can too. the problem is that when speedsolving, not doing the tricks and looking for more efficiency is often faster.
> 
> 9 moves for CPFB would be awesome even just for regular roux; so i'm interested in that.


I agree with this; Roux_ could_ be sub-40 in an optimal solution, but during speedsolves (at least the ones I use with it) I get movecounts closer to 47-48 (I don't use EOLR and have far from optimal blockbuilding, so of course it's a bit lower for people like you). My point though, is that during speedsolves my method actually does regularly achieve sub-40 movecounts, while being around 37 moves optimal. 4 moves isn't a huge difference; you basically end up adding ~2 moves to FB so that later in the solve you can one-look both LS+CMLL and LSE. It adds ~300 algs for the same reason ZBLL adds 400 algs to CFOP LL: to veer closer to a sub-40 movecount while only sacrificing the amount of time needed to learn huge alg sets. In no way is this method a "replacement" or "upgrade" from standard Roux; it just saves a few moves, maybe a full second and some of the time needed to recognize the steps that are skipped in this method by using CPFB (LS pair & LSE 4C). It has the same great efficient, ergonomic, and rotationless approach Roux has but with 350 more algorithms. It's simply for people willing to go the extra mile to save an extra second from a solve, just like ZBLL.


Arc said:


> Generally solving CP during FB is as simple as throwing in an extra R or U where they don't affect any block pieces or by inserting the pair slightly differently. Meaning your CPFB solution will only be a move or two more than your normal FB solution. However, identifying these couple of moves is quite difficult. I'm using a slightly generalized version of @Teoidus' 2GR tracking. The jist is that you recognize your "key swap" via the identities of 3 specific corners based on the permutation of your DR corners in relation to your "base" corner, which is just whichever corner you put in the block first. Then you track how the key swap changes while you are building your square (this is the hard part) using a handful (12ish) 4-cycles of key swaps called quadruples. Finally it's trivial to insert the final pair while solving CP with knowledge of your key swap (the process is simply to move the second piece of the key swap to UBR before inserting the final pair with an F move, or more generally any move parallel to the F/B sticker of your base corner).
> 
> A few of us had come to the conclusion that it isn't worth it for Roux since the CP solved CMLLs aren't particularly better than the others, but you've got much more knowledge in that area so I'd love to hear your take on it. Another option to consider is forcing a diagonal swap, which is just as easy as forcing no swap. Forcing an adjacent swap is also the same, but the 4 adjacent swaps are identical when you get to CMLL because it's the orientation of the pieces that matters, not their identity, meaning you'd cut down to 2/3 the cases as opposed to 1/6 with solved/diag.


I had a lot of the same thoughts running through my head last night; I've always thought of 2GR as more of a way to cut down on the amount of ZBLL cases rather than making a solve particularly more efficient. Reducing the corners to 2 gen definitely makes sense in a ZZ solve, but maybe during CPRRoux forcing a diag-swap PLS gives you better cases. I definitely don't think forcing an adjaceant swap is a good idea, there would be WAY too many algs for PLS. Today I'll take about 10 sample algs from both 2GR no-swap cases and diag-swap algorithms and see which ones are better. @Arc if you have time maybe you could run some tests for them in case the cases I pick out are outliers.

@Pyjam I'm a bit confused about the second step of the method you just proposed, does it orient all edges or just DF, DB and the u-layer ones? If it's only those six than this is pretty much just ZBRoux, with the difference that it works better for OH (you don't need m slices for EOD)

There's also a couple more things I'd like to mention about CPRoux PLS/Higgs. First off, yesterday I had a complete mental lapse and forgot to include corner permutation in my evaluation of how many algorithms the last step would be. Turns out it's in the mid 400s, which is close to double of what I predicted originally and just a little less than full ZBLL. In total the method is now around 500 algs, which is why I'm considering this being more like the "ZBLL" of Roux and less like medium alg method for anyone to learn.
Second, here's an idea I thought of to reduce the amount of algs in the last step while only adding a couple of moves: phasing the FR edge. Basically you do:

1. FB
2. BRSquare
3. EOD
4. Insert the FR edge and phase the u-layer edges
5. L5C

This is about as many algs and has similar movecounts as Roux with EOLR, making it a great stepping stone to learning full PLS. I could honestly see someone getting like sub 7 with this.
Third, just a quick note about what I'll name everything: I plan on just calling this method "Higgs" (my last name), the third step "EOD" instead of "EODFDB" and the last step "PLS". I'll continue to develop Bope as it's still a relevant method since it has so few algs, but I might take a little break from it to generate the PLS algorithms and develop this method further.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 25, 2017)

I was talking about orienting the last 9 edges. Not very difficult, actually.

The movecount (for the whole solve) seems to be the same than for vanilla ZZ.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> I was talking about orienting the last 9 edges. Not very difficult, actually.
> 
> The movecount (for the whole solve) seems to be the same than for vanilla ZZ.


How do you go about doing O9E? I feel like it could be a good step for both regular Roux and the method I recently proposed.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 25, 2017)

I use an intuitive approach and I'm still exploring the possibilities.
To orient 4 edges: (r U r) or (r U r'), etc. (Roux-like)
To orient 2 edges: (r U (R/R'/R2) U' r') or (F R' F') or (F/f R U R' U' F'/f')

At least, 8 bad edges is an easy case: r/r' U/U' r/r' reduces them to only 4.

I think that solving the EO at this stage is helping the look-ahead for the second block.
But, I'm really not an expert.
This is from a ZZuser's perspective.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 25, 2017)

There's some possible tricks like D r' U r D' in this example:

Scramble: U2 B2 L2 U' L2 U' L2 U F2 R2 U' R' F U B R B D' L R2 B'
R' D' B' r2 U r U' r D2 L' // (10) left block
D r' U r D' // (5/15) EO
U R2 U' R U' R2 // (6/21) right square
U' r' U2 M' // (6/26) DB edge
U R U' L U' R' U L' // (8/34) F2L
R U R' U R U2 R' // (7/41) Sune
U2 x R2' D2 R U R' D2 R U' l // (10/51) PLL A

After EO, I've spotted the 3 pieces in good place for the square, so I've solved DB a bit later.


----------



## TDM (Aug 25, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> D r' U r D'


woah, this even works with Petrus if you have the block in the left :O


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> My point though, is that during speedsolves my method actually does regularly achieve sub-40 movecounts, while being around 37 moves optimal.



Are you sure? Several people on this forum and HARCS appear to provide evidence against this.
For convenience, here are approximations I find reasonable:
9 CPFB + 9 SBsq&DFR + 9 EOLine + 15 remainder = 42.

Please note that, while I do give 9 moves as an estimate for CPFB, I have personally never approached this level of efficiency. I once took an average with unlimited inspection and the ability to backtrack in alg.cubing.net and got 11-12...

Another thing that seems to escape people's attention for some reason is that these are average movecounts. A method averaging 40 _is not sub-40_; in fact, most methods have a left-skewed movecount distribution and an average of 40 suggests that more than half of the solves are longer than 40 moves(!). Could you imagine getting times greater than 10 seconds more than half of the time and calling yourself sub-10?



Thermex said:


> 4 moves isn't a huge difference; you basically end up adding ~2 moves to FB so that later in the solve you can one-look both LS+CMLL and LSE. It adds ~300 algs for the same reason ZBLL adds 400 algs to CFOP LL: to veer closer to a sub-40 movecount while only sacrificing the amount of time needed to learn huge alg sets. In no way is this method a "replacement" or "upgrade" from standard Roux; it just saves a few moves, maybe a full second and some of the time needed to recognize the steps that are skipped in this method by using CPFB (LS pair & LSE 4C). It has the same great efficient, ergonomic, and rotationless approach Roux has but with 350 more algorithms. It's simply for people willing to go the extra mile to save an extra second from a solve, just like ZBLL.



The issue is that a method like 42- or M-CELL will accomplish pretty much all of these goals with a fraction the number of algorithms. While the method itself might achieve efficient speedsolves, the opportunity cost associated with learning it is simply too high when there are other options like these available.



Thermex said:


> I had a lot of the same thoughts running through my head last night; I've always thought of 2GR as more of a way to cut down on the amount of ZBLL cases rather than making a solve particularly more efficient.



<R,U> reduction is almost never the most straightforward way to reduce movecount, but it does not simply reduce case count for no compensation (unless you made a bad CP method). For EO methods, it gives a significant ergonomic advantage, and in some cases (e.g. B2) the case count reduction can allow for more complex algsets (this is the main source of efficiency for <R,U>-reduction methods). Additionally, as a minor side effect, skip chances are greatly increased, increasing the chances of favorable results in competition.

For a quick example, I haven't yet posted anything on ways to solve the <R,U> subgroup more cleverly, but I did briefly describe the two following LS tricks on the 2GR wiki page:

*Anti-phasing*: A lightweight technique to create much more favorable LL cases. Before F2L is completed, edges are forced to be unphased, avoiding pure twist 2GLL cases (the longest 2GLLs), Z perms (the longest EPLLs), and increasing chances of solving the last layer with a single Sune variant from 1/20.25 to 1/13.5 (this is twice as likely as an OLL skip in ZZ).

*Corner control*: The last pair is solved while forcing a Sune, Antisune, Skip, or H OCLL case (these 2GLL subsets are the shortest), reducing LL movecount.

*CO at LS*: If LS corner is already solved, an algorithm can be used to orient LL corners while inserting the last edge; if LS edge is already solved, an algorithm can be used to orient LL corners while inserting the last corner. Both situations leave an EPLL to complete the solve.
I don't think I've spent any more than 5-10 minutes exploring this type of thing, but when used in conjunction I see no reason why they would not counterbalance any losses of efficiency when compared to using ZBLL.




Thermex said:


> Reducing the corners to 2 gen definitely makes sense in a ZZ solve, but maybe during CPRRoux forcing a diag-swap PLS gives you better cases.



With this you avoid the pure twist cases, but your algs now must be at least 3-gen.



Thermex said:


> @Arc if you have time maybe you could run some tests for them in case the cases I pick out are outliers.



You know, I sorta feel bad constantly asking @Arc to run all of our half-baked method ideas. Perhaps we should all download HARCS and learn to use it-- @mDiPalma did make the software freely available for use by anyone in the forums, after all 



Thermex said:


> @PyjamIf it's only those six than this is pretty much just ZBRoux, with the difference that it works better for OH (you don't need m slices for EOD)



I've seen this sort of sentiment occasionally on this thread and I think it is unhelpful and discouraging to new method developers. This community has been active for a long time and it is fairly safe to say that almost all (perhaps even in the strict mathematical sense) reasonable ways of permuting and orienting subsets of pieces on a 3⊗3⊕3 Rubik's Cube(TM) have been proposed and given a name at some point. Look, watch:

2GR is just B1 but with a key swap recognition method and some system for tracking CP through any arbitrary move sequence (who would ever need that)?
B1 is just NCPB but with some weird D/D' superposition collapse recognition method that I don't understand because @shadowslice e must've been high as a kite when he wrote it
LMCF is just the Rice method but solves FSE algorithmically instead of intuitively and solves 1 edge in LSE at the start of the edges phase because @efattah thinks LSE lookahead is hard
Speed-Heise is just Petrus but it reduces to L3C instead of ZBLL
Cardan Reduction is just Speed-Heise but with a different algset
B2 is just Roux with CP done before SB instead of after SB (mix the steps around, it's the same deal really)
ZZ-CT is just CLS but FR can be anywhere and DFR doesn't have to end up solved
ECE is just SSC but leaves EO for later
SSC is just Orient-First but with 24 algs for some conjugated OL5C thing

I wonder how our beloved big four method creators would feel if we told them:
Roux is just CF but you blockbuild the edges together to reduce to MU (why? Minh Thai was doing just fine with CF)
Waterman is just CF but you blockbuild a layer first for some reason
CFOP is just LBL but you influence edges while solving corners and you just throw a bunch of algorithms at orientation and permutation of last layer
ZZ is just Petrus with EO done in the beginning of the solve with some strange recognition and F/B move magic
Petrus is just Heise but more restricted because you have to blockbuild a certain way
Heise is just FreeFOP but with a commutator finish because Heise was allergic to algorithms

And I'm sure @shadowslice e could come up with a list twice as long where all the sentences are of the form "___ is just M-CELL but ___"...

The point which you might have noticed already is that, unless two methods are literally exactly the same, one difference that you might write off with a "it's just X but ___" can be completely game-changing. Is @Pyjam 's method "pretty much just" ZBRoux but with two steps switched? Well that changes a lot doesn't it? The solve goes from <RUFLBD> <RrUM> <MU> <RULFD> to <RUFLBD> <RrUM> <RU> <RULFD>. The lookahead is different. The whole approach to EO (recognition, prediction, algorithmic vs intuitive) is different. The whole approach to building the right block is different. One of ZBRoux's strengths is that CP can be recognized during EODFDB--that's different too now isn't it?

All these things must be considered, and though you might initially just think "it's X but with ___" that sort of approach is far from constructive.



Thermex said:


> There's also a couple more things I'd like to mention about CPRoux PLS/Higgs. First off, yesterday I had a complete mental lapse and forgot to include corner permutation in my evaluation of how many algorithms the last step would be. Turns out it's in the mid 400s, which is close to double of what I predicted originally and just a little less than full ZBLL. In total the method is now around 500 algs, which is why I'm considering this being more like the "ZBLL" of Roux and less like medium alg method for anyone to learn.



The issue with this approach, still, is that it offers movecounts obtainable by other methods that have much smaller algsets. Unless the alg or move count can be greatly reduced in some way, I dont think this type of approach is going to be worth it.



Thermex said:


> Second, here's an idea I thought of to reduce the amount of algs in the last step while only adding a couple of moves: phasing the FR edge. Basically you do:
> 
> 1. FB
> 2. BRSquare
> ...



Approximate movecount: 7 FB + 8 sq + 10 EODFDB + 5 insert&phase + 13 L5C&EP = 43



Thermex said:


> This is about as many algs and has similar movecounts as Roux with EOLR, making it a great stepping stone to learning full PLS. I could honestly see someone getting like sub 7 with this.



Perhaps, but I can see someone getting sub-7 with much simpler methods.



Thermex said:


> Third, just a quick note about what I'll name everything: I plan on just calling this method "Higgs" (my last name), the third step "EOD" instead of "EODFDB" and the last step "PLS". I'll continue to develop Bope as it's still a relevant method since it has so few algs, but I might take a little break from it to generate the PLS algorithms and develop this method further.



Others are already calling EODFDB EOStripe(Arc/Atunez)/EOLine(Pyjam) so I would suggest one of those existing names.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 25, 2017)

One precision: it's certainly not _my method_! I think it's a pretty obvious variant for ZZ or Roux and I was only asking if it has a name.
Otherwise, call-it Reverse-ZZ, or ZogZog, or Zoux. 

Actually, I like its ergonomy. I'll continue to use it for a while.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 25, 2017)

@Pyjam I like your OL9E idea. You should continue to develop it.


Teoidus said:


> Are you sure? Several people on this forum and HARCS appear to provide evidence against this.
> For convenience, here are approximations I find reasonable:
> 9 CPFB + 9 SBsq&DFR + 9 EOLine + 15 remainder = 42.
> 
> ...


Okay, so I have a couple of things to say. First off, you're right that there are methods out there with similar movecounts and less algs than mine, but that doesn't mean they're "better". You could say the exact same thing about ZBLL. It's less efficient than "42" or WaterRoux or whatever, but many top solvers use it. Why? Because it's ergonomic and easy to understand. Sure people have made methods with less algs than mine that are equally efficient, but they're often difficult to learn and have a lot of steps. My method is 4 simple steps that are ergonomic, rotationless, and easy to understand, despite being a lot of algs. I'm not saying people should use it over other methods, I just think it could be a really fast method for Rouxers willing to take the extra mile. Another thing I want to point out is that I said the method is _potentially _sub-40 moves, not sub-40 in its current state. Most methods are less efficient in the pre-developed proposed form than the mastered, developed form. Basic Roux is around 48 moves on paper, but after being developed and pushed to its limits by people like Kian, it's nearing 42-43 moves. If I developed and practiced my method for months and months and added little tricks to speed up steps, at some point I could probably push it under 40 moves. And I have to agree with you that I say "sub-40" too much; we all do.
Second, I wasn't trying to shoot down @Pyjam's idea, I was trying to encourage it. I was simply saying that it would be good for OH. However, I will admit I am guilty of doing what you mentioned above on numerous other occasions, and I'll try to cut down on how much I say that, because as you said, it doesn't really give much feedback to the proposer.
Third, I think today I'll explore more ways to cut down on PLS algs without CPFB, like Anti-phasing and corner control. Those are probably better than the 2GPLS algs, which I genned a couple of today and were terrible (~16 moves).
Also I should download HARCS, I'm not sure why I keep asking @Arc to do all that for me 
And finally, EOStripe sounds cool. Let's use EOStripe.


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 25, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Another thing I want to point out is that I said the method is _potentially _sub-40 moves, not sub-40 in its current state.



idk y all yall r so obsessed w/ makin <40-move methods. it's like ur tryna make a giraffe by hitchin a foal's neck to a instron

petrus w/ optimal CN 3x2x2 & zbll is 35.68 htm (7.99+4.96+9.90+12.08+.75)

yall needta shift loadbearing walls - not plaster drywall, if u know what i mean


----------



## Hazel (Aug 26, 2017)

idea:
1: Roux FB
2: BRBlock (2x2x1)
3: EOLS
4: DFDB while permuting LL edges (and preserving EO)
5: COLL but with algs that preserve EP


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 26, 2017)

Approximate movecount: 7 FB + 8 sq + 8 EOLS + 10 L6EP + 13 L4C = 46


----------



## Arc (Aug 26, 2017)

Aerma said:


> idea:
> 1: Roux FB
> 2: BRBlock (2x2x1)
> 3: EOLS
> ...


I'm not quite sure what your vision for EOLS here is. How are you thinking it would look? Step 4 is literally just LSEP (steps 4b and 4c of Roux). Step 5 is called L4C and it is 84 algs rather than 42 because of "H perm parity" (corners and edges both solved but not aligned)


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Aug 26, 2017)

new method-boepll

1)create pseudo block+cp
this is just a 1x2x3 block except the edges on the equator, above the 1x1x3 block, must match a non-up/down center+cp
2.eo
using r,R,U,M orientate all edge pieces
3.ES+Dco
place the FR+BR edges in the equator, while orienting the corners that will go in DRF+DRB
4.pF2L
permutate (solve) the first 2 layers (including equator) using R2,r2,M2,U,u,E
5.2gll
a set of 84 algorithms to finish the solve


----------



## Thermex (Aug 26, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method
> 
> 1)create pseudo block+cp
> this is just a 1x2x3 block except the edges on the equator, above the 1x1x3 block, must match a non-up/down center+cp
> ...


This is a creative idea, but I think the recog is difficult and for the most part it's better to just stick with a regular first block and second block as opposed to psuedo-ones. Right I'm really into EORoux variants; I feel like starting with FB, doing BR square and EOStripe in whatever order is best and finishing with any EOLS method is one of the best approaches to solving. I average around 23 moves/10 seconds with these steps and will probably devote the next week or so to finding a fast, efficient and sub-300 alg 2LLS+LL method.


----------



## efattah (Aug 26, 2017)

Although I'm less concerned with move counts these days, I would say the only really accurate way to measure move counts is to reconstruct 20 official solves from one particular person and average the move count (even averaging an Ao5 from one competition would give some idea). This guarantees real inspection time, max TPS, etc., and real speed solving conditions. With most methods if you slow down you can cut 5 moves off the solution by seeing things you would have missed at full speed.

I'd be curious to see the reconstructed move count averages from recent competitions from top solvers like Alex Lau, Kian, Max Park, Feliks, etc., and maybe also Anthony Brooks as he uses full ZBLL in competition.

As it stands I highly doubt any person has achieved 44 moves or less average in actual competition solves.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 26, 2017)

Alex Lau's solve are available on cubesolv.es.

Last I checked, Roux usually gets around 49 moves, CFOP 58, and ZZ sans ZBLL around 53-58.


----------



## gogozerg (Aug 26, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Roux is just CF but you blockbuild the edges together to reduce to MU (why? Minh Thai was doing just fine with CF)



It's just another "edges last" approach, like all the Corners First derivatives.
(I would love to see modern cubists use Corners First in competitions!)


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 26, 2017)

gogozerg said:


> (I would love to see modern cubists use Corners First in competitions!)


You have likely met one, haven't you? Maybe you meant: from the young generation?


----------



## Hazel (Aug 26, 2017)

another idea, hopefully this is better than my last few:
1: Petrus block
2: 2x2x1 in RB while solving EO
3: CPLS
4: 2GLL

90 algs total (84 for 2GLL, 6 for CPLS)


----------



## gogozerg (Aug 26, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> You have likely met one, haven't you? Maybe you meant: from the young generation?


I meant sub-10 competitors. But I may have missed something.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 26, 2017)

gogozerg said:


> It's just another "edges last" approach, like all the Corners First derivatives.
> (I would love to see modern cubists use Corners First in competitions!)


Eric fattah, the person who posted a couple of posts above you, uses his own CF styled method called "LMCF" and averages around 13 seconds with it I think.


Aerma said:


> another idea, hopefully this is better than my last few:
> 1: Petrus block
> 2: 2x2x1 in RB while solving EO
> 3: CPLS
> ...


This is very similar to the ideas I've been working on (the first three steps, that is), but instead of solving two Roux blocks and then doing EOStripe, you're doing a 2×2×3 which is much more difficult imo. I would just stick with a 1×2×3, BRSquare and EOstripe, it's about the same amount of moves and much easier to perform. The end is pretty good, though I'm not sure how easy pair insert+CP recog would be. Overall I would guess this is probably around 44-45 moves which is great for 90 algs, and about as good as ZBLL.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 27, 2017)

Hey guys. Sorry I haven't been participating in all of the revamped revolutionary method talking stuff, but here are my opinions on the matter. This thread is the wall we throw things at and see what sticks, so in here, there are no bad ideas. Please, chuck bad things at it. It's fun to throw things like lightbulbs at walls, even though they won't stick. It's fun to watch them explode. This is not, however, the place you will want to fully develop a method. As far as CP first methods go, I think the best you can do is start with a 1x1x3 and go into either a Roux (CPRoux) or ZZ (Briggs/2GR) finish. I think that Briggs, in the form of CP1x1x3-CPFB-EOStripe, fixes the inspection-heavy problems of 2GR. I've never been particularly good with inspection, so this is my belief. Please, feel free to prove me wrong. Otherwise, CP-first is really just not practical. As far as EO first goes, ZZ is kind of the best option, as usually you can't get more efficient than block building, which is the core concept of ZZF2L. LXE (last [unspecified number] edges) methods are promising. With Roux, L6E is tried and true. L7E is kind of a work in progress, and so far, formats for such methods (e.g. 42 and WaterRoux) are FB-solve corners and 2 edges-L7E. in WaterRoux, the middle step is done by solving corners then 2 edges. In 42, you solve a 2x2x1 (2 edges and a corner) and a corner (basically, the oriented U-layer corner is solved, because it can be AUFed to its spot), then solve the remaining four corners. What I think is an interesting concept would be neutrality between these two steps (Originally, WaterRoux was 2x2x1-TCMLL, very similar to 42.). The most needed development is a good L7E method. What would be helpful is an optimal L7E movecount, so we know how to gauge our 17 move agerage with current methods. L8E, as in ECE and SSC, is pretty well developed. EO (in SSC this is done earlier), reduce to L6E, reduce to L4E ("4c state"), solve. Bope style is largely unexplored; I think the best thing might be to solve it LMCF style. I'm not sure where Waterman fits into the LXE scale. An idea I had recently with Waterman is to leave one first-layer edge out, and use the empty slot to help later on, when solving R-layer edges, then solve it. Waterman might deserve more attention than it gets; I'll look into it more. CF methods are technically L12E methods, and I think LMCF is the best way to do this. CFOP (or CFCE [or 3CFCE]) is basically the epitome of LBL. Maybe not. Columns is generally bad. Once again, maybe not. M-CELL is an interesting method, and I think we should look at more ways of solving this. Same goes for the Franciscoes, most notably Hexagonal (which I now noticed are M-CELL [mind blown {I'm using a lot of parentheses and brackets and junk}]). I can't think of other methods at the moment, so okay. Please, prove many of my points wrong. PLZ!!!111!11!!!!!!!!!WEag1DSgafjslidjf!!!!!111!!11!

Here are a couple of method ideas: SSC reduction to 2GLL
This is more of a bad explodey idea.
1) EOEdge
2) Orient D-corners on D-face, solve equator
3) Solve D corners and permute U-layer corners
4) Solve D-layer edges
5) 2GLL

Other style M-CELL/HF building
1) FB+UBL corner
2) Solve M-slice
3) z rotation; solve rest like normal


----------



## Hazel (Aug 27, 2017)

@Thermex 
Well, what about this:
1: Roux block
2: 2x2x1
3: EOStripe
4: CPLS
5: 2GLL

I think the advantage to this over starting with CPFB is that you don't have to rely on inspection as much, you only have to plan out a standard Roux block, then hopefully use the remaining time to start planning out the 2x2x1 instead of worrying about CP. Plus, people who aren't paticularly experienced or good at tracing/planning a lot during inspection will probably have a really difficult time planning out CPFB.
CPLS can take some time to recognize, but recognition can improve by figuring out faster methods of it, and the algs are already really fast. 2GLL is, of course, very fast already.


----------



## Arc (Aug 27, 2017)

Aerma said:


> @Thermex
> Well, what about this:
> 1: Roux block
> 2: 2x2x1
> ...


I think doing CPLS before EOStripe is better. There's no benefit to waiting and there is benefit to doing it sooner (algs don't have to preserve EO/DFDB, don't have to worry about FR being oriented) 

Also you guys seem be have the wrong idea about CPLS. Traditional CPLS has the edge solved first and is around 35ish algs. Full CPLS, that is, not solving any part of the last pair first, is around 110 algs for ZZ, and more than double that for Roux, though I suppose you could reduce it to the 110 in a maximum of 2 moves.

The whole idea behind classic CPLS is how easy it is to solve that edge in ZZ-style F2L. Usually taking 1 move, with a maximum of 3.

Also as far as recognition goes I outlined what I believe to be a pretty good system in the CPLS thread.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 28, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Hey guys. Sorry I haven't been participating in all of the revamped revolutionary method talking stuff, but here are my opinions on the matter. This thread is the wall we throw things at and see what sticks, so in here, there are no bad ideas. Please, chuck bad things at it. It's fun to throw things like lightbulbs at walls, even though they won't stick. It's fun to watch them explode. This is not, however, the place you will want to fully develop a method. As far as CP first methods go, I think the best you can do is start with a 1x1x3 and go into either a Roux (CPRoux) or ZZ (Briggs/2GR) finish. I think that Briggs, in the form of CP1x1x3-CPFB-EOStripe, fixes the inspection-heavy problems of 2GR. I've never been particularly good with inspection, so this is my belief. Please, feel free to prove me wrong. Otherwise, CP-first is really just not practical. As far as EO first goes, ZZ is kind of the best option, as usually you can't get more efficient than block building, which is the core concept of ZZF2L. LXE (last [unspecified number] edges) methods are promising. With Roux, L6E is tried and true. L7E is kind of a work in progress, and so far, formats for such methods (e.g. 42 and WaterRoux) are FB-solve corners and 2 edges-L7E. in WaterRoux, the middle step is done by solving corners then 2 edges. In 42, you solve a 2x2x1 (2 edges and a corner) and a corner (basically, the oriented U-layer corner is solved, because it can be AUFed to its spot), then solve the remaining four corners. What I think is an interesting concept would be neutrality between these two steps (Originally, WaterRoux was 2x2x1-TCMLL, very similar to 42.). The most needed development is a good L7E method. What would be helpful is an optimal L7E movecount, so we know how to gauge our 17 move agerage with current methods. L8E, as in ECE and SSC, is pretty well developed. EO (in SSC this is done earlier), reduce to L6E, reduce to L4E ("4c state"), solve. Bope style is largely unexplored; I think the best thing might be to solve it LMCF style. I'm not sure where Waterman fits into the LXE scale. An idea I had recently with Waterman is to leave one first-layer edge out, and use the empty slot to help later on, when solving R-layer edges, then solve it. Waterman might deserve more attention than it gets; I'll look into it more. CF methods are technically L12E methods, and I think LMCF is the best way to do this. CFOP (or CFCE [or 3CFCE]) is basically the epitome of LBL. Maybe not. Columns is generally bad. Once again, maybe not. M-CELL is an interesting method, and I think we should look at more ways of solving this. Same goes for the Franciscoes, most notably Hexagonal (which I now noticed are M-CELL [mind blown {I'm using a lot of parentheses and brackets and junk}]). I can't think of other methods at the moment, so okay. Please, prove many of my points wrong. PLZ!!!111!11!!!!!!!!!WEag1DSgafjslidjf!!!!!111!!11!
> 
> Here are a couple of method ideas: SSC reduction to 2GLL
> This is more of a bad explodey idea.
> ...


I agree that this wall can serve as somewhere where you can just throw a load of ideas at to see what sticks but at the same time there does need to be some level of filtering on a personal level. Sort of a "is this really new or helpful?" If there is a 1 line rebuttle then perhaps it would be better if a method proposer could look for themselves because it can get extremely tedious to go through all of them and quickly find major major flaws.

In addition, it would be good if the designer tries their utmost to make sure the method hasn't been proposed before if trying to claim credit (though I don't mind so much if it's an old concept that they want to discuss in a new way).

Lastly, there does also need to be some filtering as a method designer at some point needs to think "is this really new or just low hanging fruit that someone probably thought of before?" as there are many many things which people will almost certainly have thought of in the past which they never proposed publicly as there was that quite easy to find flaw. To finish, if there is an old method which hasn't been developed mucheck and after loads of thinking you can't work out why, I would be fine with someone bringing it up and seeing what others think (as long as it is phrased in such a way to indicate that).

See my method development primer


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 28, 2017)

Hello,

I've searched throughout the forums as per @shadowslice e 's suggestions and I couldn't find this method proposed anywhere else, so I've decided to call it TERM1 (Teoidus's Elegant Reduction Method for the 1·1∗1 Rubik's Cube):

Though most methods for solving the 1⊗1×1 Rubik's Cube involve haphazardly flailing the cube about its 3 axes, I have developed an efficient solution for each possible cube state. Because a significant amount of work went into generating (by hand!) solutions for all possible 1x1*1 Rubik's Cube(TM) (R) (C) states, I would like teach a university course in mathematics on this material. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could please point me to someone to contact in order to publish a textbook for this course and offer some advice as to securing a professorship (preferably at Oxford or Cambridge so I can be one of @shadowslice e or @TDM 's superiors).

If I can secure proper means by which to accomplish this I will begin work shortly on TERM2.

Best,
Sincerely,
Warm Regards,
Teoidus, creator of TERM1, a.k.a. Teoidus's Elegant Reduction Method for the 1X1⊕1 Rubik's Cube


----------



## efattah (Aug 28, 2017)

A brief update on LMCF development with my recent strategy of first finding ergonomic sequences then trying to apply them. This is resulting in far less M-U algorithms and more R/F/U algorithms which have higher TPS.

E2L quadruplet example (sub-1 execution)
[M2] R' F R2 U' R2 F2 R2 U' R2 F
DF->UR, UR(d)->FR, UL(d)->FL, FR(o)->UL

E2L triplet converted to quadruplet with intuitive F/F' injection during the algorithm, slightly less ergonomic
U M2 U2 M2 U L2 [F'] U' M U [F]

E2L pair algorithm, swap UL and FL, both disoriented:
F' R U M2 U' R' F (0.7 seconds or less)

Also a couple of days ago I had a breakthrough, I got a 9.49 full step where I was unable to see the corner solve in the inspection. Previously all my sub-10's and sub-9's only happened if I could 1-look the corners, but my E2L modifications are speeding up the E2L phase enough that it is now possible for me to get sub-10 (occasionally) even without 1-looking the corners, and this still despite my slow TPS of 3-4. My 'average' is still totally random since I only know a third of the algorithms and so the chance of me making it through the solve and knowing the algorithms for each E2L/L6E case is only around 1 in 9 (1/3 * 1/3 * 1/3). However if I know the cases that come up the solves are very fast.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 30, 2017)

In L7E, why don't we insert LE while doing EO and then 4B/4C? It should give decent movecounts w/o too many algs. And if you want to go the extra mile, implement L6EP.

I think if you use L7E w/ 42/TCMLL neutrality you *may* get a sub-40 avg movecount with 274 algs (unless you go for algorithmic L6EP, then it goes up significantly). I'm worried about L5C recog but if it can be absolutely nailed then this has amazing potential.

EXAMPLES (AVG=17.2)
16
16
19
18
17

EDIT: I think I'm going to gen a ton of algs and compile all CP Roux based methods that have merit and make a thread. So far I have mine (2GRoux, uses Pinkie Pie) the L5C+LE variant, a L7E variant, the base (uses CMLL/LSE), this unnamed method (CPFB, <RrMU> EO Line, F2L, 2GLL), and one similar to LLOB+ZBLL (CPFB, SB, EODFDB, 2GLL) I'll also include some LSLL variants as necessary but I'd like to give credit to the OG creators of these methods so please respond if you've already invented one of these variants. Thanks!


----------



## Thermex (Aug 30, 2017)

Neuro said:


> In L7E, why don't we insert LE while doing EO and then 4B/4C? It should give decent movecounts w/o too many algs. And if you want to go the extra mile, implement L6EP.
> 
> I think if you use L7E w/ 42/TCMLL neutrality you *may* get a sub-40 avg movecount with 274 algs (unless you go for algorithmic L6EP, then it goes up significantly). I'm worried about L5C recog but if it can be absolutely nailed then this has amazing potential.
> 
> ...


The L7E method you proposed is pretty similar to @crafto22's but with a slight boost in efficiency due to the first two step being combined. I'm honestly not sure if it's worth it for the extra algs, but it can be two-looked which is a bonus. Anyway here's a pretty cool way to implement L7E, it's nice and simple, "potentially" sub-40 moves, and pretty ergonomic:

1.) FB+BRSquare (15/15)
2.) Tripod L4E (place one oriented corner at UBR and solve the rest of the corners in one alg) (8/24)
3. L7E (17/40?)

About 100 algs for this; really good but a supieror L7E method still needs to be devoloped. I honestly think we should all just dedicate our cubing time to making a solid L7E method, it's definitely one of the most important developments yet to be made. Now that I think about it, it might be better to switch steps 2 and 3 of my method, making this:

1. FB+BRSquare (15/15)
2. Insert FR edge while orienting remaining edges (<r, U> based and fast, ~7/22 moves?)
3. Tripod L4E (10/32)
4. PL6E (like @Neuro said, this could be done algorithmic-ly or intuitely, either way it's around 7-9 moves/40)

This is also about 40 moves, but with an <r, U> FR+EO stage that's much more ergonomic than M, F, and U moves. I think I'll spend most of tomorrow genning the L4E cases I was talking about and update you guys on how this method turns out. It looks like it has a lot of potential


----------



## TDM (Aug 30, 2017)

Thermex said:


> 1.) FB+BRSquare (15/15)
> 2.) Tripod L4E (place one oriented corner at UBR and solve the rest of the corners in one alg) (8/24)
> 3. L7E (17/40?)


I think the movecount is a bit closer to 42


----------



## Neuro (Aug 30, 2017)

My L7E method would have a minimum of 30 algs, but you could go up to 60 or even 120. 30 can solve only FR when LE is in a constant spot. 60 algs solves either FR or BR. 120 allows the edge to be in either DF or DB. This assists in recognition by always having oriented centers. Still, I'd say that 60 algs (same as EOLR) is very good and quite feasible for one to learn.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2017)

Neuro said:


> My L7E method would have a minimum of 30 algs, but you could go up to 60 or even 120. 30 can solve only FR when LE is in a constant spot. 60 algs solves either FR or BR. 120 allows the edge to be in either DF or DB. This assists in recognition by always having oriented centers. Still, I'd say that 60 algs (same as EOLR) is very good and quite feasible for one to learn.


You could just do it intuitively like @Teoidus and I already do.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 30, 2017)

TDM said:


> I think the movecount is a bit closer to 42


I just realized this is really similar to 42, but there are still differences. The main thing is that instead of doing a conjugated CMLL, which in my expericnece has very difficult recog, you learn a set of 96 algs that solve the 4 pieces without the ARF. Small difference, but it could help quite a lot as I predict the Tripod L4E cases are pretty fast.


Neuro said:


> My L7E method would have a minimum of 30 algs, but you could go up to 60 or even 120. 30 can solve only FR when LE is in a constant spot. 60 algs solves either FR or BR. 120 allows the edge to be in either DF or DB. This assists in recognition by always having oriented centers. Still, I'd say that 60 algs (same as EOLR) is very good and quite feasible for one to learn.


With AUFS I estimate your method to be about 100 algs (14 orientations×7 spots the FR edge can go in=98, plus the cases with EO done is about 100). This is about the same as Crafo's method, although some cases might be cut off by rotational symmetry. Today I think I'll do some tests solves with both methods and tell you which approach I found faster.


shadowslice e said:


> You could just do it intuitively like @Teoidus and I already do.


How do you do L7E intuitively? Is it anywhere near as good as some of the algorithmic approaches?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 30, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I just realized this is really similar to 42, but there are still differences. The main thing is that instead of doing a conjugated CMLL, which in my expericnece has very difficult recog, you learn a set of 96 algs that solve the 4 pieces without the ARF. Small difference, but it could help quite a lot as I predict the Tripod L4E cases are pretty fast.


inb4 all the algs in this algset look quite a bit like CMLL conjugates



Thermex said:


> How do you do L7E intuitively? Is it anywhere near as good as some of the algorithmic approaches?


yes


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 30, 2017)

wait a minute... why is it called Tripod L4E???? A tripod is not formed anywhere, corners are being solved (not edges) and there are five of them (not four). 

In fact here is a color-coding of your naming scheme (green = accurately describes step, red = inaccurately describes step):
Tripod L4E


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2017)

Thermex said:


> ... conjugated CMLL, which in my expericnece has very difficult recog


I don't know what you're doing for recog but in my experience it's only very slightly harder than CMLL and easier than ZBLL.


> ...you learn a set of 96 algs that solve the 4 pieces without the ARF.


You shouldn't have to ARF in order to solve. Ideally you would just build the block so it ends up that way. In more advanced versions you don't even have to orient the corner.


> Small difference, but it could help quite a lot as I predict the Tripod L4E cases are pretty fast.


The BTR algs are likey faster (especially when set specific algs are used instead of just CMLL) because I predict most of the algs for "L4E" will start with an R which BTR avoids (and most BTR algs don't start with an R')

While we're here, I'll just list all the reasons for BTR over L4E:
1) The algs are shorter (explained above)
2) Recog is not harder (because you look at the same number of stickers and have the same number of cases)
3) It sets up nicely for intuitive L7E
4) There are less algs
5) It can be used more easily with other advanced techniques such as NMLL.

Also, why are you calling it L4*E*? You don't solve any edges let alone the last 4.


> How do you do L7E intutively? Is it anywhere near as good as some of the algorithmic approaches?


The movecount is the same. I average about 16 moves with it without any algs and it also becomes much more possible to force nice cases because you are not restricted in that sense.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 30, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> While we're here, I'll just list all the reasons for BTR over *L4E*:
> 1) The algs are shorter (explained above)
> 2) Recog is not harder (because you look at the same number of stickers and have the same number of cases)
> 3) It sets up nicely for intuitive L7E
> ...



6) It solves the corners and not the edges like it's supposed to


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 30, 2017)

Hello everyone. How are you?

There are too many methods on this thread, and i have no idea what's going on. let's thin them out.

any method that cant get "sub-40 htm" on this scramble shall be permanently eliminated from discussion because it's obsolete (mods WILL enforce this with permabans!). please provide a linear solution to the following scramble before you continue blabbering.


```
B2 R2 B' D2 L2 F2 L2 F D2 R2 U B L' R F R U' L' B2 D'
```

thank you for your time, and god bless america



Spoiler: petrus method (28 htm, 27 stm)



y' x' B' U' F' R U' F B' L
F R F' U R' U2 F' U F R U // R' cancels
R2 F2 R' B2 R F2 R' B2 R2





Spoiler: zz method (29 htm, 27 stm)



D F D' R' B L U F'
R' L U' L2 U' R L' U' L2 
U2 R' U R2 U2 R' U R2 U2 R2 U' R




RankingMethodMovecountSubmitter1.Petrus28 htmmdipalma2.ZZ29 htmmdipalma3.2GR35 stmelo133.cpfl->2gll35 stmelo135.Zzoux38 htmpyjam5.CFOP38 htmelo137.Briggs39 htmarc


----------



## hellomyfriend (Aug 30, 2017)

*New ZZ variant*

Okay with the research I have done I don't think anyone thought of this. Tell me if some one did. It is called ZZ-ST or ZZ-Shower Thoughts. It is a 2-3 Look Last Block Last Layer depending on variant. So This is how it goes.

CBeLL Variant


*EOline- * So just solve EOLine.
*Solve the first square of the 1st block in ZZ2L*
While finishing the first block Solve the 2nd block corners.
*Do CBeLL - *This is a COLL variant which affects second block edges to allow more efficient algs.
*L7EP - *Last Seven Edges Permutation. You can two look this for 3LLBLL or one look for 2LLBLL.

CBLL Variant
Here instead if solving second block corners in the 3rd step you can just insert them without worrying about them being completely solved but, now there is 6x the number of cases in the 4th step.

So if anyone can help with the math since I actually don't know how to calculate the movecount for individual steps.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2017)

Th


hellomyfriend said:


> *New ZZ variant*
> 
> Okay with the research I have done I don't think anyone thought of this. Tell me if some one did. It is called ZZ-ST or ZZ-Shower Thoughts. It is a 2-3 Look Last Block Last Layer depending on variant. So This is how it goes.
> 
> ...


This is an interesting method which seems like it could work fairly well with LMCF. My main query is why you've broken up the steps in the way you have? Why not just do EOLine, FB, 2 corners, COLL (with variant algs for nicer EP no real need to call it a separate alg set)?

That said I think hinges very similar to it have been proposed though nothing identical so it might still be worth exploring (though it may be that there are some inefficiencies caused by solving edges after corners as the corners get "in the way").

With that said I wish you luck if you continue exploring this variant!


----------



## hellomyfriend (Aug 30, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Th
> 
> This is an interesting method which seems like it could work fairly well with LMCF. My main query is why you've broken up the steps in the way you have? Why not just do EOLine, FB, 2 corners, COLL (with variant algs for nicer EP no real need to call it a separate alg set)?
> 
> ...



What is LMCF?
Also I broke it up like this becuase this was how it originally formed in my head.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2017)

hellomyfriend said:


> What is LMCF?


It's somehing that @efattah has been working on and it's basically an algorithmic version of corners first solving so I think you might be interesting in the approach to solving the edges.


----------



## hellomyfriend (Aug 30, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> It's somehing that @efattah has been working on and it's basically an algorithmic version of corners first solving so I think you might be interesting in the approach to solving the edges.


Any links to it?


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2017)

hellomyfriend said:


> Any links to it?


Original thread
There's also a wiki page on it iirc.

E: you might also like looking up waterman on the wiki but as LMCF is almost Waterman+algs it might not be so much benefit.


----------



## Pyjam (Aug 30, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> B2 R2 B' D2 L2 F2 L2 F D2 R2 U B L' R F R U' L' B2 D'



Zzoux : 39 STM (40 HTM) – OK ?

Or: Zzoux : 38 STM (38 HTM) 

zz D' R2 U2 L2 F u' x' // (6) Left block
R' U r' U2 r' U r U' r2 // (9/15) EO-line
R U2 R U2 R2 U R' U' R // (9/24) Right block
y' R2' F2 R U2 R U2' R' F2 R U' R' U R U // (14/38) ZBLL T


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Aug 30, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> any method that cant get "sub-40 htm" on this scramble shall be permanently eliminated from discussion because it's obsolete (mods WILL enforce this with permabans!). please provide a linear solution to the following scramble before you continue blabbering.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



I'm not sure what power you have, but i feel this is a bit rude. why would you demote bad to kind of good methods, even if they provide useful information to this thread? and if this is a thing that, for some reason starts, you should probably put, like, five scrambles, each favoring diferent starts. you would have to complete 3/5 scrambles in less than 45 moves in snyder metric. so, if you would, put more thoughts into the scrambles.

edit: the 5 scramble thing is not as good as an idea as I've thought. instead read the first post of this thread, you'll find it important. but, until you get a premium member's approval along with the active majority's approval, this rule will not take effect.


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 30, 2017)

To be honest I don't think it's too rude. It's a very sassy way of pointing out how some have been throwing the "sub-40 linear" label around very liberally (a pointing out that is, in my opinion, very well deserved).


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Aug 30, 2017)

we do however need a glossary, so someone will have to reread all the pages in this thread, and organize them based on preferably method. if anyone would want to do this themselves please post that you will organize the glossary. if no one would, i will transform this post into the glossary. this will not be completed fast (i guess this will take many weeks) but it will be done persistently, and for new information, regularly. so everyone knows, the new glossary is in the middle of the book, page 204.

edit: it's not in the middle of the book now, but eventually it will be.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> we do however need a glossary, so someone will have to reread all the pages in this thread, and organize them based on preferably method. if anyone would want to do this themselves please post that you will organize the glossary. if no one would, i will transform this post into the glossary. this will not be completed fast (i guess this will take many weeks) but it will be done persistently, and for new information, regularly. so everyone knows, the new glossary is in the middle of the book, page 204.
> 
> edit: it's not in the middle of the book now, but eventually it will be.


Isn't this what the wiki is for?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Aug 30, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Isn't this what the wiki is for?


not everything in this thread is in the wiki

i do not know how to change the wiki. i will first create a draft of a glossary based on attributes of each method, look up a tutorial on editing the wiki, then make a more organized table of contents for the wiki.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 30, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> not everything in this thread is in the wiki


Then make a page on the wiki under "partially explored ideas" or something then and leave a description if you want.

I'd just like to go on record here (as someone who has been through more or less every page in this thread) that most ideas are brought up multiple times and discarded equally quickly. So if you go through this thread it contains very few unique ideas.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 31, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> inb4 all the algs in this algset look quite a bit like CMLL conjugates
> 
> 
> yes





shadowslice e said:


> I don't know what you're doing for recog but in my experience it's only very slightly harder than CMLL and easier than ZBLL.
> 
> You shouldn't have to ARF in order to solve. Ideally you would just build the block so it ends up that way. In more advanced versions you don't even have to orient the corner.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the cases are CMLL conjugates, but there are definitely some cases that will be be optimized by using L4C. The recog is just a little bit better since you mostly are just focusing on where the D-layer sticker is of the four pieces. And seriously, sorry for saying L4E, that was a simple mistake and I was at school and didn't have time to edit it. Anyway I'll go ahead and just gen the algs and show everybody them this weekend, that's the only real way to determine whether this is any good.


mDiPalma said:


> Hello everyone. How are you?
> 
> There are too many methods on this thread, and i have no idea what's going on. let's thin them out.
> 
> ...


I feel like this is a thread to throw out random ideas, not prove and develop them. I'll try to provide scrambles more often for my ideas, but I definitely don't think you should get _banned _for not doing this. I'm not that bothered by the rule, however I really don't think it's all that necessary. We all (especially me) say "sub-40" too much but I think of it as less of what describes a method in its current state and more of a far off goal a method may reach when learned and perfected.


----------



## efattah (Aug 31, 2017)

During an LMCF practice session I got a very interesting scramble that resulted in a 3-look solution to the entire cube!!

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=R_U_F...ve_last_edge
M2_U_M2_U2_M2_U_M2_//_H&#45;Perm

Scramble: R U F2 L B' L F' R B' R2 L2 U' B2 R2 U' B2 U L2 B2 D

// 1st look during inspection
y x' S' F U' R U R' U // green face
F R' F' R U R U' R' // CLL

// 2nd look during the solve
U M2 U M U2 M' U M2 // EPLL U-Perm

// 3rd look during the solve
z U' M U M' L // solve last edge
M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 // H-Perm

Total 35 STM

Considering that one look was done during the inspection, the entire 'timed' solve involved only 2 looks. I'm a slow turner and I finished it in 13.7 seconds, but this could be finger tricked in 3 seconds or even less...


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 31, 2017)

if your method is truly sub-40-capable in a speedsolve, it should be trivial to find a sub-40 linear solution to that scramble (given infinite time/attempts/tools)

it seems the only entries i have been sent are for well-established methods & their derivatives. are none of the other methods being discussed here capable of solving a cube in <40 moves?


----------



## Teoidus (Aug 31, 2017)

Here's a 2 ETM solve with TERM1 (this one took a while, tricky scramble): 
https://alg.cubing.net/?puzzle=1x1x...L2_F_D2_R2_U_B_L-_R_F_R_U-_L-_B2_D-_&alg=z2_x


----------



## Thermex (Aug 31, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> if your method is truly sub-40-capable in a speedsolve, it should be trivial to find a sub-40 linear solution to that scramble (given infinite time/attempts/tools)
> 
> it seems the only entries i have been sent are for well-established methods & their derivatives. are none of the other methods being discussed here capable of solving a cube in <40 moves?



FB: x z' D L2 D' U' L U R L U (9/9)
BLSquare: x' M' U' L U2 l' (5/14)
VL4C: U F U' R U' R' U F' (8/22)
FREO: U2 R' E r U r' E' R (8/30)
4bc: U' M' U2 M U' M2 U (7/37)

ezpz, did this in one solve (no rescrambles). I actually think your movecount-table proposition is pretty reasonable tho, I misunderstood it earlier. anyway this solve was pretty average for this method ("V3" is what I call it), also most of the VL4C cases are NOT conjugated CMLLs.


----------



## efattah (Aug 31, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> Hello everyone. How are you?
> There are too many methods on this thread, and i have no idea what's going on. let's thin them out.
> any method that cant get "sub-40 htm" on this scramble shall be permanently eliminated from discussion



Scramble: B2 R2 B' D2 L2 F2 L2 F D2 R2 U B L' R F R U' L' B2 D'

LMCF solution, one of many

R' U2 B' R F U' R F U2 // corners [9]
x2 U M U' // E2L pair [3]
x L' M U M2 U L U M2 U' L' U2 // E2L triplet [11]
x U' M' U M U2 M' U2 M' U' M2 U' M U2 R // LSE [14]

37 STM


----------



## Thermex (Aug 31, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Here's a 2 ETM solve with TERM1 (this one took a while, tricky scramble):
> https://alg.cubing.net/?puzzle=1x1x...L2_F_D2_R2_U_B_L-_R_F_R_U-_L-_B2_D-_&alg=z2_x


TERM1 looks like it could have some serious potential and _maybe _even achieve sub-40 movecounts.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 31, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> we do however need a glossary, so someone will have to reread all the pages in this thread, and organize them based on preferably method. if anyone would want to do this themselves please post that you will organize the glossary. if no one would, i will transform this post into the glossary. this will not be completed fast (i guess this will take many weeks) but it will be done persistently, and for new information, regularly. so everyone knows, the new glossary is in the middle of the book, page 204.



I had a catalogue up to around page 40, then I gave up.



shadowslice e said:


> I'd just like to go on record here (as someone who has been through more or less every page in this thread) that most ideas are brought up multiple times and discarded equally quickly. So if you go through this thread it contains very few unique ideas.



Depends on the threshold at which you consider something to be "unique". I thought I could classify every post into a small number of different methods, but I was _wrong_. I gave up indexing this thread because there were too many ideas that were just "method X, but you do Y instead of Z" and Y/Z differed from proposal to proposal.


----------



## efattah (Aug 31, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> I had a catalogue up to around page 40, then I gave up.
> Depends on the threshold at which you consider something to be "unique". I thought I could classify every post into a small number of different methods, but I was _wrong_. I gave up indexing this thread because there were too many ideas that were just "method X, but you do Y instead of Z" and Y/Z differed from proposal to proposal.



In my mind if someone posts an average of 5 or 12 on youtube, then that method counts as a method and should get catalogued. Prior to that it is still in the theoretical phase.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 31, 2017)

efattah said:


> Scramble: B2 R2 B' D2 L2 F2 L2 F D2 R2 U B L' R F R U' L' B2 D'
> 
> LMCF solution, one of many
> 
> ...


Are there any full guides to LMCF? It seems like something I'd like to learn.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 31, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Are there any full guides to LMCF? It seems like something I'd like to learn.


I think the most complete one is probably the first post in the LMCF thread.


----------



## Thermex (Aug 31, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Are there any full guides to LMCF? It seems like something I'd like to learn.


@efattah has a link to a pdf that has all of the algs and cases someone would need to know to learn LMCF. He links it in the first post of the the thread.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 31, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> not everything in this thread is in the wiki.


https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Partially_Explored_Ideas
Go nuts


----------



## Neuro (Sep 1, 2017)

2GRoux solve: 35 STM, 41 HTM

x y U f' R2 F' M U' R u2//CPFB (8/8)
R2 U r' U R U R2 U' M2 U r' U M'//SB+PP (13/21)
U' r' U2 R U R' U r//OLL (8/29)
U M2 U M' U2 M'//LSE (6/35)

42 solve: 38 STM, 44 HTM

z2 y' D' r' F2 D2 B//FB (5/5)
U2 R U' R U M' r U r'//SB (9/14)
U2 R2' U' R F R' U R2 U' R' F' R//BTR (12/26)
U R' U M U' M U M2 U M U2 M'//L7E (12/38)


----------



## Hazel (Sep 3, 2017)

alrighty another roux-block type start method:
1) Roux block + centers and DB
2) 2x2x1 in BR
3) TSLE
4) 1 of 6 TTLLs (TTCLL)
5) EODF and cancel into EPLL

I know TTLL isn't the greatest but hey, only the corner cases and you don't have to worry about LL edges at all.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 3, 2017)

I'm trying to come up with a simple beginners method that transitions into Roux rather than CFOP, right now this is what I have:

1: Solve 2 corners (DL)- Very easy for beginners to understand, completely intuitive
2: Solve FB- Use slice moves for intuitive insertion of edges
3: Solve D layer corners- Easy, intuitive
4: Solve SB- Use slice moves for easy inserts, *This and LSE are the hardest to teach*
5: CO- Teach Sune
6: CP- Teach an easy CP alg (like A/J/T perm)
7: LSE- Introduce them to EO and how to preserve it, no algs but familiarize with Arrow case *Maybe the hardest part of the method*

Here's a solve, obviously not very efficient but it should give a good idea as to what I'm going for

SCRAMBLE: U D B' R B2 U' B2 R' L' F B2 D2 R' U2 D2 L D2 R' U2 L' B2

D2 x' z' U2 F2//FB Corners (3/3)
u' R' u r' D M2 D'//FB Edges (7/10)
R' U R U' R' U R//SB Corners (7/17)
R2 U' M U r U' M U R2 U M2 U2 M2 U r'//SB edges (15/32)
U' R U R' U R U2 R'//CO (8/40)
x R' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 x'//CP (9/49)
M U M U' M' U M' U2 M' U2 M' U' M U2 M U2//LSE (16/65)

A possible improvement might be to solve a 1x2x3 line and then solve the other 2 edges rather than just corners.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 3, 2017)

Aerma said:


> alrighty another roux-block type start method:
> 1) Roux block + centers and DB
> 2) 2x2x1 in BR
> 3) TSLE
> ...


Isn't this 2OP from M-CELL?


Neuro said:


> I'm trying to come up with a simple beginners method that transitions into Roux rather than CFOP, right now this is what I have:
> 
> 1: Solve 2 corners (DL)- Very easy for beginners to understand, completely intuitive
> 2: Solve FB- Use slice moves for intuitive insertion of edges
> ...



I feel like it might be better to do edges then corners for the FB like you would in normal beginners because I'm not sure etching weird slice moves to a beginner would go down that well. 

Similar thing goes for the SB as well; solve DR and then insert corners, then solve the edges using the other stuff.

For LSE, it's not actually too bad to teach; I learned it purely frok being shown MUM' and worked everything else out from there.


----------



## Arc (Sep 3, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Isn't this 2OP from M-CELL?
> 
> 
> I feel like it might be better to do edges then corners for the FB like you would in normal beginners because I'm not sure etching weird slice moves to a beginner would go down that well.
> ...


I was going to reply with this method myself. +1

For EO I would try to find a pattern to cycle into arrow with just M' U M'.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 3, 2017)

So lately I've been thinking about some tyrannical caterpillar variants, most of course based off of solving the last 5 corners in some fashion while inserting the FR edge. My main gripe with classic Tyrannical Caterpillar is that it adds a lot more algs with not much efficiency gain from regular Roux, in other words TC isn't really that great of an L5C method. Here are four alternative methods I much prefer to classic TC with either way less algs (<50) or more efficient movecounts (<11 moves for the corners+the FR edge):

a. "Valiant Opossum" (VOP style orientation [~5.5 moves] + one of the 6 NLLs used in HD/VOP [~8.5 moves+the FR edge injection], total w/ AUFs is around 16 moves)
Theoretically this is only 2-3 moves more than TCMLL with about a fifth of the algs, and honestly in my opinion a lot more worth it for a beginner compared to TC. "Valiant Opossum" not only provides some very lucky singles; it also has almost the same amount of moves as standard LP+CMLL with less than half of the algs (I say "less than half" because most of the orientation cases shouldn't even qualify as algorithms, they're ultra fast 3 move inserts a beginner could learn intuitively).

b. Caterpillar. Just a plain old caterpillar. (Insert DRF corner [~4 moves] & do a CMLL plus the FR edge injection [~10 moves], mix in an AUF and you get a total of ~15 moves)
@Teoidus propsosed a method like this a while back he called "TT", but this goes a step further in utilizing FR injections to give you an LSE finish. I feel like if you're going to propose a method centered around not using a lot of algs, you might as well keep it that way for the last x edges step. Anyway, "caterpillar" is really just TCMLL without the "T" part, cutting off 80 algs while only adding about a move. The reason I prefer this over regular TC is because the moves that are lost by inserting the DFR with correct orientation are pretty much gained back by how ergonomic and short CMLLs are without having to perserve the FR edge. This also beats out traditional Roux CMLL by a move or two while maintaining slightly better lookahead since you don't have to find a full pair after BRSquare.

c. "Voracious Leech" (just ignore the name for a second, basically you do the exact same corners step I described a long time ago [1 oriented corner-in-UBL-L5C] but with a Tyrannical caterpillar style injection to skip out on L7E and instead have LSE)
Now this idea is by far the most algorithms thus far (~300!) but has some crazy efficiency. I've generated several of the VL4C cases and they're around 8 moves on average. With the FR edge injection and AUF added, this last 5 corners+FR edge technique would be around 10 moves on average, compared to the 16-17 used in normal Roux. And if this was used in conjunction with EOLR and good blockbuilding, you could probably average around 38-39 moves, just breaking that 40 move barrier, and probably being one of the most efficient/fast methods ever proposed (later I'll put up a post that includes a sub-40 solution with @mDiPalma's scramble). Obvisouly this comes at the cost of learning 300 algs, but that's definitely still a learnable amount and nearly 200 less than full ZBLL. Obviously this wouldn't be a method for everyone to learn, and I'm sure I'll get a response saying "well 42 can achieve similar movecounts with only 42 algs", but I think for someone willing to go the extra mile and learn 300 algs, this is pretty decent idea.

d. "Terrific Eagle" (Bope style 1×2×2 squares [~9 moves], Twisty EG+FR injection [~14 moves] and L7E [~16 moves, but I'm sure we could do better] giving you a grand total of just about 39-40 moves)
This idea is the weirdest of them all and also the most alg heavy; I proposed this a while back on the BOPE thread but didn't really get any responses. I don't really have too much to say about this since I really haven't experimented with it much and it would take more developments than some of the above methods to get it to sub-40, but it seems about as efficient as the last idea with around 50 more algs. The main advantage it has over some of the other TC variants here is that you can one-look six pieces as opposed to five during inspection, giving you a near 2-look solve.

I know I probably sounded overconfident and the names for these are ridiculous, but with all my ideas out of the way now, my main question remains: are Tyrannical x methods actually any better than just solving the corners normally and ending in L7E? I've personally been believing they're worth it since you're solving one extra piece by only adding a setup move+an injection while cutting down the number of algs you need to learn for the last step, but I could easily be wrong, especially if a 15 move L7E approach is on the horizon. Tell me if you think it's worth generating algs for any of these methods, or if I should just stick with developing L7E methods.

While I'm at it, I might as well throw an random bonus OH method that is basically just a fancy 2GR finish and (maybe) pretty good:

1.) EOPair (6/6)
2.) CPLine (4/10)
3.) Block (9/19)
4.) Connect the DBR corner and DR edge and put them in the d-layer (4/23)
5.) One-corner oriented L5C (~50 7.5 move 2 gen algs, 8/31)
6.) L6EP (@Neuro created an algset for this a while back, optimal is around 10 moves and 2 gen algs are 12 moves on average, so I'll say 12/43)

This is something like 50 more algs than classic 2GR while shaving off around 5 moves. Not drastically better but maybe worth it for someone (I for one might actually might use this for OH) and there's probably a more efficient way to do the first 4 steps, but I'm just too lazy to find that right now. Also @Teoidus I couldn't find the exact statistics for some of the 2GR steps so they're probably a bit off, you can correct me if I'm wrong on those.

This post took nearly a day of thinking and an two or three hours of typing (on my crappy phone) so hopefully you guys could give me some decently thought-out responses. And if you read this entire post from start to finish go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 3, 2017)

Thermex said:


> So lately I've been thinking about some tyrannical caterpillar variants, most of course based off of solving the last 5 corners in some fashion while inserting the FR edge. My main gripe with classic Tyrannical Caterpillar is that it adds a lot more algs with not much efficiency gain from regular Roux, in other words TC isn't really that great of an L5C method. Here are four alternative methods I much prefer to classic TC with either way less algs (<50) or more efficient movecounts (<11 moves for the corners+the FR edge):
> 
> a. "Valiant Opossum" (VOP style orientation [~5.5 moves] + one of the 6 NLLs used in HD/VOP [~8.5 moves+the FR edge injection], total w/ AUFs is around 16 moves)
> Theoretically this is only 2-3 moves more than TCMLL with about a fifth of the algs, and honestly in my opinion a lot more worth it for a beginner compared to TC. "Valiant Opossum" not only provides some very lucky singles; it also has almost the same amount of moves as standard LP+CMLL with less than half of the algs (I say "less than half" because most of the orientation cases shouldn't even qualify as algorithms, they're ultra fast 3 move inserts a beginner could learn intuitively).
> ...


42- could well achieve 35ish movecounts with 128 or so algs. The movecounts would be approximately
Fb+SBsquare (non-linear, NMLL): 13
BTR+: 10 (if we want injections as described in the wiki)
LSE: 13
Total: 36

There are also things metioned on the wiki which I haven't included.

I think in general these ideas are interesting though I think atm the best thing to focus on actually getting L7E really really good because if it can be made very good then it should be possible to use almost and L5C variant and still get much better/ more efficient solves.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 3, 2017)

Thermex said:


> So lately I've been thinking about some tyrannical caterpillar variants, most of course based off of solving the last 5 corners in some fashion while inserting the FR edge. My main gripe with classic Tyrannical Caterpillar is that it adds a lot more algs with not much efficiency gain from regular Roux, in other words TC isn't really that great of an L5C method. Here are four alternative methods I much prefer to classic TC with either way less algs (<50) or more efficient movecounts (<11 moves for the corners+the FR edge):
> 
> a. "Valiant Opossum" (VOP style orientation [~5.5 moves] + one of the 6 NLLs used in HD/VOP [~8.5 moves+the FR edge injection], total w/ AUFs is around 16 moves)
> Theoretically this is only 2-3 moves more than TCMLL with about a fifth of the algs, and honestly in my opinion a lot more worth it for a beginner compared to TC. "Valiant Opossum" not only provides some very lucky singles; it also has almost the same amount of moves as standard LP+CMLL with less than half of the algs (I say "less than half" because most of the orientation cases shouldn't even qualify as algorithms, they're ultra fast 3 move inserts a beginner could learn intuitively).
> ...


I think that the deal is, TC methods are really not as efficient as you think they are. It looks like you're only counting the injections a 1 move, while really they're 2 or 3, because the edge could be in any of 14 places, only 3 of which take 1 move to solve. Maybe I'm missing something. Voracious Leech isn't just like 42; as I understand it, it's the same thing. 1 oriented U-layer corner+L4C? That's what 42 is, really. Terrific Eagle sounds fine for BOPE. The others are beginner's stuffs, so I don't really see the point in judging them for speed. The 2GR variant sounds interesting, maybe try it out. What I think would be really cool is using TC injections with WaterRoux. I'll try it out.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 3, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I think that the deal is, TC methods are really not as efficient as you think they are. It looks like you're only counting the injections a 1 move, while really they're 2 or 3, because the edge could be in any of 14 places, only 3 of which take 1 move to solve. Maybe I'm missing something. Voracious Leech isn't just like 42; as I understand it, it's the same thing. 1 oriented U-layer corner+L4C? That's what 42 is, really. Terrific Eagle sounds fine for BOPE. The others are beginner's stuffs, so I don't really see the point in judging them for speed. The 2GR variant sounds interesting, maybe try it out. What I think would be really cool is using TC injections with WaterRoux. I'll try it out.


I tried to include injections as two moves, but I think there might have one or two places where I only added one move. Technically 8 out of the 14 cases are one movers since the orientation of the FR edge doesn't matter (M2s are used instead of Ms when the edge is oriented) so I think 2 moves is the most reasonable estimate for the FR injections. "Voracious Leech" (I will probably change the name at some point, it just sounds awful) is not the same thing as 42, I specified that in a post a couple of pages back. With 42 you _have _to use a conjugated CMLL every time which gives you slightly less efficient solves than the L5C variant I made in which you solve one of 290 cases optimally. This provides some of the shortest and most ergonomic algs ever; three move inserts, sledgehammers, and altered sunes. Obviously @shadowslice e is right that 42 is a better method for a wider audience since it only has 42 algs, but in terms of pure efficiency without much regard to alg count Voracious leech is slightly better. Tyrannical eagle like I said is a WIP, there's a lot of things that would need to be developed before it could become a real method and all, but so far it looks like the most efficient variant of Bope, and one day I'll probably release it. As for the other two methods, they're not as much beginner methods as they are intermediate methods (in terms of concepts) for people who really hate learning algs. I'll probably generate and develop algs for those at some point this week.


shadowslice e said:


> 42- could well achieve 35ish movecounts with 128 or so algs. The movecounts would be approximately
> Fb+SBsquare (non-linear, NMLL): 13
> BTR+: 10 (if we want injections as described in the wiki)
> LSE: 13
> ...


Optimistic movecounts, but I could see that passing for a really good solver. I don't really understand what you mean by "NMLL" for FB+BRSquare, is okay if you explain that a bit more? Otherwise this method looks amazing even though I would still predict movecounts closer to 39, and I'll actually just gen algs for them today and post 'em later, I don't see why not.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 3, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Optimistic movecounts, but I could see that passing for a really good solver. I don't really understand what you mean by "NMLL" for FB+BRSquare, is okay if you explain that a bit more? Otherwise this method looks amazing, I'll actually just gen algs for this today and post 'em later, I don't see why not.


Basically it means you can build any of the 4 possible SBsquares.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 3, 2017)

Thermex said:


> my main question remains: are Tyrannical x methods actually any better than just solving the corners normally and ending in L7E? I've personally been believing they're worth it since you're solving one extra piece by only adding a setup move+an injection while cutting down the number of algs you need to learn for the last step, but I could easily be wrong, especially if a 15 move L7E approach is on the horizon. Tell me if you think it's worth generating algs for any of these methods, or if I should just stick with developing L7E methods.



This was actually one of the main points behind the "TT proposal"--I'm not convinced that the injection is worth it and it complicates things. While I don't think L7E can be further optimized, I'll take an extra 1-2 moves over having to lookahead in the middle of an algorithm any day.

I did read through all of your LS/CMLL variants, but to be honest I just got confused and can't offer a good opinion on them other than that they look alright but might add needless complexity. I like (despite how 2GR seems) simple methods and any non-inspected steps that can't be described by a single "permute ___" or "orient __" make me question whether they're really necessary.



Thermex said:


> While I'm at it, I might as well throw an random bonus OH method that is basically just a fancy 2GR finish and (maybe) pretty good:
> 
> 1.) EOPair (6/6)
> 2.) CPLine (4/10)
> ...



This is pretty cool! I'd say it saves ~2-3 moves vs F2L/2GLL (which averages around 13 + 14 = 27), and it's much easier to use tricks with this method (you can pretty much take advantage of any free pair on L, R, U, or D since R2/U2 pseudo recognition is a lot simpler vs 2GLL). How many algs are CLS and L6EP?


----------



## Arc (Sep 3, 2017)

Okay I think I have some ideas to improve the Roux method.

1) I call this mispermuted centers. Basically the idea is that if you see a really easy FB, but the center would be wrong, just build it anyway. Before CMLL you can easily fix the centers with a couple wide u moves and an M. This adds a few moves after SB but can drop the FB move count significantly.

2) I call this liberated blocks. The idea here is that if you see a really easy SB square (or even the entire block) after you start FB, you can build that and then finish FB after. This allows some flexibility in F2B to take better advantage of lucky cases to get lower move counts.

3) This concept I call bi-color blocks. What it means is that you don't have to use the same color on bottom for both blocks. The CMLL recognition becomes slightly harder but being able to choose whichever SB is best should lower the move count a lot, and the cost is only a single R or r move after LSE.

4) S-CMLL, or Super-CMLL. This is an alternate way of doing CMLL. It requires learning only 84 algs (which is quite reasonable). The goal here is to influence EO while solving the corners to give an easier LSE case. The idea is that 42 of the algs will flip two edges while solving the corners, and 42 of them won't flip any edges while solving the corners. By adjusting the M slice to flip certain edges before performing an edge-flipping alg, or by choosing to use an EO preserving alg, you can always avoid a 6 flip and generally get better EO cases. Since the algs hardly vary in move count at all from standard CMLL (within 1 or 2 at the worst), you should get a move count reduction off of the easier LSE cases.

5) Conjugated L4EP is the idea of solving UF and UB instead of UL and UR during step 4b. Then you can offset them with a U or U' and then solve L4E with different colors (the recognition is a little harder). This should allow you to take advantage of easier 4b cases and save several moves.

6) I call this step 95, because it does step 4a and step 4b at the same time, and in hexadecimal, 4a + 4b = 95. Basically the idea is to solve EO in a specific way that puts UL and UR (or UF and UB if you combine step 95 with conjugated L4EP) into a very easily solved spot. This should shave of almost all the moves of step 4b without adding any to 4a's move count.

I think that with all these advancements, you could get sub-40 move count solves with Roux, or even sub-35, or maybe even less.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 3, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> This was actually one of the main points behind the "TT proposal"--I'm not convinced that the injection is worth it and it complicates things. While I don't think L7E can be further optimized, I'll take an extra 1-2 moves over having to lookahead in the middle of an algorithm any day.
> 
> I did read through all of your LS/CMLL variants, but to be honest I just got confused and can't offer a good opinion on them other than that they look alright but might add needless complexity. I like (despite how 2GR seems) simple methods and any non-inspected steps that can't be described by a single "permute ___" or "orient __" make me question whether they're really necessary.
> 
> ...


CLS is 50 algs and L6EP is like 65 or something.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 3, 2017)

Okay, so it's around 30 extra algs for 3 less moves/easier pseudos. That's pretty good if your movecounts for the steps are accurate


----------



## Neuro (Sep 3, 2017)

Here's my L6EP document! 86 algs, 82 disregarding EPLL with an avg of ~12 moves. Fully <RU>. Some of the cases are very difficult to recognize, especially the last set (it can be easily avoided though)

Full CLS is 104 algs, so either 190 or 186 algs. Since it only saves a few moves (possibly) you may want to stick with F2L+2GLL


----------



## Hazel (Sep 3, 2017)

So, here's another method idea:
1) Standard Roux FB on left
1.5) Solve the BR/BDR F2L pair.
2) Use keyhole to solve the rest of the first layer, minus DF and DFR pieces
2.5) Solve DFR while making sure FR edge is oriented - maybe 4 moves on average
3) EODF
4) CPLE - Corner permutation + last F2L edge, I'm pretty sure this has 12 algs (6 if you just mirror the others)
5) 2GLL

You could also do CPFB as the first step and adjust the other steps a bit to avoid having to recognize CP mid-solve.


----------



## Cale S (Sep 3, 2017)

ZZ LSLL method

*1. insert edge + phase edges*

4 cases including R U R', R U' R', and R U2 R', barely even a step

*2. orient corners while preserving phased edges*

23 cases, 6 are normal OLLs and the rest are pretty easy

3. *TTLL with phased edges
*
one of 24 TTLL cases


Average movecounts:
step 1: 3 or 4
step 2: 9
step 3: 13 or 14

26 average movecount with less than 50 total algs, and recog is pretty easy

also you have a 1 in 11.4 chance of skipping a step, making it 2-look


----------



## Arc (Sep 4, 2017)

Cale S said:


> ZZ LSLL method
> 
> *1. insert edge + phase edges*
> 
> ...


This is pretty neat, but don't forget that you have 3 AUFs (before orientation, before TTLL, and after TTLL) putting you at 2.25 moves higher than just the algs alone, so up to around 28-29.


----------



## Hazel (Sep 4, 2017)

Is this already a thing?:

Last Layer method:
1) solve EO and CP using one of 24 algs
2) 2GLL

Pretty much identical recognition to OLLCP.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 4, 2017)

Yeah. I remember seeing a post about it a little while back. It wasn't in this thread though


----------



## Hazel (Sep 4, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Yeah. I remember seeing a post about it a little while back. It wasn't in this thread though


Do you reckon it's anything worth pursuing and generating algs for?


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 4, 2017)

Nah. I don't think it's any more efficient than OLL/PLL.

Though, it might be an interesting 1look 2alg system for LL? I'm not sure


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 4, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Do you reckon it's anything worth pursuing and generating algs for?


This has been around a while; there are some algs in the external links.
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CPEOLL


----------



## Hazel (Sep 4, 2017)

Teoidus that's very true...
If you used algs for the first step that preserved EP and relative CO than you could see the 2GLL before you even do the EOCP alg.
I'm not sure how good the EOPS algs would be (or how to generate them, preserving realtive CO would be weird with CubeExplorer).
What I mean by relative CO is doing an alg that would solve CP but you would still have the same OCLL case and EP case from the same angle.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 4, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Here's my L6EP document! 86 algs, 82 disregarding EPLL with an avg of ~12 moves. Fully <RU>. Some of the cases are very difficult to recognize, especially the last set (it can be easily avoided though)
> 
> Full CLS is 104 algs, so either 190 or 186 algs. Since it only saves a few moves (possibly) you may want to stick with F2L+2GLL


Both me and @Teoidus phrased that wrong, it's not actually CLS, it's pretty much a two-gen L5C set. I'll post more about that and some of the 42 TC-conjugated CMLL set tomorrow.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 4, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Both me and @Teoidus phrased that wrong, it's not actually CLS, it's pretty much a two-gen L5C set. I'll post more about that and some of the 42 TC-conjugated CMLL set tomorrow.


It's still 104 algs. It has identical recog to CLS (orientation only) although it is, of course, more efficient because you can cycle F2L/LL edges. Still don't think it'd be worth it, sorry


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 4, 2017)

I think it might be lower than you'd expect, since chance of a usable pair increases a lot. I'd have to see how pseudo L6EP recognition is though compared to 2GLL


----------



## Thermex (Sep 4, 2017)

Neuro said:


> It's still 104 algs. It has identical recog to CLS (orientation only) although it is, of course, more efficient because you can cycle F2L/LL edges. Still don't think it'd be worth it, sorry


Trust me on this one, I've genned a quarter of the algs already. If one u-layer corner is oriented in UBL, you have 18 possible orientations in the unsolved part (the unsolved pieces form a "V" shape, that's why I like to call this VLC). One of those orientations is when you have all corners oriented, which because of rotational symmetry is only one case (R U' R' U2 R U R'). For the remaining 17 orientations, the D-layer corner can be in one of 4 places relative to the oriented UBL corner, and since you already did a CP fix, you just multiply 4×17 and get 68, and then add in the one TTLL to get 69 cases. This was a bit more than I predicted (I forgot to include the TCLL and COLL cases) but still pretty learnable. Another thing to note is that a lot of the HD orientation algs are used in this set, and half of those are not even real "algorithms" (3 move inserts, well known OLLs, etc.). So that leaves like 150 algs total for the method, but like I said you could cut off about 20 cases that are just trivial. Still 45 algs more than 2GLL, but I honestly think it's worth it. You could also probably switch a couple of steps around earlier in the solve to not only boost the efficiency but maybe get rid of some of the bad L6EP cases. Here's a comparison of the two methods up until LS:

VLC+L6EP:
84 algs (VLC 69+L5EP 15=84 algs)
~20 moves (VLC 7+L5EP 11+2 AUFs=20)

2GLL:
84 algs
~20.5 moves (pair 6+alg 13+1.5 AUFs= 20.5)

Dang these are close... the main advantage of the one I came up with is that you can build onto in and add L6EP and also that when using two hands with optimal L5EP cases the movecount is closer to 17 or 18.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 4, 2017)

Wait, that can't be right. Inserting the last corner + orienting the remaining corners is identical to CLS in case count, so it should be 104.

EDIT: I realize my earlier post wasn't clear. The move count might be lower than youd' expect, not the case count.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 4, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Wait, that can't be right. Inserting the last corner + orienting the remaining corners is identical to CLS in case count, so it should be 104.
> 
> EDIT: I realize my earlier post wasn't clear. The move count might be lower than youd' expect, not the case count.


Since you force one oriented corner in UBL it is actually 69 cases. Trust me, just check the math I did.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 4, 2017)

Just realized; with 42-style recognition, you can cut down on corner cases by a LOT so that may be something to consider. I think that forcing an oriented corner in UBL *might* be counterproductive as it seems to be a waste of moves.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 4, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Just realized; with 42-style recognition, you can cut down on corner cases by a LOT so that may be something to consider. I think that forcing an oriented corner in UBL *might* be counterproductive as it seems to be a waste of moves.


If you use 42 style solving of the corners you can signifcantly cut down on cases but not moves. You would end up having the 7 2-gen COLLs that are okay but not great. Using VLC allows for 3 move inserts among other ultra-fast cases, cutting the movecount down by 2-3 moves. Also both methods require you to orient a corner and put it in the U/B layer.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 4, 2017)

I agree with Neuro on this one--Pair/CLS/L6EP seems much better than Pair/setup/CLS subset/L6EP.

The CLS algs are all crazy easy 2gen stuff anyway, so why complicate things?


----------



## Thermex (Sep 4, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I agree with Neuro on this one--Pair/CLS/L6EP seems much better than Pair/setup/CLS subset/L6EP.
> 
> The CLS algs are all crazy easy 2gen stuff anyway, so why complicate things?


Orienting one U-layer corner takes absolutely no effort to do and cuts off 35 cases. Most of the CLS cases with all corners disoriented are way worse than the ones where the corners are oriented.

Quick update on the TC stuff I've been working on: First off, I manually generated the cases for "Valiant Opposum", here are the algs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...WgDXqQQOyLezr4Nscvqu3Vay-w/edit#gid=670959495. This took me a long time to do for some reason and the average for the L5C+FR edge is about 17 or 18 moves, almost exactly what CMLL is. Not really sure if I think this is even a good method or not and I don't even know if it's worth creating a wiki page/thread over it, but it's out there now. I guess it could be good for someone who uses VOP or HD on 2x2. As for the Briggs/42 TC variant @shadowlice e proposed yesterday, I tried to make to make some algs for it and it's just too darn confusing. I'm going to try to work it out today but it's really weird when you're trying to connect the FR edge to DFR corner when everything is already conjugated and moved around by the initial R move :/


----------



## Pyjam (Sep 4, 2017)

Cale S said:


> ZZ LSLL method
> 
> *1. insert edge + phase edges*
> 
> ...


I'm interested. Could you provide the algs for step 2, please?
And maybe for step 3 also.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 4, 2017)

Arc said:


> Okay I think I have some ideas to improve the Roux method.
> 
> 1) I call this mispermuted centers. Basically the idea is that if you see a really easy FB, but the center would be wrong, just build it anyway. Before CMLL you can easily fix the centers with a couple wide u moves and an M. This adds a few moves after SB but can drop the FB move count significantly.
> 
> ...






Did you get all of these tricks off Kian Mansour's above video? He goes over every single one of those there. Low 40s is probably what most people coule get after perfecting all these tricks.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 4, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Orienting one U-layer corner takes absolutely no effort to do and cuts off 35 cases. Most of the CLS cases with all corners disoriented are way worse than the ones where the corners are oriented.


I still don't think this is worth it. It's an extra thing to check that can be easily avoided by just learning more algs.


----------



## Arc (Sep 4, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Did you get all of these tricks off Kian Mansour's above video? He goes over every single one of those there. Low 40s is probably what most people coule get after perfecting all these tricks.


It was satirical. Top Rouxers don't even use the first three regularly. It's totally feasible to get sub 40 move counts with vanilla Roux. If you saved an average of one move per solve with each one of those, you could get sub 35 move counts. The point is that there seems to be a huge divide between theory and practice in this thread as of late. It's great to have new ideas but people seem to be jumping on everything as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.

And there seems to be such a focus on move count versus alg count with complete disregard for anything else. One of the most interesting ideas to me in method creating is the way that CFOP keeps your wrist in a neutral position throughout all of F2L. In fact most top Rouxers solve SB as DR + 2 pairs, which also has this effect. The faster ZZ solver in the world uses EOCross, same exact effect. I think it's something to really look into.

When you gen algs, you balance move count with ergonomics to try to find the alg that can be executed the fastest, and it should be no different with method creation.

This is just my two cents.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 5, 2017)

Arc said:


> It was satirical. Top Rouxers don't even use the first three regularly. It's totally feasible to get sub 40 move counts with vanilla Roux. If you saved an average of one move per solve with each one of those, you could get sub 35 move counts. The point is that there seems to be a huge divide between theory and practice in this thread as of late. It's great to have new ideas but people seem to be jumping on everything as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.
> 
> And there seems to be such a focus on move count versus alg count with complete disregard for anything else. One of the most interesting ideas to me in method creating is the way that CFOP keeps your wrist in a neutral position throughout all of F2L. In fact most top Rouxers solve SB as DR + 2 pairs, which also has this effect. The faster ZZ solver in the world uses EOCross, same exact effect. I think it's something to really look into.
> 
> ...


Agreed. 

EDIT: After looking into TC variants more I really like them less and less, adding random Ms in an algorithm can be a pain, especially since Imo L7E is almost as fast as LSE. I think I'll switch over to working on L7E for a while, maybe I'll gen algs for the FR+EO (do these exist yet?)


----------



## efattah (Sep 5, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Agreed.
> 
> EDIT: After looking into TC variants more I really like them less and less, adding random Ms in an algorithm can be a pain, especially since Imo L7E is almost as fast as LSE. I think I'll switch over to working on L7E for a while, maybe I'll gen algs for the FR+EO (do these exist yet?)



Some of the Waterman L6E algorithms can be repurposed as L7E FR+EO; in some case shorter algorithms might exist as you don't need to preserve UL and solve UR (as the Waterman algorithms do). The Waterman algorithms would only be used in the case where the FR edge is already in FR or UR slot. I'm quite curious to see the L7E FR+EO set, it could be quite useful. However with no setup moves there are at least 7 situations where FR could be (M-slice (O,D), FR(D), UR(O,D), UL(O,D)) and each of these has around 8 orientation cases so there are around 56 algorithms for the right side situation and 56 more for the left side (assuming FL+EO).


----------



## Neuro (Sep 6, 2017)

I calculated that if you have FR in DF, you have 30 algs (15 for FR edge oriented and 15 when it's disoriented) but having it in either DF or DB gives 60 algs (this is probably the better option)

You may want to make a set for when the FR edge is in the slot but disoriented and *maybe* one for when the edge is in UL (this bumps us to 120, but you'd probably be better off learning 90, where you can have it in DF, DB, or disoriented in FR)

W/O setup, 30*7=210. I don't really think it'd be worth it to do it like this but it'd be doable.

Algs shouldn't be too hard to generate, I can probably finish it over the week if you want them.

@Arc SB can be made more efficient by using edges other than DR to build off of (similar to open-slotting in ZZ) but the rest I tend to agree with. There's a point where saving moves isn't worth the alg count (i.e. saving 3 moves by using >400 algs) I do think it's important to work on methods to get low movecounts, but if you are serious about it becoming a speedsolving method, you may need to make some sacrifices to make it approachable/feasible for people to learn.


----------



## gogozerg (Sep 6, 2017)

Arc said:


> One of the most interesting ideas to me in method creating is the way that CFOP keeps your wrist in a neutral position throughout all of F2L. In fact most top Rouxers solve SB as DR + 2 pairs, which also has this effect. The faster ZZ solver in the world uses EOCross, same exact effect. I think it's something to really look into.



That's one of the reasons why many people discarded the idea of starting with solving DF+DB while orienting the other edges. Long before some people presented it as the shiny new ultimate method.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 6, 2017)

a new method

1) solve the first two layers except the corners orientation
2) eopll 157 algorithms
3) ol8c 191 algorithms (auf+adf)


----------



## Thermex (Sep 7, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I calculated that if you have FR in DF, you have 30 algs (15 for FR edge oriented and 15 when it's disoriented) but having it in either DF or DB gives 60 algs (this is probably the better option)
> 
> You may want to make a set for when the FR edge is in the slot but disoriented and *maybe* one for when the edge is in UL (this bumps us to 120, but you'd probably be better off learning 90, where you can have it in DF, DB, or disoriented in FR)
> 
> ...


I'll split the alg load with you, they are pretty easy to gen (I made a couple already). @crafto22 has already made many of the algs (the ones where either FR is flipped or where ULUR are oriented) so that cuts off a lot of algs that need to generated.
Calculating the number of FREO alg is quite tricky imo, but I don't think it's quite 210, especially since FR flipped is only 9 cases. anyway how about you do the DF cases and I do the DB ones? I could probably finish em by this Sunday.


----------



## Hazel (Sep 7, 2017)

TTLL kinda gave me an idea, what if we did TTLL but with the DF edge, and it was just EPLL, not CPLL too?
It would have only M and U moves and be pretty darn fast I think. Recognition would be really easy if LL corners were done beforehand.
So, back to the Petrus-block-first methods I've proposed a lot of:
1) Petrus block
1.50) One F2L pair
2) Insert other F2L pair with WVCP, or insert it then some CxLL varient
3) EO
4) DFLL


----------



## Neuro (Sep 7, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I'll split the alg load with you, they are pretty easy to gen (I made a couple already). @crafto22 has already made many of the algs (the ones where either FR is flipped or where ULUR are oriented) so that cuts off a lot of algs that need to generated.
> Calculating the number of FREO alg is quite tricky imo, but I don't think it's quite 210, especially since FR flipped is only 9 cases. anyway how about you do the DF cases and I do the DB ones? I could probably finish em by this Sunday.


By allowing for AMS/AUF's greatly reduced alg count. So while there are >15 algs in each set, that's how many there would be with zero adjustments. I'll give you access to my document so you can start


----------



## Arc (Sep 7, 2017)

Aerma said:


> TTLL kinda gave me an idea, what if we did TTLL but with the DF edge, and it was just EPLL, not CPLL too?
> It would have only M and U moves and be pretty darn fast I think. Recognition would be really easy if LL corners were done beforehand.
> So, back to the Petrus-block-first methods I've proposed a lot of:
> 1) Petrus block
> ...


This step is called EP5 and is used in ZZ-Portico (formerly knows as ZZ-TartarugaSottosopra) by @mDiPalma (EODB -> F2L -> COLL -> EP5)

I think that this method is kind of silly and that just doing Petrus but leaving out DR and then rotating before EP5 (even as silly as that is) would just be better. Not to mention that Petrus with ZBLL is a lot better too.


----------



## Hazel (Sep 7, 2017)

@Arc well then, why not a Roux variant?
1) Roux block
2) 2x2x2 in DB
3) Last pair + Corners (Either WVCP or one at a time)
4) EO
5) EP5

Or maybe like this:
1) Roux block
2) second roux block
2.5) solve DB while correcting centers (just a few moves)
3) EO
4) EP5

Or maybe you could do EO while solving DB+centers


----------



## Arc (Sep 7, 2017)

Aerma said:


> @Arc well then, why not a Roux variant?
> 1) Roux block
> 2) 2x2x2 in DB
> 3) Last pair + Corners (Either WVCP or one at a time)
> ...


I don't understand the appeal of this over normal Roux. All you're doing is solving DB during SB, using WVCP instead of CMLL (bad for several reasons, CMLL is just better), then doing a super restricted version of LSE (which means you're going to have a lot more M (as opposed to M') than normal LSE. On the upside you never get a 6 flip (only 5 edges left unsolved), but that's also true of Roux with just 2 CMLLs per case.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 8, 2017)

Apparently I miscalculated the # of EO+FR algs. If you allow for any situation to appear, you have 32 algs per set. With AUF's/AMS', this will go down significantly. I'll run some tests and see how far we can cut it and still have ~1 move setup.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 9, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Apparently I miscalculated the # of EO+FR algs. If you allow for any situation to appear, you have 32 algs per set. With AUF's/AMS', this will go down significantly. I'll run some tests and see how far we can cut it and still have ~1 move setup.


I've calculated it out, and I'm pretty sure there are 24 algs per place of the FR edge.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 12, 2017)

“lop” method (new)

1)cp line + eo
this is where you reduce corners permutation and solve edge orientation
2)Es+co
separate all the equator pieces to the equator while solving corner orientation<R,r2,M2,U,u2,E2>
3)pa
permutate all pieces<R2,r2,M2,U,u,E>

advantages:
no algorithms
(assumed) low movecount, (not yet calculated) ##qs+htm (counts quarter slices as 1 move)
you never unsolve previous steps
name has pun possibility

disadvantages:
supper high learning curve
supper complex steps
has many double moves
name sounds bad


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 12, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> “lop” method (new)
> 
> 1)cp line + eo
> this is where you reduce corners permutation and solve edge orientation
> ...


How do you do any of this with no algs?


----------



## ZZQueen (Sep 12, 2017)

Hello 
I never started a Threat here and have about zero experience with forums in general. I don't know if this Post is at the right place here, but I have an idea for ZZ on 5x5 which I want to be discussed, so I think it is.

I am a ZZ solver and really bad with CFOP, so I do ZZ on big cubes, too, or at least some kind of ZZ-ish stuff. I'd like to hear your opinion on it because I think it is as good as normal reduction and for ZZ solvers probably the better choice. Maybe you have suggestions to make it better or say it is complete ******** - please tell me. 
To understand what I'm talking about you should know how to solve the 5x5 with reduction and have an idea about the concept of edge orientation.

So here are the steps:



Spoiler



1. I solve the centers and a white cross. While solving the cross edges, I hold the white center on the left an pair the edges on the M-slice. You can also do this step with Yau or Hoya or like what ever you want.

2. I do a cube rotation so the cross is at the bottom and pair four more edges. Usually these are the four edges I need for F2L. I also solve EO while putting them up, what doesn't need any extra effort. On 3x3 I usually hold blue in front so edges are "good" when the blue/green face looks upward and the orange/red face outward.
Sometimes there are some luckily paired yellow edges and I still don't really know how to deal with this because the method works better with the four F2L-edges paired on this step, but destroying half-solved edges on purpose just feels wrong. Anyway, you need at least two edges to build a block on either the right or the left side. 

3. I rebuild the centers and hold the blue one in the front. Then I build a block on the left or the right side. If I solved all four F2L edges, I can choose now which block is more efficient/easier to see, if I didn't, i have to solve the block I have the edges for.

4. I solve the remaining edges on the two free slots while considering and if its possible solving EO. This is the most interesting step in my opinion.
The idea is basically to put the first two edges with solved EO at the top and see as early as possible if the last two edges will be good or bad: 
If both are good I have EO-skip. Yay!
If both are bad I try to flip them while solving the block, this needs a few cube rotations and/or F-turns, so it isn't ideal. Sometimes it is better to accept that I will have two bad edges at LL.
If one edge is good and one is bad, one edge on the top layer has to be bad too. What I want is that the bad edge at the top is the F2L-edge that belongs in the slot where the other bad edge is. So I can just normal solve this pair with the blue center on the right or the left, then do a cube rotation and solve the other pair. This leads to a solved EO at LL (and feels really cool every time). Of course, if the edge I want to be bad at the top is one of the last two unsolved I can't do this. That's the reason I always try to avoid this by solving all four F2L edges in step 2. 

This hole step may sound weird to people who didn't work with EO much but I think people who use CFOP and do some EO-skip tricks while solving the last slot will get it. Just try it out a few times.

5. Solve the other block/ the last two pairs and if it is not done yet EO.

6. ZBLL



As you see it is not really pure ZZ, it is more like CFOP where you pair edges, solve EO and do F2L at the same time. But I feel like ZZ solvers would like this more than just doing reduction and then having a big pause while looking for bad edges. I think if you don't solve EO while pairing edges you are just wasting time.
I will do some example solves soon so you see better what I'm talking about. I think especially step 4 is hard to understand without an example.

I may used some weird/wrong expressions, English is not my first language^^


----------



## TDM (Sep 12, 2017)

ZZQueen said:


> Hello
> I never started a Threat here and have about zero experience with forums in general. I don't know if this Post is at the right place here, but I have an idea for ZZ on 5x5 which I want to be discussed, so I think it is.
> 
> I am a ZZ solver and really bad with CFOP, so I do ZZ on big cubes, too, or at least some kind of ZZ-ish stuff. I'd like to hear your opinion on it because I think it is as good as normal reduction and for ZZ solvers probably the better choice. Maybe you have suggestions to make it better or say it is complete ******** - please tell me.
> ...


Hi there!

We do have a thread for new method suggestions; that would be the best place to put threads like this. 

About the method itself: If you think EO detection on 3x3 stage is a problem, then perhaps you could solve a 4x4x5 block instead, while doing the reduction part? That way, all of the remaining unsolved edges would be left on two faces, making EO detection far easier. It would also give you more freedom during the edge pairing stages of the solve.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 12, 2017)

To be honest, I think the most pressing issue is the name


----------



## DuJello (Sep 13, 2017)

I want to share the methods that I use on here just because I haven't seen quite the same methods used anywhere.

For 3x3 the steps to my method are thus:
- Solve f2l-1 and eo in any way. This takes most of the solve and is very intuitive. Most of the time it is primarily blockbuilding with edge control but there is a lot of variation on what that can look like. This can really end up being anything from zz-f2l type stuff to petrus to cfop. A lot of the time it ends up being very similar to Heise.
- Winter Variation (27 cases, skip oll). Eventually I plan on learning Summer Variation as well.
- PLL

Average move count when I'm slow solving seems to be in the forties. The look-ahead is decent. The move set is primarily R and U based so it's fairly ergonomic. One downside is that I often end up doing 3-4 cube rotations because blockbuilding in the back is really hard. 

For 4x4 the steps to my method are:
- Solve 2 opposite centers (as so many methods start with)
- Expand one center into a 2x3x3 block and the other into a 1x3x3 block kind of like roux but not really.
- Solve the slice between those blocks forming a 3x3x4 block like the second step of petrus.
- Solve the last 2 centers with the last cross piece
- Yau type edge pairing for last 5 dedges BUT done in a way that also orients the dedges. For the last 2 dedges I use one of 2 algorithms to pair so these could be misoriented, because of this I sometimes have to throw in a sledgehammer for normal 3x3 eo.
- OLL parity (if necessary)
- Build f3l-1 and the last pair
- winter variation
- PLL with parity


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 13, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> How do you do any of this with no algs?


very complex studying of the cube in nearly all aspects. step one can be mastered by studying how moves effect eo and cp. step 2, the hard part is studying, and mesmerising the nearly solved corner orientations. step 3 requires studying how double moves effect the permutations of all the pieces. another thing for step 3, you must permutate the equator at the same time as the rest of the pieces.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 13, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> very complex studying of the cube in nearly all aspects. step one can be mastered by studying how moves effect eo and cp. step 2, the hard part is studying, and mesmerising the nearly solved corner orientations. step 3 requires studying how double moves effect the permutations of all the pieces. another thing for step 3, you must permutate the equator at the same time as the rest of the pieces.


If you can give an example solve, I will admit the method's feasibility.



Neuro said:


> Apparently I miscalculated the # of EO+FR algs. If you allow for any situation to appear, you have 32 algs per set. With AUF's/AMS', this will go down significantly. I'll run some tests and see how far we can cut it and still have ~1 move setup.


Here's a cool idea: have algs for this that either solve EO or force an arrow case. Alg count would be around halved, right?


----------



## Neuro (Sep 13, 2017)

The algs wouldn't be halved, but it would make them more efficient. Whether it's worth it or not would be debatable at best, though.

I think that we can make LSE more efficient but it will require a lot of algs. More info to follow. Also, playing with a half-turn redux method; may be good for FMC.


----------



## Thermex (Sep 13, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Here's a cool idea: have algs for this that either solve EO or force an arrow case. Alg count would be around halved, right?


Great idea to cut down on the number of algs; in fact I'll probably use this while I'm learning full L7E, but it's not the most efficient. Been working on L7E really hard for the last couple of days so I'll present those algs this weekend. With rotational symmetry and AUFs there are exactly 125 unique cases, many of which are just one of the baseline cases with a couple of M or U moves tacked on to the end.


Neuro said:


> The algs wouldn't be halved, but it would make them more efficient. Whether it's worth it or not would be debatable at best, though.
> 
> I think that we can make LSE more efficient but it will require a lot of algs. More info to follow. Also, playing with a half-turn redux method; may be good for FMC.


Sounds interesting; I have no idea how you're gonna do this but GL  btw I've actually been making the L7E algs on a seperate sheet that's much better organized than the one you had, so I'll show that to you tonight. Recently I've also come up with a BOPE L8E method and a mega-efficient squan method that's based off of HD, so I'll show you guys those tomorrow.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 13, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> an example solve


(in lop method with target scramble)(to be updated)


mDiPalma said:


> Code:
> B2 R2 B' D2 L2 F2 L2 F D2 R2 U B L' R F R U' L' B2 D'


y' z2 R2 F S2 U' M U r S2
U2 R' U2 R' u2 U R U2 R U R' U R U M2 U R
M2 U R2 U r2 u2 M2 U2 M' u2 M' U' u2 r2 U u
41 stm
36 atm


----------



## Arc (Sep 13, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> (in lop method with target scramble)(to be updated)
> 
> y' z2 R2 F S2 U' M U r S2
> U2 R' U2 R' u2 U R U2 R U R' U R U M2 U R
> ...


I'm sorry, this solve was not sub-40 HTM. Unfortunately LOP method is now banned from this thread.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 13, 2017)

Arc said:


> I'm sorry, this solve was not sub-40 HTM. Unfortunately LOP method is now banned from this thread.


that is not how this works. it says


mDiPalma said:


> any method that cant get "sub-40 htm" on this scramble shall be permanently eliminated from discussion


it can reach this achievement, but i did not put in enough time to find it yet. it will be updated to sub 40 soon. if i admit i cant find it, i will come up with another excuse of why it should not be banned.


----------



## TDM (Sep 13, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> that is not how this works. it says
> 
> it can reach this achievement, but i did not put in enough time to find it yet. it will be updated to sub 40 soon. if i admit i cant find it, i will come up with another excuse of why it should not be banned.


They aren't serious: Matt's post was a joke. It's not going to get banned, don't worry.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 13, 2017)

TDM said:


> They aren't serious: Matt's post was a joke. It's not going to get banned, don't worry.


well, i don't catch onto jokes of this style quickly.


----------



## Pyjam (Sep 13, 2017)

Hasn't Matt been banned for having provided a Petrus solution generated by a genetically modified alien artificial intelligence?


----------



## Neuro (Sep 14, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I think that we can make LSE more efficient but it will require a lot of algs. More info to follow. Also, playing with a half-turn redux method; may be good for FMC.


LSE idea isn't panning out too well. HTR is decent right now but it needs a lot of work. Right now I have two schools of thought: corners-first variant or EO2x2x3 into HTR. Seems like CF would be a good approach but I need to do research into cube theory/thistlethwaite before I go any further.


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 14, 2017)

Maybe look into SSC's EOBelt type starts, but with the addition of CP?


----------



## Neuro (Sep 14, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Maybe look into SSC's EOBelt type starts, but with the addition of CP?


Redux to a 2-color state isn't very difficult, but I don't really understand how the CP works in thistlewaite. Any special rules or anything that I need to know?


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 14, 2017)

Basically the "key swap" has to be in a restricted subset of all possible key swaps. If you track CP through random halfturngroup move sequences, you'll start to get a feel for which key swaps are allowed. (I haven't verified this, but I think all key swaps have to be either in the Point or Singularity quadruples)

Reduction will work similarly to 2GR--you'd just have to make use of quadruplets to manipulate the key swap to one of those allowed key swaps.


----------



## Hazel (Sep 18, 2017)

I actually think this one might be ok:
1) standard Roux block. Nothing fancy
2) 2x2x1 in RB and pair up an F2L pair
2.5) insert the F2L pair while simultaneously solving 2 adjacent corners on the LL
3) EOStripe <M/U>
4) a subset of ZBLL, much fewer algs since you take away the L, Pi, H, Sune, and Antisune cases as well as a bunch of others


----------



## Neuro (Sep 18, 2017)

My HT redux method is proving difficult but I think I understand the CP states now

If you look on the top/bottom, the corners work in adjacent pairs with no diagonal cases (they can either be 1-2 moves away from diag swap on top and bottom or solved) or one move away from making pairs (when corners are diagonal on top/bottom)

What this means unfortunately is that the corners absolutely need to be solved a certain way on the top/bottom to truly be solvable with only half-turns so a traditional CP approach will work but it may be difficult to work with. 

I think either starting with EO line, 2x2x3, or something similar to Attila's CF approach are the best ways to get to a proper HT state. What's nice is that HT seems to always solve in 12 moves or less and that's w/o allowing quarter turns and the solutions are really easy to see, hence why I wanted to try this

If anyone's confused/interested in this method PM me and maybe we can work together on it


----------



## Metallic Silver (Sep 18, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I actually think this one might be ok:
> 1) standard Roux block. Nothing fancy
> 2) 2x2x1 in RB and pair up an F2L pair
> 2.5) insert the F2L pair while simultaneously solving 2 adjacent corners on the LL
> ...


It sounds like a better method of ZBroux.


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 18, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I actually think this one might be ok:
> 1) standard Roux block. Nothing fancy
> 2) 2x2x1 in RB and pair up an F2L pair
> 2.5) insert the F2L pair while simultaneously solving 2 adjacent corners on the LL
> ...



The problem I see with this method is that ZBroux has a movecount very close to Roux, and this method has a movecount higher than ZBroux. Hence, this method is definitely worse than Roux.

I think a better idea would be to use EOstripe + ZBLL only when certain CMLLs come up, and do normal Roux otherwise. For each CMLL you intend to do EOstripe +ZBLL for, you only have to learn 12 algs, and you can choose which CMLLs you want to do this for: You can simply do normal roux whenever a sune, pi or H CMLL comes up. This allows you to use ZBroux in your solves without learning too many algs, avoiding the bad cases, and without sacrificing movecount.

Whether or not this is worth it is another matter, but I think it would be better than your method.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 18, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> The problem I see with this method is that ZBroux has a movecount very close to Roux, and this method has a movecount higher than ZBroux. Hence, this method is definitely worse than Roux.
> 
> I think a better idea would be to use EOstripe + ZBLL only when certain CMLLs come up, and do normal Roux otherwise. For each CMLL you intend to do EOstripe +ZBLL for, you only have to learn 12 algs, and you can choose which CMLLs you want to do this for: You can simply do normal roux whenever a sune, pi or H CMLL comes up. This allows you to use ZBroux in your solves without learning too many algs, avoiding the bad cases, and without sacrificing movecount.
> 
> Whether or not this is worth it is another matter, but I think it would be better than your method.


This could be a really good proposition especially for OH. If you see a 2G case, all you need to do is EODFDB and end in super-fast 2GLL. I'll do some research on this and see what happens!


----------



## efattah (Sep 18, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> The problem I see with this method is that ZBroux has a movecount very close to Roux, and this method has a movecount higher than ZBroux. Hence, this method is definitely worse than Roux.



Congratulations on your sub-10 average ZBRoux video. I suppose that makes you the only (?) person to get a sub 10 average with a 'new' (or significantly 'new') method in this thread? Maybe we could make a table of the more promising 'new' methods with the best known averages and singles. Crafto (I think) had an 8.xx single with ECE and a 12.xx average.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 18, 2017)

Here's a solve using an FMC-oriented method that reduces to Domino state. While I think that Thistlewaite reduction is possible, domino/Kociemba redux is signifigantly easier to see/do. The solve is a bit tricky after that, wso we'll need to edevise soemthing similar to Attila's pair-building method.

U2 L2 B L2 R2 B2 F' D2 F' L2 F' R' B R2 F2 L B' D F2 D F'

F R' F' B U R' U' L'//EOF2L-1 (8/8)
F2 D R' U R F2//Domino Redux (6/14)
R2 U2 F2 U' B2 U' L2 B2 U' F2 D L2 D//Solve (13/27)

What I realized in trying to create these methods was that you can check every EO "line" from only 6 out of 24 possible center positions by abusing FB symmetry and the fact that you can solve the line on top or bottom.

Right now I check all lines and look for ones with easy F2L blockbuilding. Once that is found, any method can be used to reduce to domino state; although my preferred is a CLS/ELS based approach. And then it's a matter of solving the cube like a domino!


----------



## Teoidus (Sep 18, 2017)

I have a 9.95 2GR single and a 19.52 best avg5.


----------



## JTay (Sep 18, 2017)

I have an 8.69 Ribbon single and a 10.11 best avg 5.


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 18, 2017)

efattah said:


> Congratulations on your sub-10 average ZBRoux video. I suppose that makes you the only (?) person to get a sub 10 average with a 'new' (or significantly 'new') method in this thread? Maybe we could make a table of the more promising 'new' methods with the best known averages and singles. Crafto (I think) had an 8.xx single with ECE and a 12.xx average.



ZZ-CT maybe? I know that sub 10 averages have been done with it. (Can't really say it's a promising method though, since ZZ-a is objectively better).

I think a list like that would be cool. I imagine times will probably reflect how much practise people have had with their methods, and how similar they are to their main methods more than anything, but it would still be interesting.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 18, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Are there any (good) speedsolving methods that reduce the cube into a completely 2-gen state where R and U are scrambled?


2GR, modified mDiPalma's CPLC variant, Briggs v1 (CPFB, EO Line), and Porkyv1/2. These are all the one's I can think of. 

Briggs v1 could be really good as CPFB could potentially be done fully in inspection and EO Line can be made algorithmic.

Modded mDP would take a while to get recognition down but it could be incredibly fast. Same with Porky's variants

2GR has great potential, but just go to Teoidus's website for it; he can explain it much better than I can


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 18, 2017)

efattah said:


> Congratulations on your sub-10 average ZBRoux video. I suppose that makes you the only (?) person to get a sub 10 average with a 'new' (or significantly 'new') method in this thread? Maybe we could make a table of the more promising 'new' methods with the best known averages and singles. Crafto (I think) had an 8.xx single with ECE and a 12.xx average.


I have a sub-10 Ao5 with a "half and half" 42 since I don't know all the required cases just yet.


Neuro said:


> Here's a solve using an FMC-oriented method that reduces to Domino state. While I think that Thistlewaite reduction is possible, domino/Kociemba redux is signifigantly easier to see/do. The solve is a bit tricky after that, wso we'll need to edevise soemthing similar to Attila's pair-building method.
> 
> U2 L2 B L2 R2 B2 F' D2 F' L2 F' R' B R2 F2 L B' D F2 D F'
> 
> ...


Isn't this SSC?


----------



## Neuro (Sep 18, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> I have a sub-10 Ao5 with a "half and half" 42 since I don't know all the required cases just yet.
> 
> Isn't this SSC?


Nope  I tend to use EO Line, blockbuilding to F2L-1, advanced TSLE to orient the rest of the puzzle, and solve as a domino. This isn't an exact method much like Petrus FMC, so I'm sure you could use SSC to solve it, but the overarching theme is to do EO, blockbuilding or some other way to get to nearly domino, solve into and then fully solve domino. But I can see the confusion between this and SSC as they are fairly similar methods.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 18, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Nope  I tend to use EO Line, blockbuilding to F2L-1, advanced TSLE to orient the rest of the puzzle, and solve as a domino. This isn't an exact method much like Petrus FMC, so I'm sure you could use SSC to solve it, but the overarching theme is to do EO, blockbuilding or some other way to get to nearly domino, solve into and then fully solve domino. But I can see the confusion between this and SSC as they are fairly similar methods.


So EO, F2L-1, WV/SLS, Domino?


----------



## Micki (Sep 18, 2017)

Neuro said:


> 2GR, modified mDiPalma's CPLC variant, Briggs v1 (CPFB, EO Line), and Porkyv1/2. These are all the one's I can think of.
> 
> Briggs v1 could be really good as CPFB could potentially be done fully in inspection and EO Line can be made algorithmic.
> 
> ...


C2gr could also be a good 2gr method


----------



## Neuro (Sep 18, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> So EO, F2L-1, WV/SLS, Domino?


That's the basic idea right now, although I have a few other approaches I'm looking at to make it more efficient. What exactly is SLS again? What I do is insert last edge and orient L5C but it can move around the D layer at will and the E slice. The only real problem with it is that it can break premise pairs which would otherwise make solving domino much easier

@Micki what is C2gr?


----------



## One Wheel (Sep 18, 2017)

Not sure if this ought to go here or in the big cubes discussion thread, but it's a slight variant on redux, so I'm going with (possibly) new substep. I've tried 2 solves on 6x6 and 1 on 7x7, and both are pretty much in line with my regular redux times. I suspect with practice it could get better than redux, although it's almost certainly not useful for 4x4 and 5x5, and might be no improvement at all even for 6 and 7.

Steps:
1. Solve 2 opposite centers
2. solve remaining 4 centers in any order, on 6x6 disregard color scheme
3. Pair first 8 edges with freeslice, using R2, L2, F2, etc. (assuming edge pairing on E rather than M) to flip edges rather than using an alg to maintain center orientation. Place solved edges on U and D faces, as normal.
4. Solve centers, using slice or wide moves and the same R2, L2, F2 moves as for edge pairing. All center pieces will be in 4x1 (for 6x6) or 5x1 (for 7x7) bars.
5. Solve L4E as usual
6. 3x3

Pros:
Lower movecount in F8E pairing
Possibly easier to find pieces, since you normally wouldn't see pieces on the D layer without a cube rotation.

Cons:
Adds a step to regular redux
Potentially more difficult to track unsolved edges, especially after the first 4 edges are solved, and would normally be hidden on the bottom.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 18, 2017)

Neuro said:


> That's the basic idea right now, although I have a few other approaches I'm looking at to make it more efficient. What exactly is SLS again? What I do is insert last edge and orient L5C but it can move around the D layer at will and the E slice. The only real problem with it is that it can break premise pairs which would otherwise make solving domino much easier


That's exactly what SLS does.



> @Micki what is C2gr?


It's @zz_ 's CP redux+EO method


One Wheel said:


> Not sure if this ought to go here or in the big cubes discussion thread, but it's a slight variant on redux, so I'm going with (possibly) new substep. I've tried 2 solves on 6x6 and 1 on 7x7, and both are pretty much in line with my regular redux times. I suspect with practice it could get better than redux, although it's almost certainly not useful for 4x4 and 5x5, and might be no improvement at all even for 6 and 7.
> 
> Steps:
> 1. Solve 2 opposite centers
> ...


This looks interesting and I think it'd be cool to see this implemented though might it not be better to simply build a load of 1x(n-2)s before edge paring and then solve the centres in the way you proposed. The main reason why you might not want to do this is more difficult lookahead when building the "centers".


----------



## Micki (Sep 18, 2017)

Neuro said:


> @Micki what is C2gr?


https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/complex-2-move-generator-reduction-method-c2gr.66089/


----------



## Hazel (Sep 19, 2017)

I find that I really like solving the cube 2Gen, so I came up with my own 2GR-type method:
1) standard Roux block (You could do CP or EOBlock, but those are significantly more difficult)
2) Solve DB and CP at the same time, then DB and EO (or vice versa)
3) Solve the cube 2-gen


----------



## Micki (Sep 19, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I find that I really like solving the cube 2Gen, so I came up with my own 2GR-type method:
> 1) standard Roux block (You could do CP or EOBlock, but those are significantly more difficult)
> 2) Solve DB and CP at the same time, then DB and EO (or vice versa)
> 3) Solve the cube 2-gen


i think CP is best to do either in the start of the solve so you can recognize it in inspection or at the end of the solve. Doing it in the middle imo is kinda bad since recognition is hard and takes some time


----------



## Hazel (Sep 19, 2017)

Micki said:


> i think CP is best to do either in the start of the solve so you can recognize it in inspection or at the end of the solve. Doing it in the middle imo is kinda bad since recognition is hard and takes some time


Good point, so doing CPblock then EOstripe then 2-gen would be best?


----------



## Micki (Sep 19, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Good point, so doing CPblock then EOstripe then 2-gen would be best?


thats Briggs and i think thats one of the best ways of doing it atm. someone posted a method where the steps were something along the lines of this
1: CPline + BLDB edges (can be planned in inspection)
2: EO + FLDF
3: 2gen
i don't remeber who it was and can't really find the post but i think this could have potential since i feel like lookahead for EO is better than Briggs in this method


----------



## Thermex (Sep 19, 2017)

Micki said:


> thats Briggs and i think thats one of the best ways of doing it atm. someone posted a method where the steps were something along the lines of this
> 1: CPline + BLDB edges (can be planned in inspection)
> 2: EO + FLDF
> 3: 2gen
> i don't remeber who it was and can't really find the post but i think this could have potential since i feel like lookahead for EO is better than Briggs in this method


I've proposed this before, and if I didn't actually post it I've certainly been thinking about it a lot. I've been practicing this a little with OH. My current idea is this:

1) CPBlock (9/9)
2) EOStripe (9/18)
3) Solve the DR edge and the DBR corner (4/22)
4) Solve the last 5 corners (8/30)
5) L6EP (12/42)

This is 100% psuedo 2-gen after CPFB and very efficient as well, plus there's only around 130-150 algs. Regular 2GR algs also work well for the last two steps.

Quick update on L7E: I've been shifting plans a bit, and after some experimenting I think I've found doing EOLR+L5EP is the best approach to L7E. I'll give more updates when I've finished genning the algs.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 19, 2017)

In my experence, CPFB is ~13 in speedsolves and ~10 in FMC attempts. EO line would be ~9 but if you use algs it's probably 13 or so. One thing that could make it better is using CTLS. 2G CTLS is pretty easy to recognize but it'd increase the alg count significantly.

My style for CPFB is building a pair in DBL <RUFrufMES>, CP line <RUFruME>, and solve edges <RUruME> Planning full CP line wouldn't be very hard but it'd take a lot of practice to solve full CPFB.


----------



## Micki (Sep 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> 2G CTLS is pretty easy to recognize but it'd increase the alg count significantly.


why would CTLS increase alg count?


----------



## Neuro (Sep 20, 2017)

Micki said:


> why would CTLS increase alg count?


It doesn't necessarily have to if you view it like in NMCTLS (viewed as ZBLL) but if someone is wanting to speedsolve with it it would be much easier to recognize it as an individual case

Not much progress on the FMC method, looking at applying full EOLR to 6-flip so it won't be so feared  Someone could use all 15 algs or the minimum of 4 if you allow for 1 move setups; whichever sounds better to the user. Further explanation to come


----------



## DuJello (Sep 21, 2017)

This is a bit off topic but I can't find Summer Variation algs anywhere, does anyone have a pdf or website or something?


----------



## Neuro (Sep 21, 2017)

Auto and Blazes
Pages 1-7; this doc has full ZZ-C
Original proposal, algs given in later posts (no pics)


----------



## applezfall (Sep 23, 2017)

This is a new method that is a bit different than cfop the steps are:
1.FP-Solve 4 f2l pairs without caring about centers.This step takes 15 moves on average
2.Cross-Put the cross edges and fix centers.This step takes 12 moves on average
3.OLL-Orient the top layer.This step takes 10 moves on average
4.PLL-Permute the top layer.This step takes 12 moves on average
Average MoveCount:49-50
Pros:lower movecount
not that many resctrictions
you can see most pairs in inspection and you can track the cross edges during the last pair so f2l is mostly pauseless
Cons:Rotations
not fingertrick friendly
In my opinion this is better than cfop but not as good as roux or zz


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 23, 2017)

This is pretty much PCMS


----------



## applezfall (Sep 23, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> This is pretty much PCMS


no in pcms you solve the pairs then top corners but in this method after blocks you solve the cross edges


----------



## alwin5b (Sep 23, 2017)

@zz_ proposed his c2gr method in this thread: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/complex-2-move-generator-reduction-method-c2gr.66089/
c2gr:
1. Permute all corners (CP) and make 3x1x1 block (base line) on DL (whole step predicted in pre-inspection)
2. Expand to 3x2x2 block and orient all edges (EO) meanwhile (whole step using <U,u,R,r> moves)
3. Expand to 3x3x2 block (F2L) using <U,R> moves
4. Complete LL (2GLL) using <U,R> moves

but I found that step 2 is too difficult, so I thought why not do step 1 like in the c2gr method (CPLine) then expand the line to a 3x2x1 block on the left while only using <U,u,R,r> moves, then finish with Roux. Except you don't need to do CMLL but can instead use Bruno, Sune, Antisune to twist the corners ( = Petrus step 6).


----------



## Arc (Sep 23, 2017)

alwin5b said:


> @zz_ proposed his c2gr method in this thread: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/complex-2-move-generator-reduction-method-c2gr.66089/
> c2gr:
> 1. Permute all corners (CP) and make 3x1x1 block (base line) on DL (whole step predicted in pre-inspection)
> 2. Expand to 3x2x2 block and orient all edges (EO) meanwhile (whole step using <U,u,R,r> moves)
> ...


This is standard CPRoux with beginner CPFB. The problem here is that the 2gen CMLLs are not necessarily always better than the other CMLLs. Even if they were, and even if you could do full CPFB consistently in 10 moves, it would probably not be better than normal Roux. The only way I can think of to make it worth it is by doing heavy EO influence with multiple CMLL sets, in a style similar to BLS but after LS. Even then I'm not sure if it's worth the inspection drain. As far as C2GR goes, check out @Teoidus' 2GR method. It's a bit more structured and does EO before CPLine. Also check out @shadowslice e's Briggs method. It is very similar to C2GR but instead starts with CPFB.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 24, 2017)

alwin5b said:


> @zz_ proposed his c2gr method in this thread: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/complex-2-move-generator-reduction-method-c2gr.66089/
> c2gr:
> 1. Permute all corners (CP) and make 3x1x1 block (base line) on DL (whole step predicted in pre-inspection)
> 2. Expand to 3x2x2 block and orient all edges (EO) meanwhile (whole step using <U,u,R,r> moves)
> ...


Going off of @Arc, 2GR is a really good method if you can get inspection down fast enough, although I will say that Briggs v1 is probably a bit easier. One method I created a while back that you may be interested in is 2GRoux, here are the steps:

1:CPFB- Broken into *3* steps
a. Pair- find the corner you wish to have at DBL in it's proper orientation and use <UuRrFf> and slice moves to solve DL in relation to the corner
b. CP Line- using <URF> and wide variants, solve DFL while solving CP. This and pair can generally be 1-looked, so I prefer to look at pair and CP line as just one step.
c. Block- using <UuRr> and slice moves, solve the remainder of FB
2:SB+PP- Solve second block while putting the ULUR or UFUB edges oriented on the bottom (Pinkie Pie setup)
3:OLL- Just pseudo-2G OLL
4:LSE- Same as Roux, but much more efficient than normal.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 24, 2017)

new method (BOFL)
1) build a 2x2x3 block in DB
2) solve eo+DF
3) solve the last two f2l pairs+ep
4)L4C (1/84)


----------



## Arc (Sep 24, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Going off of @Arc, 2GR is a really good method if you can get inspection down fast enough, although I will say that Briggs v1 is probably a bit easier. One method I created a while back that you may be interested in is 2GRoux, here are the steps:
> 
> 1:CPFB- Broken into *3* steps
> a. Pair- find the corner you wish to have at DBL in it's proper orientation and use <UuRrFf> and slice moves to solve DL in relation to the corner
> ...


I actually kind of like this idea except for the bad CPFB. It's perfectly possible to do CPFB straight out. As a normal FB but correcting CP while attaching the last pair. Just takes a bit to wrap your head around it.

HARCS cannot do it directly because custom states are still broken in analyze (@mDiPalma pls). But we can get close.

Optimal numbers:
CFPB: 7.5
SB: 10
Insert DFDB (<=> Insert ULUR): 4.5
2gen OLL: 13
ULUR: 2.5
L4E: 5

Total: 42.5 STM


More realistic human numbers:
CPFB: 10
SB: 15
Insert ULUR: 5
2gen OLL: 13
ULUR: 2.5
L4E: 5

Total: 50.5 STM


Not bad for move count. Ergonomics seem pretty good. I think this is one of the better recent proposals but still loses out to Roux, 2GRoux (EOStripe -> 2GLL), and ZBRoux.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 24, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (BOFL)
> 1) build a 2x2x3 block in DB
> 2) solve eo+DF
> 3) using trigger style solve the last two f2l pairs+ep
> 4)L4C (1/84)


What exactly is trigger style? I'm not sure I understand. Otherwise, I think this is basically phasing on steroids, generally not great; I don't think L4C is supposed to be that good.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 25, 2017)

Arc said:


> I actually kind of like this idea except for the bad CPFB. It's perfectly possible to do CPFB straight out. As a normal FB but correcting CP while attaching the last pair. Just takes a bit to wrap your head around it.
> *<deleted stats>*
> Not bad for move count. Ergonomics seem pretty good. I think this is one of the better recent proposals but still loses out to Roux, *Briggs v1 (EOStripe -> 2GLL)*, and ZBRoux.


That's a big reason why I don't use or push the method much anymore unless it's to prompt discussion as in this instance. If I were to use a CP based method I'd either use this or Briggs v1, but for the time being I think I'm gonna stick with Roux (although I've been enjoying CFOP quite a bit recently, maybe method neutrality?)

Oh and I am gonna be working on a new OLL subset if anyone wants to help out. One of the worst cases in F2L is when both pieces are solved, but the edge is flipped in place. Why not take this as an opportunity to go directly into OLL? Instead of having to manipulate your F2L when it pops up, just preserve it and make your F2L more efficient in the process. Recognition would be really straightforward as in regular OLL and it wouldn't be many algs (I think it's 56/58 but idk for certain)

Example solve: F' U L B' D' B2 R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' B2 D2 R2 F2 D F2 U B2

z2 U' R2 U' F' U' L D//X-Cross (7/7)
U2 R' U2 R F U' F' U' L U L' U2 R' U2 R2 B' R' B y2//F2L (18/25)
F' U2 F2 R' F r U r' F R2 U R'//FE-OLL (12/37)
R2 F R U R U' R' F' R U2 R' U2 R//PLL (13/50)


----------



## efattah (Sep 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Oh and I am gonna be working on a new OLL subset if anyone wants to help out. One of the worst cases in F2L is when both pieces are solved, but the edge is flipped in place. Why not take this as an opportunity to go directly into OLL?


\

This is the first good idea I have seen on here in a while. This reminds me of TCLL. You could in some cases actually deliberately solve the last F2L pair with an inverted edge then use 'twisty OLL' instead. This essentially makes the final pair quite significantly faster as you choose the fastest F2L case based on the situation (either true F2L solve or a twisty F2L solve).


----------



## Neuro (Sep 25, 2017)

efattah said:


> \
> 
> This is the first good idea I have seen on here in a while. This reminds me of TCLL. You could in some cases actually deliberately solve the last F2L pair with an inverted edge then use 'twisty OLL' instead. This essentially makes the final pair quite significantly faster as you choose the fastest F2L case based on the situation (either true F2L solve or a twisty F2L solve).


Thanks for the support! After doing a few solves with this, I realized how much this helps in inspection and F2L efficiency. X Crosses are made much easier as you can now build them off of flipped-edge 2x2x1 pairs (which aren't super rare actually) and not to mention that these types of pairs can show up mid-F2L and then be inserted at any point as well as make LS more efficient at some points. I'm really starting to like this idea!

Maybe this can be Garza Last Slot 

More solves:

R U R2 B U' L' U' R2 F' D2 x//Fake X-Cross (10/10)
B U S' L2 b' U' R U R' U R U' R2 U' R y2//F2L (15/25)
U F' U2 F2 R' F r U r' F R2 U R'//FE-OLL (13/38)
U M2 U' M U2 M' U' M2 U//EPLL (9/47)

R2 F' D' F R2 B R' F' U2 B U' S' L' b' z y//XX-Cross (14/14)
F' U' F L' U L R U' R' U' R U R' y//F2L (13/27)
F U' M' U F' r U M U' r'//FE-OLL (10/37)
U2 R' U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2 U2//PLL (15/52)

D' R2 D B' R' f2 R U R' F2//X-Cross (10/10)
U S' L2 S U2 F U F' R U' R' y//F2L (11/21)
U' R2 B' R' U F U' B2 U F' B' R'//FE-OLL (12/33)
R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R//PLL (18/51)

L' B2 L F2 D' F L D'//X-Cross (8/8)
U' L U' L F' L2 F B U2 S' L b' y U2 R U' R' F R' F' R//F2L (20/28)
U R2 U R2 B' R S R F D2 R' D2 z'//FE-OLL (12/40)
M2 U M U2 M' U M2//PLL (7/47)

Avg of these+last example solve: (50+47+52+51+47)/5 = 49.4 STM. Not truly representative of speedsolves but hey this is really good for CFOP


----------



## efattah (Sep 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Thanks for the support! After doing a few solves with this, I realized how much this helps in inspection and F2L efficiency. X Crosses are made much easier as you can now build them off of flipped-edge 2x2x1 pairs (which aren't super rare actually) and not to mention that these types of pairs can show up mid-F2L and then be inserted at any point as well as make LS more efficient at some points. I'm really starting to like this idea!



Thinking more about this it is turning out to be an incredible idea for several astonishing reasons:
1. Normal OLL has either 0, 2 or 4 disoriented edges. The dreaded 'dot' cases include all four edges disoriented, for normal OLL.
2. For Twisty OLL (TOLL), there will be either 1 or 3 disoriented edges on the U layer. This means that twisty OLL actually has significantly fewer cases, approximately 2/3 x 57 = 38. This means that solving a single F2L slot as a twisty pair (on every solve) would actually result in a 'beginner' 2-look LL that has fewer algorithms than standard CFOP and avoids dot cases automatically.
3. Astonishingly, every single TOLL case would look unique and different from classic OLL cases based on the non-identical number of oriented/disoriented edges (1 or 3 vs 2 or 4). This means that if you get into the habit of putting the twisty F2L slot at FR, then you don't even need to remember if you are doing OLL or TOLL, just look at the pattern on the last layer and use one of the 57+38 = 95 algorithms for OLL. The uniqueness means there is no confusion about having 2 algorithms for the same OLL pattern; each pattern has a unique algorithm.
4. During F2L there is a reasonable chance of finding a so-called 'ready made pair' that is now actually a twisty pair. So the odds of a ready-made pair double, although you can only use this advantage once per solve; however, ready made pairs will typically only happen 0 or 1 times per solve anyway.

The only thing remaining is to see how good the algorithms are. Some might even be better than classic OLL. One challenge here is the years of co-operative effort to find effective OLL algorithms, and quite a significant amount of work would be needed to generate a truly optimized set of (approximately) 38 TOLL algorithms. One variable in this development is which is the ideal slot to hold the twisty pair? FR? FL? BR?

I don't think this deserves a 'last slot' acronym. It is not a last slot method, it can be used for any slot including the X-Cross making it far more powerful than any last slot method.

For very advanced solvers, there is another astonishing effect. VLS doesn't work for dot cases; but using a twisty F2L pair, there are no dot cases. Twisty VLS would work all the time, no edge control needed; and Twisty VLS would only have 2/3 the number of cases vs. regulator VLS (2/3 x 216 = 144).


----------



## Micki (Sep 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Oh and I am gonna be working on a new OLL subset if anyone wants to help out. One of the worst cases in F2L is when both pieces are solved, but the edge is flipped in place. Why not take this as an opportunity to go directly into OLL? Instead of having to manipulate your F2L when it pops up, just preserve it and make your F2L more efficient in the process. Recognition would be really straightforward as in regular OLL and it wouldn't be many algs (I think it's 56/58 but idk for certain)


This has already been done 2 times and is called FLS or OLS-FE. I learned all of the algs once and I only think it would be useful if you learned different algs depending on what slot it is in


----------



## Neuro (Sep 25, 2017)

efattah said:


> Thinking more about this it is turning out to be an incredible idea for several astonishing reasons:
> 1. Normal OLL has either 0, 2 or 4 disoriented edges. The dreaded 'dot' cases include all four edges disoriented, for normal OLL.
> 2. For Twisty OLL (TOLL), there will be either 1 or 3 disoriented edges on the U layer. This means that twisty OLL actually has significantly fewer cases, approximately 2/3 x 57 = 38. This means that solving a single F2L slot as a twisty pair (on every solve) would actually result in a 'beginner' 2-look LL that has fewer algorithms than standard CFOP and avoids dot cases automatically.
> 3. Astonishingly, every single TOLL case would look unique and different from classic OLL cases based on the non-identical number of oriented/disoriented edges (1 or 3 vs 2 or 4). This means that if you get into the habit of putting the twisty F2L slot at FR, then you don't even need to remember if you are doing OLL or TOLL, just look at the pattern on the last layer and use one of the 57+38 = 95 algorithms for OLL. The uniqueness means there is no confusion about having 2 algorithms for the same OLL pattern; each pattern has a unique algorithm.
> ...


WHile I knew a majority of this, the alg count sounds amazing! idk the best place to keep the twisted-pair, but the algs I am making right now keep it in FR. THinking about it, I agree with your statement on it not being an LS method.

Twisty VLS actually sounds very intriguing, I may create those algs as well; especially considering the case count and flexibility when paired with normal VLS.



Micki said:


> This has already been done 2 times and is called FLS or OLS-FE. I learned all of the algs once and I only think it would be useful if you learned different algs depending on what slot it is in


Ugh, I wasn't aware of this!! I think that I'll continue to research it but I'll be sure to credit the creator from now on. Thanks for letting me know!

What if we created an OLL skip set for F2L where it's a sledgehammer insert?


----------



## Tao Yu (Sep 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> What if we created an OLL skip set for F2L where it's a sledgehammer insert?



That's just a subset of VLS. The algs can be found here: http://rowe.cubing.net/rls/uf.php. I think insert+ZBLL is better for many of the cases (especially when from the back slots), but it's still quite useful.


----------



## Hazel (Sep 25, 2017)

New method idea:
1) LEOLine - solve EOline on left
1.5) Finish the Roux block on left keyhole style
2) 2x2x1 block in RB while setting up the last F2L pair
2.5) Winter Variation
5) Solve DB while permuting corners
4) L5E


----------



## Neuro (Sep 25, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> That's just a subset of VLS. The algs can be found here: http://rowe.cubing.net/rls/uf.php. I think insert+ZBLL is better for many of the cases (especially when from the back slots), but it's still quite useful.


I'm sorry I used the wrong term, I'm thinking of F R' F' R. Looking at it again, you can just rotate and do mirrored VLS so it's getting scrapped anyway


----------



## Thermex (Sep 25, 2017)

Neuro said:


> WHile I knew a majority of this, the alg count sounds amazing! idk the best place to keep the twisted-pair, but the algs I am making right now keep it in FR. THinking about it, I agree with your statement on it not being an LS method.
> 
> Twisty VLS actually sounds very intriguing, I may create those algs as well; especially considering the case count and flexibility when paired with normal VLS.
> 
> ...


Since these algs have already been made, I have a pretty decent idea to push it further, especially if you want to study this idea more. I proposed this a while back, it's called "fish" (this was the metnod that inspired @JTay's ribbon method). The steps go as follows:

1. The "fish" (cross+1 corner, ~8 moves)
2. Solve the remaining three pairs (18 moves)
3. FE-OLL (apparently only 96 algs, ~10 moves since you don't need to perserve FR)
4. HWLL (this was the step that was first used in ZZ-CT, formerly known as ZZ-HW. There are 72 cases (so I've heard) and they're about 14 moves on average).

This is very good variant of ribbon with far fewer algs, the main problem is that I've heard HWLL algs aren't so great. Message me if you're interested.

Also Twsity VLS sounds like a nice idea, I never realized how few algs it was. Imo the best way it coule be utilized would be TVLS+TTLL, that would make for a pretty nice 2 look LS.


----------



## efattah (Sep 25, 2017)

I found the existing FLS algorithms:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwMVT4oFDQbINExyRnBhaVVCM00/view
It appears there are 54 cases.
And Antonie Paterakis video:





This was only pasted May 9th, so it seem pretty new. Not sure if it was ever done long ago.

For twisty VLS, I think the key is to allow one of the first three slots as flipped. The final VLS pair would be a normal pair; this would be so you could still do flipped X-cross and use up free flipped pairs earlier in the solve.


----------



## Neuro (Sep 25, 2017)

efattah said:


> For twisty VLS, I think the key is to allow one of the first three slots as flipped. The final VLS pair would be a normal pair; this would be so you could still do flipped X-cross and use up free flipped pairs earlier in the solve.


The problem I see with this would be lack of flexibility in which LS slot you must set up. What I mean by this is that you'd need to generate 3 different sets; accommodating for flip in FL, BL, or BR, or having to build F2L in a certain way so that your flipped F2L pair is always in 1 of the 3 remaining spots. Perhaps just have the edge in the last F2L pair be flipped instead? It would make building the pair easier. Not to mention it still works with regular FE OLL and you can preserve the flipped 2x2x1 pairs while solving.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 27, 2017)

efattah said:


> I found the existing FLS algorithms:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwMVT4oFDQbINExyRnBhaVVCM00/view
> It appears there are 54 cases.
> And Antonie Paterakis video:
> ...


There was talk about this some back in page 191.


----------



## TheDopeCantaloupe (Sep 27, 2017)

So I main with ZZ and the FLS idea gave me another idea. A lot of times when solving f2l/blocks you'll have a corner paired with the wrong edge, but since the wrong edge is already oriented it has to be the edge diagonal from its solved position. If you solved that slot with its opposite edge then completed COLL normally then you'd be left with EPLL + opposite edges, which probably wouldn't be too many algs since EPLL is only 4 algs. Idk how to calculate the number of algs needed or anything but this subset would double the already high chances of having a premaid pair which would make F2L even faster/more efficient. This should also work in Petrus or anything that uses COLL.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 29, 2017)

new method (BFLP)
1) block face
create 2 F2l pairs next to each other,
and place three edge pieces on the bottom (where you would place to form a 2x2x3 block) oriented correctly
along with the 2 centers that will go at the ends of the block. (build in DB)
2) F2L
place an edge piece at DF oriented correctly, then
place 2 correct F2l pairs in the correct slot
3) pSMollcp (1/331) algs
you orientate and permutate the top layer corners and orient the top layers edges without nessisarily keeping the permutation or seperation of the top and botom layers edge pieces.
4) pl8e
permutate the last 8 edges using <M,E,U,D>

example solve - this method is complex so i made an example solve
scramble: U' F2 B' U R' F2 L2 R' B F' U2 F D' B' R' B2 L2 F2 B2 U2 R' F' B' L' D2
1) z2 F' u2 L F' L' F' y' M U M'
2) F' U' R U R' U R U R' L' U2 L U' L' U2 L U2 L' U L
3) U R U' R' F' U' F U2 R U R' U' R U R' - not optimal
4) U2 M U2 M D' U' M' U2 M' U M2 u M' U2 M2 U2 M'


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Sep 29, 2017)

TheDopeCantaloupe said:


> So I main with ZZ and the FLS idea gave me another idea. A lot of times when solving f2l/blocks you'll have a corner paired with the wrong edge, but since the wrong edge is already oriented it has to be the edge diagonal from its solved position. If you solved that slot with its opposite edge then completed COLL normally then you'd be left with EPLL + opposite edges, which probably wouldn't be too many algs since EPLL is only 4 algs. Idk how to calculate the number of algs needed or anything but this subset would double the already high chances of having a premaid pair which would make F2L even faster/more efficient. This should also work in Petrus or anything that uses COLL.


i dont use zz, but can see how this could be useful.
the alg count would be 42 coll + 14 pure epl2l


----------



## Reed Merrill (Sep 29, 2017)

@Abram Lookadoo yeah I agree, it seems like a cool method to me as well.


----------



## Atunez (Oct 2, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (BFLP)
> 1) block face
> create 2 F2l pairs next to each other,
> and place three edge pieces on the bottom (where you would place to form a 2x2x3 block) oriented correctly
> ...



Okay the only needed comment on this method is wtf, just no, like you dont use M with D that is basically asking for death like L8E isnt a good idea and more so when it is on U and D like the amount of regrips you make is a bit too much, also it takes a bit too long, btw this method isnt complex something complex would be like B1 or 2GR where inspection is too heavy, and no ZZ isnt complex since EO just needs some time to get used to


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Oct 3, 2017)

Atunez said:


> Okay the only needed comment on this method is wtf, just no, like you dont use M with D that is basically asking for death like L8E isnt a good idea and more so when it is on U and D like the amount of regrips you make is a bit too much, also it takes a bit too long, btw this method isnt complex something complex would be like B1 or 2GR where inspection is too heavy, and no ZZ isnt complex since EO just needs some time to get used to


there are ways to hold the cube as not to regrip for the <U,M,D> as much
L8E is about as rewarding for the cost as the L6E rewards over cost
i am not using L8E, i am only solving the permutation of L8E
the complex part that i was talking about is the description i provided, and the uniqueness of he steps
i then provided an example so readers can follow along


----------



## Hazel (Oct 3, 2017)

I'm trying to think of a good way to do PCMS, because I think it's really fun and has potential.
So, of course, you solve the pairs, then corners, those steps are already pretty fast and good.
I was thinking orienting the edges in a similar way you do with Roux first, then permuting them somehow. Maybe insert 3 of the D layer ones then doing an alg to solve the rest? Recognition would be really good and the algs would all be M/U


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 4, 2017)

Are you guys open for new Square-1 Methods or is there a seperate thread?


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 4, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Are you guys open for new Square-1 Methods or is there a seperate thread?


Sure go ahead (but please check that's it's new before posting )


----------



## Hazel (Oct 5, 2017)

Alrighty, new method idea! Not too fast most likely, but It seems like I'd be pretty fun at least...
1) FB (fish block) - basically a 2x2x2 + 2 directly adjacent F2L pairs
2) EOLS - solve EO while inserting your LS
3a) Insert a D-layer edge while recognizing your COLL case
3b) Go straight into your COLL without any pause
4) L5E, either 10(?) algs or just insertion with a cancel into EPLL

sorta like Triangular Francisco, maybe better?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Oct 5, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Alrighty, new method idea! Not too fast most likely, but It seems like I'd be pretty fun at least...
> 1) FB (fish block) - basically a 2x2x2 + 2 directly adjacent F2L pairs
> 2) EOLS - solve EO while inserting your LS
> 3a) Insert a D-layer edge while recognizing your COLL case
> ...


maybe you could solve the pair without the eo, and then solving one D edge and missorienting the other. then you can solve coll and unsolve the top layer edges, making 3 last layer unsolved edges. then solve the remaining 5 edges with an arrow case.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 5, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> maybe you could solve the pair without the eo, and then solving one D edge and missorienting the other. then you can solve coll and unsolve the top layer edges, making 3 last layer unsolved edges. then solve the remaining 5 edges with an arrow case.


By misoriending the other do you mean still inserting the correct edge, just oriented incorrectly, or just any edge?
Edit: Either way, it seems that the arrow algs would have slightly bad recognition, comparable to ELL.



Aerma said:


> Alrighty, new method idea! Not too fast most likely, but It seems like I'd be pretty fun at least...
> 1) FB (fish block) - basically a 2x2x2 + 2 directly adjacent F2L pairs
> 2) EOLS - solve EO while inserting your LS
> 3a) Insert a D-layer edge while recognizing your COLL case
> ...


Sorry for the double post, but the first average of 5 I tried with this method was 20.05.
The L5E recognition seems like it could be nearly instantaneous, and once I incorporate canceling into EPLL rather than doing a full M' U2 M before, it'll be a really quick step.


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 5, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Sure go ahead (but please check that's it's new before posting )



I researched the Square-1 Methods side and other websides multiple times so I think that I can adress all my Methods and Subsets as new(There are a few of them and this is a long Reply so I don't spam):

PLL/PFL + CP:
After seing that you can instantly recognise the T-Perm I was Interested in it's Algorithm and I saw that it was just the J-J algorithm twice so I thought about this. Basically there are 3 sets of 43 for both PLL and PFL but I doubt that Parity is goint to end in nice algorithms

Corners First:
this is the first real method I thought about since in Vandenbergh you are dealing with 1-3 Slices for CO and 3-6 for CP so I thought that 
Cubeshape
Corner Orientation + Permutation
All Edges in as few looks as you want
was good but it has the same flaw as Roux N' Screw and Lin - lookahead is very hard at the start- and an algorithm count of 40320 for Step 4


Edges first:

While Corners first is bad, in Egdes first I see a chance. My steps are
Cubeshape
Edge Orientation
Edge Permutation(with very few short cases)
Insert the Corners into their layer(7 Cases)
Corners both Layers(49 Cases with Parity)

this would turn many bad EP cases into good ones since we aren't caring about corners in Step 3
Adj-keeps the same but you can use J/R-Perm or something
Opp-keeps the same but you can use T/Z-Perm or something
U-keeps the same
Z-becomes an Opposite swap 
H-is solved
O-is solved
W- becomes Adj
I think this can be good if there is a fluid CS to EO transition


----------



## mDiPalma (Oct 5, 2017)

idea - 

solving 3x3 ls/ll (w or w/o eo) w 3 algs from a single set, minimizing size of set


----------



## Neuro (Oct 6, 2017)

Here's an interesting 4x4 method I found called the Ewert Method




Looks like what you want to do is:
1: 1x2x2 blocks on BDR/BDL
2: Centers+DB edge
3: L7E while placing DF edge
4: F2L
5: LL in some way

I think this could be used as a base for some new methods; here's a Roux variant for instance:
1: Same
2: Centers with any edge in DB
3: L7E pairing
4: Finish F2B
5: L10P (CMLL/LSE)

EDIT: Here's a solve with the Roux variant. If not for OLL parity this solve would've been sub-100 moves!

U R2 L F' B L U' F' D2 B R2 f2 U2 L' F r D R' u U' D2 r' u' L u D' U' F D F2 r' f' D' R2 B2 F' U F' f2 U'


----------



## Sue Doenim (Oct 7, 2017)

Looking at L2L variants, I think it's a promising method, and one we should look into more. Here are a few ideas I had regarding it:
-Only partial first layer
-EO during/before first layer
-Reduction to 2GLL (e.g. FL, 1 edge+EO*, 1 edge+CP*, L2E, 2GLL; maybe switch *'ed steps)
Definitely something I'll play with.


----------



## applezfall (Oct 8, 2017)

I made an interesting called belt-k(belt-keyhole)
steps are:
1.belt(solve the e slice)
2.orient white and yellow edges(use roux eo and some edge olls to orient the edges)
3.solve the cross without messing up the e slice or eo
4.insert the corners using keyhole
5.LL


----------



## Hazel (Oct 8, 2017)

So, a sort of Roux/Petrus/ZZ-CT hybrid:
1) Solve Roux block on left and 2x2x1 block on right (in RB)
2) TSLE/CTTLL (Corner TTLL)
3) EODB
4) L5E (all M/U, you could just use insertion canceling into EPLL every time)


----------



## broune (Oct 8, 2017)

Is there any compilation of 1LLL algs where the corners are already solved? I've found 5 or 6 intuitively, and I know for a fact that there is a full 4-flip 1LLL compilation out there, but I couldn't find anything else.


----------



## Neuro (Oct 8, 2017)

broune said:


> Is there any compilation of 1LLL algs where the corners are already solved? I've found 5 or 6 intuitively, and I know for a fact that there is a full 4-flip 1LLL compilation out there, but I couldn't find anything else.


ELL


----------



## Reed Merrill (Oct 9, 2017)

Aerma said:


> So, a sort of Roux/Petrus/ZZ-CT hybrid:
> 1) Solve Roux block on left and 2x2x1 block on right (in RB)
> 2) TSLE/CTTLL (Corner TTLL)
> 3) EODB
> 4) L5E (all M/U, you could just use insertion canceling into EPLL every time)



What would it be like if you did EODB and L5E using wide r turns instead? I ask because that sounds nice for me (I'm not too good at M moves) but I also don't know if that would be for step 2.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 9, 2017)

Reed Merrill said:


> What would it be like if you did EODB and L5E using wide r turns instead? I ask because that sounds nice for me (I'm not too good at M moves) but I also don't know if that would be for step 2.


The solutions to those cases would probably be slower, it would be better to just practice your M-slices so you're comfortable with them. Anybody have any general feedback on my method?


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 9, 2017)

Aerma said:


> So, a sort of Roux/Petrus/ZZ-CT hybrid:
> 1) Solve Roux block on left and 2x2x1 block on right (in RB)
> 2) TSLE/CTTLL (Corner TTLL)
> 3) EODB
> 4) L5E (all M/U, you could just use insertion canceling into EPLL every time)



I don't quite see, why EODB and L5E should be used (lookahead to the DB edge isn't that hard)
My suggestion is either normal LSE(fast enough, can be done in 1.7 seconds)
or EOdFdB and EPLL since that could be done using just M and U moves
the TSLE+Corner only TTLL sooks quite interesting when mixed with TCMLL



Reed Merrill said:


> What would it be like if you did EODB and L5E using wide r turns instead? I ask because that sounds nice for me (I'm not too good at M moves) but I also don't know if that would be for step 2.



Nah, r+R insead of M changes corners and the Steps almost certaily need to be done algorithmic which isn't worth it at all


----------



## applezfall (Oct 9, 2017)

broune said:


> Is there any compilation of 1LLL algs where the corners are already solved? I've found 5 or 6 intuitively, and I know for a fact that there is a full 4-flip 1LLL compilation out there, but I couldn't find anything else.


its called ell


----------



## Hazel (Oct 9, 2017)

ok, how about a Roux/ZZ-Orbit hybrid haha:
1) CPBlock
2) Second block minus FRD corner
3) insert last corner while making sure every LL corner is misoriented
4) EODFDB
5) Last layer (just the 2GLL cases for H and Pi)

for second block you could also just do minus one pair and connect it before inserting it with the alg.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 10, 2017)

Sorry for double posting, but this is unrelated to my last one.
I think it would be really nice and helpful if there was a better way to memorize algorithms than the conventional way of remembering triggers and tracking F2L pairs around the cube because lets face it, it's really difficult to learn a large quantity of them using this method.
I've created a sort-of method for this, or at least the many 2GLL cases where the alg is just a sune/antisune from either the front or the back, doing some U move, then doing another sune/antisune to finish. This is in every H 2GLL case minus one, for example.
Basically, I gave all of those algorithms I already knew a name that I could remember and that I could use in a sentence. So sune is death (because death comes soon), anti sune is not-death or not dying, a sune from the back is duck and an antisune from the back is evil duck. Then the standard alg for an H case (R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R') is super sune, so say doing it from the back is super duck.
Then you would decide on a name for the case on the cube that you can easily remember, for example the ZBLL you can solve with (R' U2 R U R' U R U R U R' U R U2 R') is President, or the case you solve with ((U) R U R' U R U2 R' U' R' U2 R U R' U R) is Prince. Then you would use this information to make a sentence/story to remember the alg. For example, for the President case I would remember: "President is evil duck so you die"
President is the case name, evil duck is antisune from the back right, you is just a U move, and die is a sune.
This sounds weird I know, but it works (at least for me). I don't know how this would work for algs that aren't just combinations of other easier algs like sune, however.
If you're the type of person that can remember names and sentences like this well (maybe if you're good at BLD), then this might be helpful for learning these cases. If anyone has ideas for learning algs with that aren't just combinations of smaller algs with this method, I'd love to hear them!
And sure, you may not be able to do the alg very quickly this way, but over time you won't have to think about the sentence and muscle memory will take over


----------



## Tao Yu (Oct 11, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Sorry for double posting, but this is unrelated to my last one.
> I think it would be really nice and helpful if there was a better way to memorize algorithms than the conventional way of remembering triggers and tracking F2L pairs around the cube because lets face it, it's really difficult to learn a large quantity of them using this method.
> I've created a sort-of method for this, or at least the many 2GLL cases where the alg is just a sune/antisune from either the front or the back, doing some U move, then doing another sune/antisune to finish. This is in every H 2GLL case minus one, for example.
> Basically, I gave all of those algorithms I already knew a name that I could remember and that I could use in a sentence. So sune is death (because death comes soon), anti sune is not-death or not dying, a sune from the back is duck and an antisune from the back is evil duck. Then the standard alg for an H case (R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R') is super sune, so say doing it from the back is super duck.
> ...


I disagree with the claim that it's hard to memorize a large amount of algs by tracking F2L pairs and remembering triggers. I memorized all of ZBLL with this method, and it has always worked very well for me.

However, I will admit that different people learn differently, and I imagine many people will find mnemonics helpful for alg learning.

I think the key to effectively using mnemonics for learning algs is to not try and encode everything. You don't need to encode every single move of the alg into the mnemonic, because your mind will fill in many of the gaps for you. If you train your algs a ton on an alg trainer, you'll be surprised how much you remember - your memory is likely better than you think.

When was learning ZBLL, for example, I'd almost never learn the second half of algs because I was usually able to figure it out intuitively.

So for memorizing algs that aren't combinations of other algs, it should be enough to just create a mnemonic for the trigger it starts with, create a mnemonic that reminds you of the middle (but not necessarily very specific), and then you can figure out the end intutively. And if you train your algs a lot on a trainer or doing solves, your mind will fill in the rest.


----------



## DuJello (Oct 12, 2017)

Okay I made a method a couple days ago and it seems to be pretty decent. It's kind of a ripoff of Thistlethwaite but that's not what I was going for, plus the solve feels a lot different. It was actually based more on Guimond and SSC.

1. orient all edges
2. blockbuild f2l-1slot so that UD colors are on bottom and E layer edges are in E layer. No need to permute the pieces correctly yet
3. fill in the last slot with the last edge and orient all corners, this can be done with TSLE or supplemented with WV or OLL
4. use R2, L2, F2, B2, U, and D moves to blockbuild the f2l for real. Usually I make a line of one color on the bottom with 2 corners and an edge then expand it into a roux first block, then petrus 2x2x3 then add in last line. This is also the step where UD colors get separated into their own layers.
5. pll

Example scramble : L2 D L2 U2 B2 F2 U' B2 R2 B2 U L F R2 B' U' L B' R' F'
EO: R (D' U) (B' F) U F' // this actually ended up making a cross on the bottom
F2L-1: L2 U L U2 R U' R U R // somehow filled in last slot leaving OLL instead of TSLE
last slot/OLL: R U2 R' U' R U' R' // this could have cancelled with the last R
F2L: E' F2 U r2 U r2 U' r2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 // I have a feeling this step can be optimized
PLL (Gd): U' f R f' R2 u' R U' R2 u R2


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Oct 12, 2017)

pinky pie LELOP (new method)
1)L+E½
create a cp line (no eo) and place 2 equator edges above the line (oriented correctly)
2)E½+flco <R,U,M,r>
place the other 2 equator edges while orienting the first layer corner pieces (the ones that actually belong on first layer)
3)L+PP setup <R2,r2,M,U,u,E>
build a 1x1x3 block in the bottom right, solve the equator, and place the UL and UR edges (oriented) in DF and DB
4)oll (keep cp) (57 algs)
solve oll with an algorithm that keeps cp solved
5)PP<U,M2> --> <M,U2>
permutate the DF-DB edges into the top, then permutate the middle slice

scramble: R2 F2 D' L2 R2 D2 B2 R2 U L B' L' U F2 L2 F' D' L' F2 D2
1) z U2 R U2 u' S2 (5 stm 4 atm)
2) r R2 U R' U2 R' (6 stm 5 atm)
3) E r R (3 stm 2 atm)
4) U R' U' F' U F R F R U R' U' F' (13 qtm) (found at http://birdflu.lar5.com)
5) U M2 U M' (4 stm)
43 qtm 35 htm 31 stm 28 atm
i am very surprised this went so well. this is just a lot of luck. took 7 minutes to find. found by hand.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 12, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> pinky pie LELOP (new method)
> 1)L+E½
> create a cp line (no eo) and place 2 equator edges above the line (oriented correctly)
> 2)E½+flco <R,U,M,r>
> ...


Example solve please?


----------



## hellomyfriend (Oct 14, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> pinky pie LELOP (new method)
> 1)L+E½
> create a cp line (no eo) and place 2 equator edges above the line (oriented correctly)
> 2)E½+flco <R,U,M,r>
> ...


Isn't this basically doing eo and cp in the beginning of roux?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Oct 14, 2017)

hellomyfriend said:


> Isn't this basically doing eo and cp in the beginning of roux?


first of all, you don't solve eo at the beginning (third line down), and until you understand it, it is unfair to be judged.


----------



## Neuro (Oct 14, 2017)

@Abram Lookadoo Rude and unnecessary comments. He's just looking at the method objectively (like we SHOULD be looking at proposals on this thread); all you needed to do was explain you don't do EO at the beginning.

What if for L7E we did an equivalent of EOLR that solves FRUL, and solve the rest of the cube with L5E?


----------



## applezfall (Oct 14, 2017)

stupid method #3
NAC(Not Aligned Cross)
1.make a missaligned cross
2.Do NAC f2l
3.LL
4.Aligned Cross with D moves
pros:none
cons:bad lookahead
same amount of moves as cfop
the D at the end can be annoying
example solve
scramble:U2 R2 F2 U' L2 U' R2 U L2 D' F2 L' B' U2 B' D L2 R2 U2 L' D'
SOLUTION:https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U2_R2..._D-_R2_D_R2_U_R-_D-_R_U-_R_U_R-_D_R_U-_R-_L2_


----------



## Sue Doenim (Oct 14, 2017)

Just had what I think is a really cool idea: L6E Commutator Reduction.
1) Solve 3 edges intuitively ~4 moves
2) Solve remaining edges with a commutator ~9 moves
Step one could be completely intuitive, or something like E2L; movecounts are pretty much guesses; not sure about comm count, but it's probably not too high, with reflections/AUF's/AMS's (yes I just invented adjust M slice) probably less that EOLR.
EDIT: Intuitive is not ~4 moves.


----------



## Raumaan Kidwai (Oct 15, 2017)

Hi, this is my first post on the forum so please excuse any mistakes!

This isn't a 3x3 method, but a skewb method, and due to the large variety of skewb methods this may have been suggested before:

1) (Intuitively) solve a "line" consisting of two fully solved corner pieces and a solved center piece in between them. The corner pieces are both on the same face as the center piece and are diagonally opposite each other on that face. This is equivalent to 3/5 of a face, and can often be solved in 3 moves or less.

2) There are 2 corners that when you turn them, they do not disturb the line. Step 2 is to solve these 2 corners as well as the 5 centers that they wield.

3) Last 4 Corners. I'd imagine this would be algorithmic but I have absolutely no idea where to start with this/if it's been genned before.

This of course would not be superior to Skewb EG in any way, but could be a considerable intermediate-speed method with few algorithms.

This method is reminiscent of 2GR on 3x3, where the "line" could be imagined as the 2x2x3 block, due to the quick 2-gen solution of Step 2.

A more advanced method to build off this might be more similar to 2GR, solving CPLine and merging steps 2 and 3.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, a Skewb missing the 4 free corners is analogous to a Pyraminx, and therefore steps 1 and 2 might be able to be turned into a Pyraminx method, and a Pyraminx method might be applicable to replace steps 1 and 2.


----------



## Đỗ Ngọc Anh Viên (Oct 15, 2017)

I have an idea for new 3x3 method.
The steps:
S1: make Vblock (seem like FB+1x2x2 next to FB)
S2: Solve last F2L pair.
S3: Orient and Permute 4 U corners
S4:
a) Orient all edges
b) Reduce cube to G4={R2, L2, B2, U2, F2, D2}
c) Solve remaining cube with G4.
Number of alg: 42 
Movecount: 49


----------



## Neuro (Oct 16, 2017)

Interesting idea I just had to incorporate 42 style corner solving into other methods:

What if for EO based methods (Petrus, ZZ, CFOP with edge control) we build to F2L-1, either solve LC or use COLL conjugates to solve the corners, and end in L5E?

You get to use your same COLL algs and L5E is entirely 2-gen. At the most basic level you get 15 L5E algs (including EPLL) but this can go higher if you allow for the other E slice edge to be there.


----------



## @Ratas (Oct 19, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Great idea to cut down on the number of algs; in fact I'll probably use this while I'm learning full L7E, but it's not the most efficient. Been working on L7E really hard for the last couple of days so I'll present those algs this weekend. With rotational symmetry and AUFs there are exactly 125 unique cases, many of which are just one of the baseline cases with a couple of M or U moves tacked on to the end.
> 
> Sounds interesting; I have no idea how you're gonna do this but GL  btw I've actually been making the L7E algs on a seperate sheet that's much better organized than the one you had, so I'll show that to you tonight. Recently I've also come up with a BOPE L8E method and a mega-efficient squan method that's based off of HD, so I'll show you guys those tomorrow.


Can you show that square-1 method?


----------



## Hazel (Oct 19, 2017)

ZZ variant (ZZ-r?)
1: SEOLine: EOLine on S slice. Solve EOLine as usual but the solved edges are DL and DR
2: F2L: Solve the 4 F2L pairs
3: CxLL: Corners of the last layer while preserving the solved blocks and EO
4: LSE

EDIT: Here's two more another variants!
1) EOLine
2) F2L-1
3) 2x2x1 block in UBL
4) L4C/L3E (last 4 corners then last 3 edges)

1) SEOLine
2) F2L-1 cross edge (preferably DF
3) COLL
4) L5E (insertion cancelling into EPLL with only M/U)


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 20, 2017)

Ok, I thought about this adaptation of ZBRoux to ZZ-CT (nothing too serious tho) which is a hybrid that is most probably better than ZZ but worse than Roux
1. First Block
2. Square on the SB down back place
3. EO + DFDB (the fact that we have 7 Edges means we can only have 0, 2, 4 or 6 cases like in roux and with the one extra slot we can transform almost everything to an Arrow)
4.TSLE
5. TTLL

Pros:
Roux FB and SB with is more efficient and economical(the 'rapid' change of L/R moves in ZZ is arguebly worse) than ZZF2L
EO in Roux/this Method is faster-can be recognised almost instantly which means Inspection is used for "something actually helpful for solving"
TSLE and TTLL algorithms have a incredibly high percentage of being 2 Gen which means your LL is often really fast

Contras:
The RU 2Gen of TSLE and TTLL is not as fast as MU for Roux
Potentially high movecount


Edit: I have an example solve(sramble with your prefered color on bottom:

Scramble: D B2 D F" B L D' R F' R F2 B2 L' D2 R2 U2 B2 U2 B2 L'
y' D' R' U2 R U' M U //Square first block -7
x R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R2 M U M' U' R2 //Square second block - 16
U M' F' M' //Finish First Block - 4
R U2 R' U //Setup to Arrow - 4
M U' M U2 M U2 M' //EO dfdb - 7
U R U2 R D R' U R D' R2 //TSLE - 10
U R' F R F' R' F R F' R' F R F' //TTLL - 13
U' //AUF - 1
61 Moves with STM, 70 with HTM, 78 with QTM


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Oct 20, 2017)

Insanely hard method idea
Cross
Columns
ELL
It could probably be fast and it has an optional MU finish, but the columns step is insanely hard to do well after the second column. Somebody try making it viable and I might try it. (sub-14 with CFOP rn)


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 20, 2017)

JaredRB9000 said:


> Insanely hard method idea
> Cross
> Columns
> ELL
> It could probably be fast and it has an optional MU finish, but the columns step is insanely hard to do well after the second column. Somebody try making it viable and I might try it. (sub-14 with CFOP rn)


How about CFCE?


----------



## JaredRB9000 (Oct 20, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> How about CFCE?



CCE just seems like it could be fast if it can even be done efficiently by a person. CFCE is more of just another 2LLL, while CCE vastly affects LL during all of F2L (as opposed to just LS), and an easy 1LLL with a tiny 29 algs for ELL. Looking to make a very unique variant on CFOP, although I didn't intend on it being insane lol


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Oct 24, 2017)

new method (BFL)
1) create a 1x2x3 cp block (no eo)
2) blockbuild the first two layers
3) solve ollep (preserving cp) (1/675 algs)


----------



## Neuro (Oct 26, 2017)

Roux FMC? 

Solve F2B while influencing LSE, use an insertion in the blocks to solve LxC (Preferably you reduced to L3C during F2B) and then do LSE. Alex Lau reportedly used it in comps and got several sub-30's. I did a solve using it for the example solve thread and got a 27 without much effort. Probably not as good as Petrus/Free blockbuilding FMC but I think in the world of "stylized FMC" this could be a good approach if you're able to look into LSE really well.

SCRAMBLE: L2 D F2 U' B2 F2 D L2 D' F2 U L R2 F L R B U R F D

FINAL SOL: R2 B' U' B2 U' B' (R D' L' D R' D' L) F2 D2 F D' F D F B2 U F' B L F B'

R2 B' U' B2 U'//FB
B' * D' F2 D2 F D' F D//SB-1 move
F B2 U F' B L F B'//Edges (L3C redux)

*=R D' L' D R' D' L D

B' (R D' L' D R' D' L *D) D'
*
I noticed several pairs premade, so I tried to influence an easy SB while solving FB. Solving SB was pretty straightforward and it ended with an extremely simple LSE (3 STM not including AFF/ABF) and I just got L3C which made for an easy insertion.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 26, 2017)

@Neuro this is actually really cool, great idea! I'm not too good with Roux though so I can't really give my critisism

Here's a random idea I thought of:
1) F2L-1 (blockbuild or cross/F2L)
2a) EO
2b) CO (completely 2-gen!)
3) L9P


----------



## Raumaan Kidwai (Oct 26, 2017)

I hereby present <MUD>: A method that is as good as mud.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WXFDLWaqRjjEyWS5DjUEskXk-qAUMuWrpib_tg-JPMc

(a parody of the New Methods and Concept Ideas thread)


----------



## Teoidus (Oct 27, 2017)

This method is 10/10. Please publish it in a notable cubing journal as soon as possible


----------



## DuJello (Oct 28, 2017)

Here's a beginner's method I thought of

1 - make a 2x2x3 block
1a - 3/4 cross
1b - expand into 1x2x3 block
1c - fill in last 2 edges
2 - fill in last two pairs and ignore last cross piece
2a - make one pair
2b - make second pair while preserving the first one
2c - put both pairs in their correct places
3 - solve corners
3a - permutation: use sexy-sledgehammer to switch front 2 corners
3b - orientation: either use sune or R' D' R D
4- solve edges
4a - orient edges using roux style stuff (basically M' U M orients an arrow in front)
4b - permute edges either by inserting last cross edge and forcing a U perm (by throwing in a M' U2 M if there is no solved line) and then doing a U perm Or flip cube over and use M' U2 M to insert whatever edge goes into the "bottom" layer until the whole thing is solved


I think the real elegance in this method is the skills learned with it transfer very well into any of the main methods including more obscure ones

Edit: it's also very customize-able, for example for step1 you can just do normal blockbuilding, you can do cfop stuff after 3/4 cross to fill in 2 slots, etc. For step 2 you can also do it so you solve f2l-1slot instead of f2l-1edge


----------



## Hazel (Oct 29, 2017)

weird random method:
1) 2AJ - 2 adjacent layers
2) L2C - Last 2 corners
3) L5E - Last 5 edges


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 29, 2017)

Aerma said:


> weird random method:
> 1) 2AJ - 2 adjacent layers
> 2) L2C - Last 2 corners
> 3) L5E - Last 5 edges




Doesn't seem practical at all


----------



## Neuro (Oct 30, 2017)

My Halloween contribution

Spooky method

1: Pumpkin - Build FB+Edge on bottom with the extra edge in DF
2: Graveyard - F2L represents the yard the Pumpkin sits on and the bodies rise
3: Skeleton - Skeletons are humans but they don't have innards; like how OLL has all the pieces oriented but not permuted
4: Zombie - Solve the layer; the proper flesh and skin of humans is present on the ominous zombie

For extra spook, always solve orange pumpkin.

Solve: R2 F2 L2 D L2 U' F2 U B2 D U L' U' R F2 D2 F U' L' R' U

D2 R2 L D' L2 D F' L D' z' y//Pumpkin (9/9)
F u y' R2 U2 R E' R u2 U y R' F' R//Graveyard (12/21)
R' U' F U R U' R' F' R//Skeleton (9/30)
M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2//Zombie (7/37)

I recommend this wholeheartedly to no one except the undead and monsters as the method sucks for standard humans.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 31, 2017)

2-look LL method:
1) solve EO while misorienting all LL corners - 57 algs I think
2) finish with one of 112 ZBLL algs


----------



## DuJello (Oct 31, 2017)

I got a solve under 40 moves with a more advanced version of that beginner's method I posted. I can't reconstruct because it was a hand scramble but that shows it really might have potential

steps I used: build 2 pairs where one side color and the end colors match, put them together into a 1x2x3 block with no respect to other centers, match up to other centers and expand into 2x2x3 block, build last 2 pairs of f2l, insert them, solve corners (cp then co), l5e.


----------



## alwin5b (Oct 31, 2017)

1. CPLine
2. finish left block, place RF/RB edges oriented in RF/RB (swapped or not swapped) and place any two corners oriented on DRF/DRB
3. orient corners with 7 algs that can't destroy much of right block and thus are short (longest algs are 11 moves and include sexy move)
4. EO similar to Roux
5. using only R2, r2 and U turns to preserve CO, finish right block and place UL/UR (or UF/UB) in their correct position in the U layer
6. last 4 edges.

pros

doesn't temporarily break up solved parts of the cube except for one of the RF/RB edges during the algorithm, so only one piece.

only 7 algs, and the CPLine step is actually very easy and streamlined, so the method is about as difficult to learn as Roux with 2 look CMLL.
no rotations and the turns you use for each step are: (R,r,U,u,F,f) for CPLine, (R,r,U,u) for step 2, (R,U) for step 3, (R2, r2, M, U) for step 4, (R2, r2, U) for step 5, (M, U2) for step 6. So in total the move sets for the steps are rather nice, except the M turns during EO, those break the flow, because step 3 and 5 don't have M turns.

example solve: x' y //forward, forward relation --> there is no "swap corner"R' U R' U' r2 U //build pairf' R' f' //insert pair with mini-algorithm to finish CPLineu' M' u r R U' R' u2 //finish left block while placing any two corners oriented on DR and placing the RF/RB edges oriented in RF/RB (or RB/RF)U R U2 R' U' R U' R' //Anti-SuneU2 R2 M' U2 M' U' M'//EOR2 U r2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 M2 U//finish right block and solve UL/URM' U2 M2 U2 M//L4E

some details:
CPLine:

rotate the cube s.t. DBL corner is oriented and in DBL position
do an F,F',F2,f,f',f2 or no turn in your head that bring the cube in a position where the DFL corner is not in DFL position and where the DL edge is oriented in DL position or not in DL position at all.
try to find a key swap involving the DFL corner exactly like in the 2GR method (see teoidus website)
Start your solve with the F or f turn from step 2 of CPLine. If there is no key swap (the "no swap" case), you build a pair containing the DL edge and DFL corner and place the pair s.t. the DFL corner is oriented in the UFR position. Then do f' R' f' to solve the line and to bring the cube in a state where the corners can be solved with R,U turns. If there is a key swap, bring the pair in a position where it can be solved with an f,f' or f2 turn and bring the "swap corner" to UBR position, then do the f,f' or f2 turn to solve the line etc.
in step 4 of CPLine, only use R,r,U,u turns to build the DL-DFL pair and to position it. But you can also use sequences like R' U' F' or U R F that don't destroy the CP.
if your DL edge was solved during step 2 of CPLine or was solved to begin with, you obviously don't need to build any pair in step 4 of CPLine and just insert the DLF corner like described.
step 2:
placing oriented corners is super easy. You can for example form a pair on the U layer containing the oriented RF edge and a corner clockwise from the edge, whose U/D sticker is facing away from the RF edge, then insert it like an F2L pair. The fist pair you insert can be inserted with R or R' because there is no RD edge you have to care about.

step 3 (CO):

the algs are Sune, Anti-Sune, Bruno,
U case: Triple Sexy move
H case: U R' U' R2 U' R U2 R2 U' R
T case: U R U R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R'
L case: R U R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U2 R'

note that T and L contain a sexy move and that the algs are shorter than they would be if the right block would be solved already and had to be preserved.

step 5:

Using only R2 and U turns, build the DR line on the U layer starting with a pair consisting of the DR edge and one of the DR corners. To build this pair, use an R2 turn to place a DR corner in one of the DR positions, with the R color sticker either facing to the front or facing to the back, and place the DR corner in the U layer such that an R2 turn connects the corner and with the edge. Now do the same with the second DR corner piece to complete the line and align the line with the FR and BR edges s.t. an R2 turn solves the DR line as well as the line consisting of the FR and BR edges and the R center.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 1, 2017)

new L6E method (M2r method)

1) O+1p (orient+1 pair)
solve all edge orientation as well as getting two edges that belong across from each other, across from each other (this is an edge-edge pair)
2) M2r (M2 reduction)
place the pair in UL UR (with the other pair pieces diagonal from each other)and preform either M' U2 M' or M U2 M to solve M2 reduction (solvable using only M2 and U) (if its not in M2r, but all pairs are solved you can E2 M' E2 M')
3) pl3p (permute last 3 pairs)
using M2 and U moves, solve the cube

examples
*Scramble U M U2 M2 U2 M U' M' U M U' M' U2 M2 U M U2 M2 U2 M2 U' M' U2 M2 U'*
1) U M' U M U' 2) M' U M U2 M 3) U2 M2 U' M2
*
U2 M' U M U' M U' M' U M U' M' U M U' M2 U M2 U M U M2 U M' U'*
1) M U M' U M 2) M U2 M' 3) U M2 U' M2
*
U' M' U M' U' M U' M U2 M U2 M' U2 M' U M' U' M2 U' M' U M' U' M' U*
1) U M' U M U' 2) M' U' M' U2 M' 3) U M2 U2 M2 U' M2
*
U' M U' M2 U' M2 U M2 U' M U M2 U2 M' U2 M U2 M' U2 M U' M U2 M2 U2*
1) M' U2 M' U M' 2) U M U2 M 3) U M2 U' M2 U
*
M' U2 M' U M U2 M' U2 M' U' M' U M U' M' U' M' U2 M2 U' M U2 M2 U M*
1) U' M' U M U M' 2) M U2 M' 3) U' M2 U' M2 U2

new method bloble (pronounced Bl O Bl E)

1) cp block
create a 1x2x3 block and solve cp at the same time.
2) oc
orient all corners while placing the remaining equator pieces oriented correctly
3) 2nd block
using <R2,M,U> solve the second 1x2x3 block
4) edges
solve last 6 edges using <M,U>


----------



## DuJello (Nov 1, 2017)

Aerma said:


> 2-look LL method:
> 1) solve EO while misorienting all LL corners - 57 algs I think
> 2) finish with one of 112 ZBLL algs


That would probably end up being a higher move count than oll/pll, harder recognition, and less ergonomic. I don't really like shooting down ideas but a better way to do that would be force a pi/H case zbll while inserting last pair and already have all edges oriented.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 1, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method bloble (pronounced Bl O Bl E)
> 
> 1) cp block
> create a 1x2x3 block and solve cp at the same time.
> ...


Interesting. How do you do step 2?


Abram Lookadoo said:


> new L6E method (M2r method)
> 
> 1) O+1p (orient+1 pair)
> solve all edge orientation as well as getting two edges that belong across from each other, across from each other (this is an edge-edge pair)
> ...


How is this different from what most advanced rouxers do already?


----------



## alwin5b (Nov 1, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method bloble (pronounced Bl O Bl E)
> 
> 1) cp block
> create a 1x2x3 block and solve cp at the same time.
> ...



According to your post, (if I understood you correctly), you do step 2 by building 2 pseudo-pairs (an oriented equator edge together with any corner, but the corner is twisted in such a way that inserting the pseudo-pair with R,U into an F2L slot would orient the corner), inserting one pseudo-pair into an F2L slot and keeping one pseudo-pair on the U layer. Then you apply one of 27 short R,U algorithms to insert the second pseudo-pair into an F2L slot while orienting all corners(most of them are 7 moves I think).

If you orient the right block edges at the start of step 2, and bring them to the U and R layers, you can do step 3 with only R2 and U turns and without M turns (if the DR edge is in DF/DB you do one r2 turn in step 3). This way, steps 2 and 3 can be done with only R,r and U turns, and step 4 is pure M,U. So you don't have to switch between R,U and M,U turns, meaning that the ergonomics of the method should be pretty great imo. This would also mean that edge orientation will not change during step 3, so you can influence the edge orientation case that you solve in step 4 already with the algorithm from step 2, and avoid bad EO cases.

The turns each step can be done with are then:
CPLine: R,r,U,u,F,f
finish LB: R,r,U,u
put RB edges oriented on R and U layers: R,r,U
step 2: R,U
step 3: R2, U
L6E a+b: M,U
L6E c: M,U2

Moreover, this method is very easy. I posted an easy way to do CPLine here (simplified CPLine from 2GR method), and already started generating the 27 algorithms for step 2 two days ago (had the same idea of doing step 2 (I called it COLine) with pseudo-pairs), and will definitely finish generating them and post them in a few days.


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 1, 2017)

On "blobl" (...really? blobl? that's what we're going with?)

I stopped doing this a little while back because there got to many too many ridiculous questionable proposals, but:

Approximate movecount:
10 CPFB (note: FB is ~7)
3 pseudo-pair insert + 3 second pseudo-pair + 8 CO (note: SB is ~14 and 3 moves for each pseudopair is a pretty conservative estimate)
8 SB (note: CMLL is 10)
13 LSE
= 45

So we've saved some moves in CMLL? for more moves in FB, and we're left with a method that doesn't flow as well, is more complicated, and is at best as efficient as roux.


----------



## alwin5b (Nov 1, 2017)

I too think that blobl is not the best name and that Roux is better than this, because it has fewer steps. The appeal of the method (for me) lies more in the fact that it does not destroy regions of the cube that were solved in a previous step, like CMLL, OLL, PLL do.


----------



## Hazel (Nov 2, 2017)

Here's another roux-ish varient of mine:
1) CPBlock
2) 2x2x1 in RB
3) EODB
4) 2-gen Winter Variation
5) L5E

EDIT: Here's another method idea:
1) First 2 blocks - pretty much a 2x2x3 in DB minus the DB edge itself
2) EODB - solve DB while solving EO
3) finish F2L however you like
4) ZBLL


----------



## Neuro (Nov 2, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Here's another roux-ish varient of mine:
> 1) CPBlock
> 2) 2x2x1 in RB
> 3) EODB
> ...


1st method, I don't really see it. Roux seems better with a similar alg count. CP Block is difficult, just allowing the 2x2x1 in RB isn't very smart, and 2GWV usually isn't very efficient.

2nd idea is decent; although I'd suggest allowing either DB or DF to be variable as it would probably make blocks easier. Allows for a lot of F2L/LL variants (like in all EO methods) so there's flexibility there also


----------



## Hazel (Nov 2, 2017)

Neuro said:


> 2nd idea is decent; although I'd suggest allowing either DB or DF to be variable as it would probably make blocks easier. Allows for a lot of F2L/LL variants (like in all EO methods) so there's flexibility there also


Very true: you could use CT, many ZZ varients, Winter Variation/PLL, WVCP/EPLL, COLL/EPLL, ZBLL, CPLS/2GLL, WVCP/L5E... the options are endless, and if you know a lot of algs you could just use whichever is best for each solve.


----------



## Hazel (Nov 3, 2017)

Sorry for the double post, but this is mostly unrelated to my last one.
I created a spreadsheet of Last 5 Edges algorithms (when they're all already oriented, the U edges + DF) if anybody wants to use them for a method. There's only 12 of them. I allowed commenting in case anybody finds better algs then the ones I have.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EEvR0dRzO3NqgG_GBfQMa9w3vEuFdfH7GCd63xJNeao/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Neuro (Nov 3, 2017)

Aerma said:


> Sorry for the double post, but this is mostly unrelated to my last one.
> I created a spreadsheet of Last 5 Edges algorithms (when they're all already oriented, the U edges + DF) if anybody wants to use them for a method. There's only 12 of them. I allowed commenting in case anybody finds better algs then the ones I have.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EEvR0dRzO3NqgG_GBfQMa9w3vEuFdfH7GCd63xJNeao/edit?usp=sharing


I'd think recog would be easier if you held the DF edge in UB so you can see 3/4 stickers at once

EDIT: Most of these cases are optimal using Roux 4b/4c so if you are good at LSE these would be very easy to learn


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 3, 2017)

So I have this idea for translating Roux to 6x6(possibly 5x5 too) and 7x7 while not using huge M moves. I would wish that Neuro or Shiv3r could see this.

1. Opposite Centres on L and R(possibly on U and D if you pair on the E slice)
2. First Block(better do your blocks as long as you have all the freedom)
3. Second block
4. Solve the two layers Adjacent to the outer ones in kind of an ObLbL approach
5. CMLL
6. Solve the Wings Adjacent to the Corners on the U layer(I estimate a big Algorithm count but not a huge one)

now you have two two-layer deep Roux blocks and four 1x2x2 blocks acting as corners

7. reduction of the last four Centres and last six Edges
8. 3x3 Stage with LSE


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 3, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> So I have this idea for translating Roux to 6x6(possibly 5x5 too) and 7x7 while not using huge M moves. I would wish that Neuro or Shiv3r could see this.
> 
> 1. Opposite Centres on L and R(possibly on U and D if you pair on the E slice)
> 2. First Block(better do your blocks as long as you have all the freedom)
> ...


So adapted stadler? Could be interesting as the algs for the wings exist. I'd be interested to see what the movecount is like. Looks like it has quite a lot of pros but I'll mention my main issue with it: you'll have a hard time doing centres as you will frequently have to break blocks in order to solve the edges which could add inefficiencies. If you can find a good way to so this I'll gladly be on board with it (not that I do bug cubes much).


----------



## Neuro (Nov 3, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> So I have this idea for translating Roux to 6x6(possibly 5x5 too) and 7x7 while not using huge M moves. I would wish that Neuro or Shiv3r could see this.
> 
> 1. Opposite Centres on L and R(possibly on U and D if you pair on the E slice)
> 2. First Block(better do your blocks as long as you have all the freedom)
> ...


Can you give an example solve? I'm having a hard time figuring it out

I don't really do anything bigger than 4x4, but if I did I'd imagine I'd use something like this

LR Centers
FB
Rotate as in Meyer and do edge pairing
Rotate back and solve SB with DF/DB edge and any other edge oriented. 
OLLCP
Rotate to solve with <RU>


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 4, 2017)

new method (blocky ribbon)

1) 2x2x2 block
build a 2x2x2 block in back left
2) F2L - 1 corner
solve two 1x2x2 blocks in DFL and DBR, and while placing the two blocks place the edge FR oriented
3) tols
orientate all pieces with 1/173 algorithms
4) ttll(?)
permute all remaining pieces with 1/93 algorithms


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 4, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> So adapted stadler? Could be interesting as the algs for the wings exist. I'd be interested to see what the movecount is like. Looks like it has quite a lot of pros but I'll mention my main issue with it: you'll have a hard time doing centres as you will frequently have to break blocks in order to solve the edges which could add inefficiencies. If you can find a good way to so this I'll gladly be on board with it (not that I do bug cubes much).



Yes, it's quite like Stadler.
Could you give me a link to the Wing algorithms, as I'm very unexperienced with big cubes and don't know where to look for?
Yeah, there are still problems but my first thought for 6x6 is that in step 7 you kind of have the centre situation as in Yau when you only have one face to rotate(and only the inner r slice instead of the whole right half). For Edges I have to look more into Edge pairing methods, but(as a nub at big cubes) my first guess is that since everyone seems to be ok with 3-2-3 we could do a commutator to have one dedge pair solved and then use 2-3(as the UL and UR spots could easily used as buffers)



Neuro said:


> Can you give an example solve? I'm having a hard time figuring it out



There will be some in the near future.


----------



## alwin5b (Nov 4, 2017)

Can anyone explain to me how CPFB is done (corner permutation first block), or point me to a post where CPFB is explained? I can't seem to find anything about this.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 4, 2017)

i have not seen any instructions about cpfb, so i created my own way of doing it 
this is to help you understand cp tracking (from teoidus) http://teoidus.github.io/dump/2GR/CPLine/CPLine.html

0) locate and track cp
1) build a 1x2x2 block in LBD
2) build the FL DFL pair
3) place the pair while manipulating cp to the “solved state"


----------



## Neuro (Nov 4, 2017)

alwin5b said:


> Can anyone explain to me how CPFB is done (corner permutation first block), or point me to a post where CPFB is explained? I can't seem to find anything about this.


Personallly I use this method:

Inspection: rotate until WBO corner is in DBL with white on D
1: solve the edge belonging in DL in telation to the DBL corner using <RUFrufMES>
2: solve CP with DFL corner (use Teoidus's 2GR CP tracking/solving) <RUFru>
3: solve BL FL edges <RUruME>

There are a lot of different ways to solve it, but I find this easiest


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 5, 2017)

I think @Arc 's method is best:

1. Track CP through square (without DBL fixed, instead keeping track of where the faces that will become <R,U> are--he calls it "floating CP" which is pretty apt)
2. Solve last pair + CP. I don't know how he does this one, but e.g. force last edge somewhere + algorithm would be ~6 CP * 3 CO * 7 DLF = 116


----------



## alwin5b (Nov 5, 2017)

another method:

1. CPFB
2. COLine (orient all corners and place the E layer edges oriented in the E layer)
3. solve the DR corners relative to each other (so the R sticker of both DR corners is on the same face)
4. L7E similar to WaterRoux (~ 70 algs)

some details:

2. COLine: place a pseudo-pair (see my previous posts) and orient the other E layer edge. Then apply one of 104 algorithms, which are similar to TSLE algs, but better, because only one piece needs to be preserved (the E layer edge belonging to the pseudo-pair).

3. I don't know yet where to put the DR corners, it seems to me keeping them in the U layer would be best, but the L7E algs require the DR corners to be in DR.


----------



## Neuro (Nov 6, 2017)

alwin5b said:


> another method:
> 
> 1. CPFB
> 2. COLine (orient all corners and place the E layer edges oriented in the E layer)
> ...


in regards to L7E, it seems to be agreed that the best strategy ATM is to insert one of the final 2 edges for R in while doing EO and do L6EP like in Roux 4B/4C. This can be done with algs or intuitively. If you really want to do this method, you may want to put the corners in D oriented (swapped or solved) and use algs to solve all the corners at once. Personally, I think that the method wouldn't be worth it. It seems to me that CPFB would be quite difficult to plan in inspection; and solving the corners (in my or your way) with regard to E slice edges would be difficult to do quickly. I could be wrong though, good luck!


----------



## Hazel (Nov 7, 2017)

Here's a 2Gr method - 
Step 1 - EOLine
Step 2 - CPLine - solve DL, DLF, and DLB while solving cp.
note: as of now I'm pretty sure steps 1 and 2 could be done in either order.
Step 3 - Finish 2x2x3
Step 4 - Solve the rest of the cube 2-gen!


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 7, 2017)

sounds good but i dont understand your corner-naming convention.


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 7, 2017)

looks good but i don't understand your method making convention


----------



## Hazel (Nov 8, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> sounds good but i dont understand your corner-naming convention.


So the tree bottom-left 3 pieces are solves as well as CP


----------



## Neuro (Nov 8, 2017)

It seems to me that a modified version of SSC-Domino would give near optimal efficiency for a human approach to the Kociemba algorithm.

Solving EO Line on Left with any E slice edge usually takes ~5 moves
Domino redux is super efficient, breaking to ~12 moves
Domino usually takes ~14 moves

So without much influencing of pieces, we easily get a 31 move method that usually gets <30 moves even with fixed centers. As a mathematical approach, the method is quite good, as it very quickly reduces the cube from <U, U', U2, F, F', F2, B, B', B2, D, D', D2, R, R', R2, L, L', L2> to <U, U', U2, F2, B2, D, D', D2, R2, L2> that is achievable by humans and consistently gives very low movecounts. While I don't think it would be good for anything other than (maybe) FMC, I think this is an interesting addition nonetheless.


----------



## sqAree (Nov 8, 2017)

The problem is that, as far as I understood, the domino stage has the same complexity as solving a whole 3x3, thus it might be very difficult to find near-optimal domino solutions (for humans).
When I learned SSC I tried to use exactly this for FMC and I failed miserably. But maybe with a bit of training it could be done, I'd like to know.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 8, 2017)

Neuro said:


> It seems to me that a modified version of SSC-Domino would give near optimal efficiency for a human approach to the Kociemba algorithm.
> 
> Solving EO Line on Left with any E slice edge usually takes ~5 moves
> Domino redux is super efficient, breaking to ~12 moves
> ...


Yeah I've tried this but afaik it's only really good for a sub-35 move backup solution. (Though I suppose it could be good if you really put some effort into learning domino and tricks there). Ultimately it suffers from similar problems to normal SSC: the lat stage is actually pretty difficult for humans to master effectively


----------



## Neuro (Nov 8, 2017)

sqAree said:


> The problem is that, as far as I understood, the domino stage has the same complexity as solving a whole 3x3, thus it might be very difficult to find near-optimal domino solutions (for humans).
> When I learned SSC I tried to use exactly this for FMC and I failed miserably. But maybe with a bit of training it could be done, I'd like to know.





shadowslice e said:


> Yeah I've tried this but afaik it's only really good for a sub-35 move backup solution. (Though I suppose it could be good if you really put some effort into learning domino and tricks there). Ultimately it suffers from similar problems to normal SSC: the lat stage is actually pretty difficult for humans to master effectively


The main reason I posted this was to start discussion on super efficient human solutions; not necessarily to create a better speedsolving method. I'm very interested in making a method that can be solved entirely by hand reaching almost CPU efficiency in a near-linear fashion; it doesn't need to be practical/fast/easy, just achievable by a human solver. And yes, I agree with the domino redux issue, it's very hard for humans to find an efficient solution. So I would love to start a discussion on finding a near optimal human solution to the puzzle, let me know what you think can be done!


----------



## alwin5b (Nov 8, 2017)

Because of @Neuro s post I looked at the SSC method. I don't think the method I came up with has a particularly low move count, but I'll share it anyway.

1. EOLine on left and setup for OL5C.
2. OL5C
3. bring the cube into a state where the 2x2x2 block containing the LBD corner is solved.
4. build the 2x2x1 block containing the FDL corner and place it such that it can be solved with an F2 turn while simultaneously reducing the corners to the <R2,U> group.

cube is now reduced to <R2, U> group.

5. solve the F2L while making sure that you either skip the LL or can finish LL with a U-Perm (anti-phasing the edges guarantees a U-Perm).
You can also place the UR edge and its adjacent corners in DR position and pretend the actual DR edge (+corners) were the UR edge (+corners), then do an R2 at the end of the solve.
6. U-Perm or skip.

Edit: step 5. and 6. can be done better. I think building a 2x2 block on the U layer instead of finishing F2L should be better. then you would have to apply one of 120 algorithms to finish the cube. Or build a 2x2 block on U and place one corner on D to reduce to 24 cases. But I fear these algorithms can sometimes be long, I don't know for sure.


----------



## Arc (Nov 9, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I think @Arc 's method is best:
> 
> 1. Track CP through square (without DBL fixed, instead keeping track of where the faces that will become <R,U> are--he calls it "floating CP" which is pretty apt)
> 2. Solve last pair + CP. I don't know how he does this one, but e.g. force last edge somewhere + algorithm would be ~6 CP * 3 CO * 7 DLF = 116


Last pair + CP is just like 2GR's CPLine except you pair the edge with the corner before solving it with an F.


----------



## Neuro (Nov 10, 2017)

Ok so I gave some thought as to how us as humans tend to tackle the problem of curbing and I have concluded that humans are terrible problem solvers.

We need to SEE progress (directly solving pieces) which is entirely different from a computer solution that'll solve based on branching solutions (i.e. Kociemba and Korf algs)

So we need to come up with some way to directly solve pieces that's very efficient. This leads us several ways (human methods) to break down a solve; like Roux and Petrus.

So we know there are 12 edges and 8 corners for 20 total pieces. As a realistic human breakdown, I think breaking it down into two main steps that each solve 10 pieces would be a *decent* starting point. Take the Roux Method: F2B solves 4/8 corners and 6/12 edges. CMLL/LSE is practically L10P, solving L4C and L6E.

Both perfect and imperfect breaks can be used, and that's where method development comes into play. Non-perfect breaks have a possibility of being more efficient AND easier to understand. In fact, you can even solve in uneven breaks such as 3phase solutions; such as corners, 6 edges, last 6 edges.

We need to keep experimenting to make a better, more efficient method that a human can reliably use. My goal would be a method <=35 moves. Disregard how easy or even how fast they are, just something a human can reliably do in a (near) linear fashion; no insertions/NISS.

As a start, I'm using Roux broken into linear F2B and either L4C/L6E or L6E/L4C


----------



## Oliver1010 (Nov 11, 2017)

I'm too lazy to see if anyone already came up with this:
Solve the cross edges with one edge flipped.
Solve f2l.
Orient the last layer with one alg. One of the edges will be oriented incorrectly, but that will be fixed later. You have 4 algs to choose from, so choose the easiest one. 
Solve PLL+ 2 flipped edges with 1 alg. 

This is not meant to be a standalone method


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 11, 2017)

new method (EBXX)(XX represents a 2 step ll+ls method)

1) edge
place a single edge piece in DB
2) 3 F2l blocks
build 3 1x2x2 blocks to complete F2l-1
3-solved) ll+ls
any way you want, solve ll+ls


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 11, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (EBXX)(XX represents a 2 step ll+ls method)
> 
> 1) edge
> place a single edge piece in DB
> ...


So heise more or less?


----------



## Cubewerkz (Nov 11, 2017)

Here is a 3x3 beginner method that I use when I learn to solve rubik's in the 80's. I don't seem to have seen anyone use it before or shown on youtube.

Basically there are 26 pieces on the cube to be solve. Since 6 centers orientation does not matter. Only 8 corners and 12 edges to solve. All approaches differ on how we divide to solve these 8 corners and 12 edges in stages and how we tackle orientation and permutation.

1) Solve 8 corners of a 3x3 (Any 2x2 methods can be used here). For beginner, 2 algorithms using layer by layer should be enough.
2) Solve top and bottom layers(4 edges each) together using equator. Use Edge insertion intuitively. This is mainly intuitive (mainly RER', R'ER, RE2R',R'E2R', LE'L', L'EL, LE2L', L'E2L') using keyhole on one layer while solving other layer until last 3 edges are solve on each side. Solve last 2 edges by some setup together. Top and Bottom will be solved.

3) Last 4 middle edges. You will have either 4 flipped edges, 2 flipped edges or no flipped edges (solved state). Use edge flipping algorithm for 2 opposite flip edge (M'UM'UM'U2 MU MU MU2)

Here is video of it






Just wondering whether it can be listed as a method in the wiki for beginner 3x3.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 11, 2017)

Cubewerkz said:


> Here is a 3x3 beginner method that I use when I learn to solve rubik's in the 80's. I don't seem to have seen anyone use it before or shown on youtube.
> 
> Basically there are 26 pieces on the cube to be solve. Since 6 centers orientation does not matter. Only 8 corners and 12 edges to solve. All approaches differ on how we divide to solve these 8 corners and 12 edges in stages and how we tackle orientation and permutation.
> 
> ...


It's a variant of corners first isn't it? In fact, I might be tempted to call it a variant of Varasano though not quite as optimised as it (though as it's for beginners this would go without saying).


----------



## Cubewerkz (Nov 12, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> It's a variant of corners first isn't it? In fact, I might be tempted to call it a variant of Varasano though not quite as optimised as it (though as it's for beginners this would go without saying).


This is a beginner 3x3 method which is a corner first method and thus require someone to know how to solve 2x2 as a prerequisite. I mentioned that this method was used by me intuitively in the 80's. I am 47 years old. I do not know Varsano Ortega back then nor now and have only just seen his method just after you mentioned. So it was developed independently. There is no Internet back then. Solving the 2 layers together is mainly intuitive. He called it the L6E for the last part. For my case. I don't have fixed buffer piece.(Both FR and FL) can be used. I kept the 2 layers top and bottom instead of left and right. There is some similarities with Varasano method but it is really developed independently and back then I do not know about cubing notation and know how to define a sequence of moves as algorithms.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 17, 2017)

new method (BPSL)(block-pair-slot-layer)

1) block
solve a 2x2x3 block in the BD
2) DF+Eo
orient the DF, FR, and FL edges while moving edge DF into place
3) F2l-1
build an F2l pair while simultaneously placing the other F2l pair
4) eocpls
place the final F2l pair while simultaneously orienting all the edges, and permuting all the corners (1/96 algs)
5)2gll
solve co and ep, solving the cube (1/84 algs)


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 17, 2017)

Seems like it could be an alright Petrus variant, but I don't see an advantage over other methods


----------



## efattah (Nov 18, 2017)

Neuro said:


> We need to keep experimenting to make a better, more efficient method that a human can reliably use. My goal would be a method <=35 moves. Disregard how easy or even how fast they are, just something a human can reliably do in a (near) linear fashion; no insertions/NISS.



If you allow 1LLL size algorithm sets it is definitely doable. Modifying LMCF for 2000+ algorithms achieves it in a very straightforward way:
1. Learn TEG-1/TEG-2 (full EG + TCLL + TEG1/2), except learn 4-8 variants of each algorithm with different effect on the U/E layer edges
2. During inspection, you set up your partial face on the bottom (required for TCLL/TEG) and then you use 0-2 slice moves to set up one E slice edge and one U slice edge into trigger positions
3. You execute one of 4-8 variants of the corners algorithm which simultaneously solves the two trigger edges (this is sort of like multiple CMLL's in Roux which affect the edges in different ways)
[ you have just solved 10 pieces in the first step, except that half the time an additional piece is also solved at random, so up to 11 pieces solved ]
4. Now you finish the cube with traditional LMCF with all the algorithms (this takes around 550 algorithms from here onward)

The total would be around 1600 algs for the first step and 550 for the second step, around 2150 algorithms. You save around 6 moves off regular LMCF, so the average goes from 41-43 down to 35-37. Because 2 U slice edges are solved in the first step, once you rotate, the L face barely moves so you have virtual RrUM for the remainder of the solve.


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 18, 2017)

I can achieve sub-30 movecounts pretty straightforwardly as well: just memorize ||G1|| + ||G2|| algorithms and use kociemba's 2phase. It's quite straightforward really.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 18, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I can achieve sub-30 movecounts pretty straightforwardly as well: just memorize ||G1|| + ||G2|| algorithms and use kociemba's 2phase. It's quite straightforward really.


Orders of magnitudes, though. efattah's idea has an alg count "only" in the thousands, whereas you're thinking of something in the tens of millions. (Learning thousands of algs sounds ridiculous now, but just a decade ago people said the same thing about full ZBLL and look at where we are today.)


----------



## Pyjam (Nov 18, 2017)

I have my doubts.



Spoiler


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 18, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Orders of magnitudes, though. efattah's idea has an alg count "only" in the thousands, whereas you're thinking of something in the tens of millions. (Learning thousands of algs sounds ridiculous now, but just a decade ago people said the same thing about full ZBLL and look at where we are today.)



You're right; I just don't think changing an algorithm count from 700 to 1600-2000 is a "straightforward" way to achieve low movecounts. We've definitely pushed algset size limits past what people 10 years ago could have imagined, but I can't imagine anyone calling Jabari/Tao's learning ZBLL a straightforward task.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 19, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Orders of magnitudes, though. efattah's idea has an alg count "only" in the thousands, whereas you're thinking of something in the tens of millions. (Learning thousands of algs sounds ridiculous now, but just a decade ago people said the same thing about full ZBLL and look at where we are today.)


At the same time though, I could quite easily achieve the same sub-35 move count with "only" a few hundred algorithms using a modified version of 42 or even Roux FMC so long as I use comms for L7E or LSE. In fact, if we extend to the algorithms efattah proposes for L7E (which could easily be <1000) it could quite easily be sub-30 moves.


----------



## Neuro (Nov 19, 2017)

Hey so I came up with a second version of ZZ-Tripod. It has the same amount of algs, but it *should* have higher efficiency and reliability overall.

.5: Build to F2L-1C while making a 1x1x2 block on top
1: Use 1 alg to solve LC and last U layer edge to form the 1x2x2 block. Still 35 algs and has good recog
2: TELL (Tripod EO Last Layer) to solve. 50 algs just as before

So it's still 85 algs, but I feel this is more viable for speedsolving, as building a single pair +LE is easier than a 1x2x2 block and is quite efficient. LS recog is still very easy, as you just see where the LC and edge are in 1 look. And of course TELL is still a good algset with easy recog. So, let me know if you think it's worth it!


----------



## Raumaan Kidwai (Nov 20, 2017)

Tripod variant: Tripod+

1) Form F2L-1 however you like
2) EOSquare

In either order:
2a) Solve a square in U
2b) Solve EO

3) Form the final F2L pair and insert while phasing (intuitive but very hard)
4) L3C

Total: 0 algs, but step 3 is insanely difficult without at least a few algs for inserting pairs while phasing.

Tripod++ is a slight variant that uses a set of 24 algs to pair and insert the pair while phasing LL edges (dubbed T+LS or Tripod+ Last Layer), and a 2 look last layer approach which uses 8 easy OCLLs (collectively dubbed TOLL or Tripod OLL) to reduce to an A perm or solved state.

T+LS is used by using R U' R' U to move the edge that should go in FR to UR, and performing an alg from there. The set is split up into 2 sets, T+LS 0 and T+LS 1. T+LS 0 is for when there is no LL edge currently solved, and T+LS 1 is for when there is. Each of the two has 12 algs for each position of the final D sticker.

Total: T+LS (24) + TOLL (8) + reduced CPLL (2) = 34 algs

This is definitely NOT a good method on its own, but can be useful for when you already have a square/3 move square/3 move EOSquare, which are common situations.

This was typed on mobile so please excuse the lack of formatting.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 21, 2017)

new method (bcpe)

1) crate a 1x1x3 cp block
build a 1x1x3 block and solve relative cp (no eo)
2) build an opposite 1x1x2 pair
build a 1x1x2 pair (lengthwise side opposite color to a lengthwise color on the 1x1x3 block) placed parallel and opposite to the 1x1x3 block of the opposite color
3) L5c
solve the remaining 5 corners using an algorithm (1/105 algs)
4) eP (edge pairs)
place an edge from left side and right side oriented in DB DF, turn L and R to match the edges, preform a U M2 U' or U' M2 U to place the 2 edges correctly (do this twice)
5) L6e
solve the left and right sides and solve eo, then permute the M slice


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 21, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (bcpe)
> 
> 1) crate a 1x1x3 cp block
> build a 1x1x3 block and solve relative cp (no eo)
> ...


This kinda looks like LMCF, honestly. Also a bit like WaterRoux. Solve certain blocks, finish corners, LXE. That's a method template I'll want to look into more.


----------



## Raumaan Kidwai (Nov 21, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (bcpe)
> 
> 1) crate a 1x1x3 cp block
> build a 1x1x3 block and solve relative cp (no eo)
> ...



This is extremely similar to Roux for Drew, a method I'm working on to compliment <MUD> (a parody of the terrible methods in this thread).


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 21, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (bcpe)
> 
> 1) crate a 1x1x3 cp block
> build a 1x1x3 block and solve relative cp (no eo)
> ...



Can you please write posts with proper spelling, punctuation, and capitalization? Some of your ideas seem decent, but to be honest I rarely am willing to read them because of how horribly they're formatted.


----------



## Thermex (Nov 23, 2017)

Hey everyone, apologies for being gone so long. I try to keep up with this thread but sometimes my schoolwork catches up with me.

I've had about 5-6 ideas jogging around in my head I've been working on lately, but recently something happened to my laptop and it deleted ALL of my files, including my cubing ones. All the hours I poured in to working on BOPE, L7E stuff, Twisty EG and a couple of other secret methods I've been working on were deleted  So yeah at this point anyone who wants to collaborate with me on any of these can just PM me, hopefully I can get at least one of them done by Christmas :/


Sue Doenim said:


> This kinda looks like LMCF, honestly. Also a bit like WaterRoux. Solve certain blocks, finish corners, LXE. That's a method template I'll want to look into more.


I've also been looking into this a lot, I've found a lot of efficient methods use this template (WaterRoux, Bope, Roux, and 42). A lot of the projects I was working on were L6E, L7E, L8E, and L9E (WaterRoux) related systems that work as finishes for the above methods.


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 23, 2017)

I'm sorry about your laptop--have you tried recovering the data? If you haven't touched the disk at all since you discovered this, a partial recovery could be possible (deleted files don't actually truly vanish until they are overwritten on disk, "deleting" a file just marks that part of the disk as overwriteable for your operating system).

As a side note, this is partially why I store my methods on something cloud-related


----------



## Thermex (Nov 23, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> I'm sorry about your laptop--have you tried recovering the data? If you haven't touched the disk at all since you discovered this, a partial recovery could be possible (deleted files don't actually truly vanish until they are overwritten on disk, "deleting" a file just marks that part of the disk as overwriteable for your operating system).
> 
> As a side note, this is partially why I store my methods on something cloud-related


My computer completely shut down and wouldn't turn on without some weird error messages- so I wiped the disk completely clean. There was really no other option :/ Next time I'll try save my files to a thumbdrive or something.

I actually just noticed that I uploaded my first Twisty EG file to some random thread, so I should be able to recover that, but everything else is toast.


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 23, 2017)

So this is a Square - 1 Method(Currently only Concept) which is quite Lookahead friendly and efficient but at the cost of Algorithms

Cubeshape: Nothing too special there, usually takes 4-6 Slices
Corner Orientation: easy lookahead from Cubeshape and to the next step, takes 1-3 Slices
EO + CP Bottom Layer: This can be done almost without pauses as Vandenbergh solvers recognise EO and CP at the same time, estimating no more than 8 Slices
PLL + EPFL: not nessesary the best Set as it has 387 Algorithms but recognition is quite nice and with CSP after PLL recognition you have 2-Sided for the bottom, as there is Parity my estimate is 13-15 Slices at most


----------



## Thermex (Nov 23, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> So this is a Square - 1 Method(Currently only Concept) which is quite Lookahead friendly and efficient but at the cost of Algorithms
> 
> Cubeshape: Nothing too special there, usually takes 4-6 Slices
> Corner Orientation: easy lookahead from Cubeshape and to the next step, takes 1-3 Slices
> ...


Not a terrible idea, but I don't feel like saving 3-4 slices per solve is worth an extra ~350 algs. 

A long time ago I proposed a squan method that I'm coming back around to and sorta starting to like:

1) CSP
2) Seperate the pieces on the U and D layers so you have at least 3 correct corners and edges on each layer (ultra quick, ~3 slices)
3) Finish corners (this is essentially NLL on squan, 36 algs that are probably ~4 slices each)
4) Finish edges (a TON of algs, probably like 6 slices per alg, idk. I'd have to figure out how recog works for this step)

I would try to experiment more with this and provide example solves or something, but I know barely anything on square-1. Maybe someone a little more experienced could help me with this (I also don't have any software that could generate algs for the last 2 steps).


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 24, 2017)

Thermex said:


> Not a terrible idea, but I don't feel like saving 3-4 slices per solve is worth an extra ~350 algs.
> 
> A long time ago I proposed a squan method that I'm coming back around to and sorta starting to like:
> 
> ...




Yes, it's quite Algorithm-heavy but my intention is that(as subsets will become bigger over time to optimize even more) the essential part is reducing looks and have nice recognition. This is the nice part about this Method.
With my lookahead there are two pauses(EO + Bottom CP and PLL + EPFL) And a 3 on Top, 2 on Bottom - sided recognition is possible.

Your Method is really similar to Yau-1* so you might want to check it out since you like it. But I'd be really happy to show you how to generate Algorithms for Square-1.

*Yau-1 is
Cubeshape
3/4 of a Layer
last five Corners
last five Egdes


----------



## Thermex (Nov 24, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Yes, it's quite Algorithm-heavy but my intention is that(as subsets will become bigger over time to optimize even more) the essential part is reducing looks and have nice recognition. This is the nice part about this Method.
> With my lookahead there are two pauses(EO + Bottom CP and PLL + EPFL) And a 3 on Top, 2 on Bottom - sided recognition is possible.
> 
> Your Method is really similar to Yau-1* so you might want to check it out since you like it. But I'd be really happy to show you how to generate Algorithms for Square-1.
> ...


Interesting, I'd never heard of Yau-1 until now, it looks pretty cool. The method proposed was pretty much just Yau-1, but the pieces don't have to be permuted on the d-layer in the second step. This allows the solve to flow _much _more smoothly since you don't have to check the actual colors of the pieces- you can just use white/yellow recognition. This of course adds lots of algs (30 more for corners and probably about 100-200 more for edges) but provides crazy efficiency.

How do you generate algs for square-1? I've been wanting to know that for a while.


----------



## pizo45 (Nov 25, 2017)

Efficient beginners method (EBM?)
1. solve all of the 2nd layer edges (a lot harder to solve later on)
2. do last layer twice on the top and bottom layers

this way you don't have to do cross and corners


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 25, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> Efficient beginners method (EBM?)
> 1. solve all of the 2nd layer edges (a lot harder to solve later on)
> 2. do last layer twice on the top and bottom layers
> 
> this way you don't have to do cross and corners


This is called belt and it's actually really hard to do the first step as you would have to move the white pieces to the white face and yellow pieces to the yellow face. In addition, beginner's LL is very inefficient so having to do it twice would actually be slower than F2L (assuming good lookahead).

It's an interesting idea though it has quite a few issues and I've not seen a truly viable (sub-8 or so) belt based method.


----------



## pizo45 (Nov 25, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> This is called belt and it's actually really hard to do the first step as you would have to move the white pieces to the white face and yellow pieces to the yellow face. In addition, beginner's LL is very inefficient so having to do it twice would actually be slower than F2L (assuming good lookahead).
> 
> It's an interesting idea though it has quite a few issues and I've not seen a truly viable (sub-8 or so) belt based method.


oh, I didn't think of that... back to the drawing board


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 25, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> Efficient beginners method (EBM?)
> 1. solve all of the 2nd layer edges (a lot harder to solve later on)
> 2. do last layer twice on the top and bottom layers
> 
> this way you don't have to do cross and corners




Did you think this through? At first there needs to be a layer seperation step with algorithms like M' U2 M and (R U R' U')3, which are arguably better than R U R' and U R U' R' U' F' U F but still.
Beginners Last layer(as Shadowslice said) takes long and is inefficient + there could be a "parity"(as in 3BLD Parity) after the first Last Layer which potentially confuses beginners


----------



## pizo45 (Nov 25, 2017)

OKAY I've read a bunch about some of the methods about there and I think I can take some of the strengths from each and make a method that uses them all 
pizo hybrid strain:
1. blockbuild a 1x2x3 on left and right like in Roux
2. use M and U moves to complete the cross and orient the edges
3. do OLL and PLL (and you'll only get OLL cases with all edges oriented)

the combines the efficiency of Roux with the raw insane tps of CFOP.


----------



## Thermex (Nov 26, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> OKAY I've read a bunch about some of the methods about there and I think I can take some of the strengths from each and make a method that uses them all
> pizo hybrid strain:
> 1. blockbuild a 1x2x3 on left and right like in Roux
> 2. use M and U moves to complete the cross and orient the edges
> ...


This is a very efficient method; although it's been proposed many times before as "LLOB". A couple of youtubers such as Tao Yu and CriticalCubing have gotten sub 10 averages with it (using ZBLL) but overall it's not super significant. You're on the right track, though.


----------



## pizo45 (Nov 26, 2017)

i'm glad someone thinks the pizo hybrid is a good method! I think it really has the potential to set some wrs especially since OLL and PLL are so fast 

now i just have to get people to learn it...


----------



## pizo45 (Nov 26, 2017)

Hi guys i am calling this the pizo hybrid method because it has the insane tps of CFOP and low movecount like Roux!

pizo hybrid method:
step 1: solve the 1x2x3 on the left and the right
step 2: use really fast M and U moves to finish the cross and orient all the edges on the last layer
step 3: use OLL and PLL to finish the last layer 

so what do you guys think? i put this in the new method substep thread and people told me that it is extremely efficient and that people have *already gotten sub-10 averages with it* !!! so it definitely has potential

i hope you give it a try, maybe soon we will see the pizo method setting a new world record


----------



## Thermex (Nov 26, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> i'm glad someone thinks the pizo hybrid is a good method! I think it really has the potential to set some wrs especially since OLL and PLL are so fast
> 
> now i just have to get people to learn it...


Okay but the method has already been proposed. It's called "LLOB". I believe CriticalCubing has a video on it (you couldn't claim this as "your" method since it's already been created).


----------



## pizo45 (Nov 26, 2017)

I just watched the video, pizo hybrid is completely different. 
instead of solving the cross and orienting the top edges criticalcubing does something called "EO+DFDB"
pluscriticalcubing used ZBLL which has 493 algorithms to memorize... that is WAY too many.


----------



## Hazel (Nov 26, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> I just watched the video, pizo hybrid is completely different.
> instead of solving the cross and orienting the top edges criticalcubing does something called "EO+DFDB"
> pluscriticalcubing used ZBLL which has 493 algorithms to memorize... that is WAY too many.


EO+DFDB is just a fancy way of saying solving the cross while orienting the top edges, and ZBLL has proven to be quite good if you take the time to learn and get fast at the algorithms. Even if you just do OLL/PLL or even COLL/EPLL for the last layer, it's still LLOB (I call it ZBRoux but they're the same thing).


----------



## Hazel (Nov 26, 2017)

The thing is, this is exactly ZBRoux (or LLOB). The step 2 you described is exactly what EO+DFDB is, and no matter how you solve the last layer for step 3 it's still ZBRoux/LLOB. It's a potentially very good method, but it's just been thought of many times before.


----------



## efattah (Nov 26, 2017)

Aerma said:


> The thing is, this is exactly ZBRoux (or LLOB). The step 2 you described is exactly what EO+DFDB is, and no matter how you solve the last layer for step 3 it's still ZBRoux/LLOB. It's a potentially very good method, but it's just been thought of many times before.



ZBRoux/LLOB is really only viable if you use ZBLL. As the pizo45 suggested it, using regular OLL/PLL, I can't think of almost any situation that it could be faster than ordinary CFOP. If you don't know ZBLL then you might as well finish the cross after F2L (without orienting LL edges) then just do OLL/PLL, otherwise you are essentially orienting the edges then orienting the corners right after... Having said that an interesting variant would be partial cross, F2L, then solve DF+DB while simultaneously orienting the entire last layer, then doing PLL. This would probably have around 1,000 algorithms with no benefit over classic ZBRoux though.


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 26, 2017)

You really were on the right way but you can't try to take a method as your idea when it isn't.
Also, it is recommended that you take a look at the different steps at the Speedsolving Wiki to know things like EO+DFDB
in reallity ZBLL isn't too many anymore, it's slowly becoming a thing now
Saying that it's different pecause you use OLL/PLL(practically worst thing you can do) is like saying you use a different method because you use 4LLL instead of OLL/PLL


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 26, 2017)

Ok, so I made a kind of Advanced Beginner Method for NxNxNBLD Corners as there isn't really much between OP and 3Style(I'm quite dubious that it doesn't exist but I haven't seen it)
It works by using a different Algorithm gor every Targen instead of Setup + Y Perm + Undo which saves about 5 Moves per Target
I have put this on it's own Thread so people can Suggest Algorithms.
If you don't do 3BLD seriously and you don't want to learn all of 3Style this is just for you.
At my first solve I had 41 Moves less with this than with regular OP for Corners which can make a big difference.(my estimate is about 32 moves less than OP on average)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/advanced-op-for-corners-method.67070/


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 26, 2017)

new method (my previous method with a refined step) (bbbl)

1) cp block
solve a 1x2x3 block on left while solving corner permutation
2) 2x2x2 block
solve a 2x2x2 block in DRB (or DRF)
3) 1x2x2 block
solve a 1x2x2 block in DRF (or DRB)
4) ollep
(nicknamed azll by myself)
solve the last layer (1/675 algs)


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 26, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (my previous method with a refined step) (bbbl)
> 
> 1) cp block
> solve a 1x2x3 block on left while solving corner permutation
> ...



Great, now can you capitalize things properly?

On the method itself: it doesn't seem worth the 675 algs. I would much rather achieve similar ergonomics/movecounts with vanilla roux.



pizo45 said:


> I just watched the video, pizo hybrid is completely different.
> instead of solving the cross and orienting the top edges criticalcubing does something called "EO+DFDB"
> pluscriticalcubing used ZBLL which has 493 algorithms to memorize... that is WAY too many.



They're the same thing... 
Unfortunately a lot of methods (some would say all) have already been thought of before, and your idea to hybridize Roux and CFOP is actually a really common proposal.
Also unfortunately, this forum's search is useless, so the only reasonably efficient way to find out if something's been done before is either to read a lot of posts or to propose ideas over and over and get @shadowslice e to yell at you.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 26, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Great, now can you capitalize things properly?
> 
> On the method itself: it doesn't seem worth the 675 algs. I would much rather achieve similar ergonomics/movecounts with vanilla roux.


i created this method for the purpose of maximizing the use of the gen i feel most comfortable with (R,r,M,U), so i think it's worth it.

i will not fix the capitalisation. this is because i feel not capitalising fits my personality, less formal and calm.


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 26, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> i will not fix the capitalisation. this is because i feel not capitalising fits my personality, less formal and calm.



Please, keep your "individual" side away from this Forum


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Nov 26, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Please, keep your "individual" side away from this Forum


as long as i get what I'm saying across, without talking unrelivently about myself, does it matter?


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 26, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> i created this method for the purpose of maximizing the use of the gen i feel most comfortable with (R,r,M,U), so i think it's worth it.



It can be done so much easier:
After FB, SB and LSE are already in the good gen area, so the only thing left is CMLL. If you do your CP Block you will only get (R, U) CMLLs so maximized 2-Gen with minimal effort.

Now that I come to think of it, for ZBroux, what if we make a CP Block as our FB and after EO+DFDB we only get 2GLL cases?



Abram Lookadoo said:


> as long as i get what I'm saying across, without talking unrelivently about myself, does it matter?



It does. Norms were invented for a good reason and correct Text-formatting makes your Messages seem more
Organized
Good to read
and as the strongest Point, it shows thst you care for what you wrote and you gave it time. Ehy should you take something seriously if the writer doesn't care to give it a second read and format it to be more appealing


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 26, 2017)

iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

I don't believe making yourself more difficult to understand is a valid personality trait.

Though it certainly makes him unique; I can recognize Lookadoo's posts on sight now... I just can't understand them and don't think to put in any more effort into reading than he does into writing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Hazel (Nov 26, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Please, keep your "individual" side away from this Forum


Personally I have no issue with his style of writing, but I suppose it's subjective.


----------



## Spencer131 (Nov 26, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> It does. Norms were invented for a good reason and correct Text-formatting makes your Messages seem more
> Organized
> Good to read
> and as the strongest Point, it shows thst you care for what you wrote and you gave it time. Ehy should you take something seriously if the writer doesn't care to give it a second read and format it to be more appealing


I believe that if someone doesn't completely follow the norms, it's fine as long as it's understandable. You also used 'unconventional' formatting and incorrect spelling, but that didn't make it hard to read.


----------



## Teoidus (Nov 26, 2017)

The formatting was intentional (the previous half of his message actually critiquing the method is written just fine).


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 26, 2017)

Good, I see that there are different opinions on this Topic.
anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?


----------



## Thermex (Nov 27, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Good, I see that there are different opinions on this Topic.
> anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?


What exactly do you mean by "wings"?


----------



## pizo45 (Nov 27, 2017)

magic roux columns (MRC)

1. make a 1x2x3 block on the left
2. make a 1x2x2 block on the right and put it in the back
3. make an F2L pair and put it in and at the same time solve the corners
4. do the last 6 edges

basically like roux but you skip the corner step


----------



## Thermex (Nov 27, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> magic roux columns (MRC)
> 
> 1. make a 1x2x3 block on the left
> 2. make a 1x2x2 block on the right and put it in the back
> ...


This has been thought of before, and although pretty efficient, it's not really worth learning. The algs for step three have already been created, they're known as "WVCP". The main problem with this method is that inserting the pair and then doing CMLL only adds about 1-2 moves (at most) with hundreds less algs than with WVCP.


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 27, 2017)

Thermex said:


> What exactly do you mean by "wings"?



Wings are the outer edges(/dedges for even layers) on Big Cubes


----------



## Thermex (Nov 27, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Wings are the outer edges(/dedges for even layers) on Big Cubes


If the edges have already been paired, you could do ELL. Otherwise, I don't think such an algset exists for when the edges aren't paired (though you might be able to use some sort of commutators to solve them).


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 27, 2017)

No, unpaired, otherwise I wouldn't ask as it's obvious


----------



## Tao Yu (Nov 27, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Good, I see that there are different opinions on this Topic.
> anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?


You could use K4 ELL for this. I don't know of a way that does the orientation and permutation separately though.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 27, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?


Christopher Mowla might have some algs, some of which are on the hyper detailed parity page on the wiki. (He doesn't seem to check this forum anymore, but he still posts on r/cubers every so often when people talk about parity.)

Tom Rokicki also has a (seemingly random?) collection of ELL algs: http://tomas.rokicki.com/ell4x4.html


----------



## Arc (Nov 29, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Now that I come to think of it, for ZBroux, what if we make a CP Block as our FB and after EO+DFDB we only get 2GLL cases?


An interesting proposition, but one that's been done before! Unfortunately the difference between ZBLL and 2GLL is not incredibly huge for 2H. This method (I'm partial to the name 2GRoux) is very similar in virtually every aspect to ZBRoux, with largely the same advantages and disadvantages.

I should just make a post with all the commonly proposed Roux/CFOP/etc hybrids...



Thom S. said:


> anyway, does anyone have Algorithms for Orientation and Permutation of all 8 wings on the top Layer?





Tao Yu said:


> I don't know of a way that does the orientation and permutation separately though.


Wings do not have orientation. It is physically impossible to have a wing be flipped the wrong direction in the correct place because the piece is not symmetric.

That said, 4x4 ELL is far too large of a set to learn feasibly (~40k algs). I don't know of any 2-look set for it, but K4 ELL is a pretty decent 3-look solution.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 29, 2017)

Squan method thoughts
1- Cubeshape is the mandatory first step. Why? In cubeshape, pieces are easily manipulated, and no other shape really has this power. Also, the solved position is in cubeshape.
2- In squan, no posititions are particularly more ergonomic to solve, aside from existing CE pairs and lack of parity. (Kind of an educated guess)
3- Cubeshape parity is pretty much the best thing you can do at the start of your solve. It improves ergonomics, and what else can be done? The only other feasible things are really useless, like corner separation.
4- In squan, the predominant method (after cubeshape) is to use easy algs (corner and edge separation, corner permutation) to get to a state you know an alg for (EP).
5 (grand finale)- Let's make a method that gets down to a feasible number of cases as quickly as possible. Basically, I'll make a bunch of templates like "solve these blocks and separate these pieces" and play around with them.
EDIT: Woah.
1) Cubeshape+parity 
2) Solve corners and 1 edge in each layer
3) Solve edges with one of less than 360 algs (6!/2, but for instance there are 4 cases that are just adj/adj EPBL)
The way the second step is done is pretty awesome. First, you bring corners into a position such that there are V CO cases, and apply an HD case. The cool thing here is that the way these algs are done is similar to regular CP algs: it moves around CE pairs (see exception #1 to point 2), and you can abuse misalignments to preserve readymade blocks. The downside here is that there are some limitations due to the corners changing layers; you can not, for instance, preserve a block in DFR and DF block at the same time as a block in UFR and UF. If you don't solve both edges, you can just solve them with a quick M2 after corners.


----------



## Thermex (Nov 29, 2017)

Arc said:


> An interesting proposition, but one that's been done before! Unfortunately the difference between ZBLL and 2GLL is not incredibly huge for 2H. This method (I'm partial to the name 2GRoux) is very similar in virtually every aspect to ZBRoux, with largely the same advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> I should just make a post with all the commonly proposed Roux/CFOP/etc hybrids...
> 
> ...


I sort of figured this would be the case considering manipulating 12 pieces at once is way too many for a sub-1000 algset. Here's a question I have though: is there an algset for three wings? This sounds more feasible and could be useful in someway probably, but idk it might be way too many algs.


Sue Doenim said:


> Squan method thoughts
> 1- Cubeshape is the mandatory first step. Why? In cubeshape, pieces are easily manipulated, and no other shape really has this power. Also, the solved position is in cubeshape.
> 2- In squan, no posititions are particularly more ergonomic to solve, aside from existing CE pairs and lack of parity. (Kind of an educated guess)
> 3- Cubeshape parity is pretty much the best thing you can do at the start of your solve. It improves ergonomics, and what else can be done? The only other feasible things are really useless, like corner separation.
> ...


I've had similar thoughts; it seems cubeshape is the only good way to start out a solve; doing it at the end is terrible since preserving positions of pieces but not the shape of them is very very difficult. I think NLL (from HD) is a great set for squan, and my favorite current method template is cubeshape -> blocks -> corners with HD -> edges. I've had a couple of cool ideas using this layout, problem is I can't really figure out how to affect/not affect blocks in step 3. I also don't 100% understand the second step of your method there, but it sounds pretty cool and a lot like something I proposed a page or two ago.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 29, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> 1- Cubeshape is the mandatory first step. Why? In cubeshape, pieces are easily manipulated, and no other shape really has this power. Also, the solved position is in cubeshape.


Counterpoint: the Yoyleberry method stays mostly among the paired-edges shapes rather than square-square, and goes into square-square only at the end.



Arc said:


> That said, 4x4 ELL is far too large of a set to learn feasibly (~40k algs). I don't know of any 2-look set for it, but K4 ELL is a pretty decent 3-look solution.


I think a potential issue with a 2-look ELL system is that _any_ easily recognisable first look (that I can think of) will lead to some cases that suck in the second look. Unlike on a 3×3×3, we can't optimally solve general ELL cases in a reasonable amount of time, much less generate loads of algs in order to choose the speed-optimal ones, so most of the algs we get are of one of these forms:


3-cycle commutator (e.g. r U R' U' 2R' U R U' R')
2+2-cycle commutator (e.g. [L U' R 2U2 R' U L', U2])
Weird commutator (e.g. [r2 F2 r2, U])

3×3×3 ELL + setup moves (e.g. [b' : UF-UR flip])
PLL parity + setup moves (e.g. adj swap)

⟨R, r, L, l, U2, D2, F2, B2⟩ (e.g. parity L2E algs)
This severely limits what we can reasonably do in the second look if we stick to using a single alg.


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 29, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Counterpoint: the Yoyleberry method stays mostly among the paired-edges shapes rather than square-square, and goes into square-square only at the end.



Yoyleberry is a bit of an exception as it goes into Square-Square to create the not-Square-Square/12-reduced Situation we want.

What is HD though? I've read about it in this thread but it's not featured in the wiki


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 29, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Yoyleberry is a bit of an exception as it goes into Square-Square to create the not-Square-Square/12-reduced Situation we want.
> 
> What is HD though? I've read about it in this thread but it's not featured in the wiki


Yeah, that's the point I would make. HD is a sweet method for 2x2 where you orient all corners and make sure there are Vs on both faces, then solve the rest in one of 36 algs.
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/HD_Method


----------



## Pyjam (Nov 30, 2017)

Cale S said:


> ZZ LSLL method
> 
> *1. insert edge + phase edges*
> 
> ...


Step 2: Why are there 23 cases, and not only 3x7=21?


----------



## Reed Merrill (Nov 30, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Great, now can you capitalize things properly?



Salty... This is unnecessarily rude.


----------



## Cale S (Nov 30, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> Step 2: Why are there 23 cases, and not only 3x7=21?



For 3x3 there are 7 OCLLs, but this doesn't include solved. For the DFR oriented case, there are 7, but the other 2 have 8 each


----------



## Pyjam (Nov 30, 2017)

Of course. Have you continued with this method? Are you satisfied?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Nov 30, 2017)

All right, example solve time.
Scramble: (-5, 3)/(-4, 5)/(4, -5)/(0, -3)/(-4, -1)/(6, -5)/(0, -3)/(0, -1)/(4, 0)/(3, -4)/(-4, 0)/(0, -5)/

(0, -1)/(4, -3)/(-3, 2)/(-1, -2)/(0, -3)/ //Cubeshape parity
(4, 0)/ //Make a pair for each layer, make Vs
(-4, -4)/(-3, 0)/(3, -3)/(6, 3)/(-3, 6)/ //Solve corners
At this point, is reduced to L6E. I don't have any algs, so I can't finish. I'll look at reducing to something like L5E, 360 algs is kind of much. Note that another edge can be solved intuitively with (-2, 1)/(-1, -1)/.


----------



## Spencer131 (Dec 1, 2017)

If you solve the corners and you solve 2 edges that are opposite to each other, then you have an lse similar to roux. Assuming you used csp, this would be 90 algs or less. Also, it would only be around 8 algs I think if you solve one of the edges with an m2 first.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 1, 2017)

Spencer131 said:


> If you solve the corners and you solve 2 edges that are opposite to each other, then you have an lse similar to roux. Assuming you used csp, this would be 90 algs or less. Also, it would only be around 8 algs I think if you solve one of the edges with an m2 first.


That looks like a way better choice. 70 algs, actually, probably way better recog. Also looks nice for progression, EPLL+L5E, 16 algs, then swapped EPLL, 5 more, swapped L5E, 12, then the 36 others.


----------



## Arc (Dec 1, 2017)

Here's an interesting idea of a method.

CPFB - 1x2x3 on left while reducing the remaining 6 corners to the permutation subgroup that contains solved.
Magic - Orient the F2L edges (DR, FR, BR) and the UL/UR edges, and insert the UL/UR on D.

F2L - F2L just like Petrus/Briggs/2GR/ZZ/Leor/lot's of stuff.
OLL - Solved CP subset of OLLCP, 57 algs. Can be done with SuneOLL.
L4EP - Insert UL/UR with an M2 and permute the remaining 4 unsolved edges (Roux step 4c).


----------



## Cale S (Dec 2, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> Of course. Have you continued with this method? Are you satisfied?



I generated algs for it but I actually forgot about it until now


----------



## Metallic Silver (Dec 2, 2017)

I wonder, is this squan method "humanly" possible?

1. CSP
2. Orient Both Layers
3. Permute Both Layers


----------



## Metallic Silver (Dec 2, 2017)

Or why not Square-1 Columns First?

1. Cube Shape/CSP
2. Solve all Corners
3. Solve all Edges


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 2, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> I wonder, is this squan method "humanly" possible?
> 
> 1. CSP
> 2. Orient Both Layers
> 3. Permute Both Layers



Not really in the near future. OBL can easily be used but Even-Parity PBL is about 800 Algorithms(If I recall it correctly) and as you need a really solid recognition, it would be a slow, hard process


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 2, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> Or why not Square-1 Columns First?
> 
> 1. Cube Shape/CSP
> 2. Solve all Corners
> 3. Solve all Edges



Too hard recognition, no fluid CS-Step 2 transition


----------



## Hazel (Dec 2, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> I wonder, is this squan method "humanly" possible?
> 
> 1. CSP
> 2. Orient Both Layers
> 3. Permute Both Layers


I'm not a squan person, but how would a method like this be on 2x2?
1: separate pieces into their correct layers
2: orient both layers
3: PBL


----------



## Neuro (Dec 2, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I'm not a squan person, but how would a method like this be on 2x2?
> 1: separate pieces into their correct layers
> 2: orient both layers
> 3: PBL


Just use Ortega. Separation wouldn't be a good step, and there's be a lot of (probably not good) orientation algs. Ortega is easier and probably much faster


----------



## Thermex (Dec 3, 2017)

Arc said:


> Here's an interesting idea of a method.
> 
> CPFB - 1x2x3 on left while reducing the remaining 6 corners to the permutation subgroup that contains solved.
> Magic - Orient the F2L edges (DR, FR, BR) and the UL/UR edges, and insert the UL/UR on D.
> ...


This looks like a pretty decent idea, and could probably be a decent transition method from CFOP to Roux. Problem is I just don't really see how this is better in any way than Vanilla Roux. Also, how exactly would step 2 be done? (maybe you could show some example solves.)


Sue Doenim said:


> That looks like a way better choice. 70 algs, actually, probably way better recog. Also looks nice for progression, EPLL+L5E, 16 algs, then swapped EPLL, 5 more, swapped L5E, 12, then the 36 others.


I'm still not understanding what the second and third steps are, are they part of a template for a method or actually concrete steps? Either way, here's three random CSP -> Blocks -> Corners -> Edges style squan methods possibly similar to yours:

a.) An extremely simple Roux n' Screw/Lin variant (might have been proposed before):
1. CSP
2. FB (1x1x3 on DL)
3. "SB" (DBR+DR)
4. L5C (5 algs)
5. LSE (Either algorithmic or intuitive works)

b.) Bope (pretty much same steps as the 3x3 method I proposed a while back)
1. CSP
2. FB+ (the left half of the slice on the D-layer)
3. LSC (solve the 6 remaining corners, 50 algs)
4. L6E (this step solves the DF, DR and U-layer edges all at once. Probably around 100 algs or so)

c.) I've proposed this idea before, it seems to me like the fastest of the three but it could be too alg-heavy:
1. CSP (what?!)
2. Solve the orientation of every piece on the D-layer except the DFR and FR pieces (Ultra fast+intuitive)
3. Solve the corners with HD NLL (36 fairly short algs)
4. Solve the edges (~200 algs if I'm calculating this right)

Any of these seem viable? Which should I try to continue to develop?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 3, 2017)

Thermex said:


> I'm still not understanding what the second and third steps are, are they part of a template for a method or actually concrete steps? Either way, here's three random CSP -> Blocks -> Corners -> Edges style squan methods possibly similar to yours:
> 
> a.) Extremely simple Roux n' Screw/Lin variant (might have been proposed before):
> 1. CSP
> ...


What my method is at this point is:
1) CSP
2) Build 2 opposite D layer blocks, force Vs
3) NLL
4) L6E
The 2 D layer blocks must be made of a pair of opposite edges and corners. A green edge with a green red corner and a blue edge with a blue red corner would not work, for example.
Method A looks a lot like Yau-1. B seems really promising, but I think the alg count would be more like 6!/2, or 360. That's why having opposite D-layer edges for L6E is important; it reduces symmetries a ton. That could be worked around, though. If you solve any block before L6C, you would have less than 76, I believe. C is the same kind of deal, by my raw calculations you would have 4*3*2 (number of cases for the 3 oriented D layer edges) *5*4*3 (remaining L5E) = 1440 algs. That's a lot. I'd look most at B.


----------



## Arc (Dec 3, 2017)

Thermex said:


> This looks like a pretty decent idea, and could probably be a decent transition method from CFOP to Roux. Problem is I just don't really see how this is better in any way than Vanilla Roux. Also, how exactly would step 2 be done? (maybe you could show some example solves.)


Step 2 is done very similarly to Leor/Briggs but slightly differently because you don't care about the EO of some edges.
Here's an example solve.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 3, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I'm not a squan person, but how would a method like this be on 2x2?
> 1: separate pieces into their correct layers
> 2: orient both layers
> 3: PBL



I generated the algs for that second step when both layers are OCLLs 
bit.do/rolrol

I don't think it's good


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 3, 2017)

Thermex said:


> a.) An extremely simple Roux n' Screw/Lin variant (might have been proposed before):
> 1. CSP
> 2. FB (1x1x3 on DL)
> 3. "SB" (DBR+DR)
> ...



If your Second block would also solve the DB Edge, this would be Yau-1




Thermex said:


> b.) Bope (pretty much same steps as the 3x3 method I proposed a while back)
> 1. CSP
> 2. FB+ (the left half of the slice on the D-layer)
> 3. LSC (solve the 6 remaining corners, 50 algs)
> 4. L6E (this step solves the DF, DR and U-layer edges all at once. Probably around 100 algs or so)



Seems better than a.) as you can easily see your LSC case while inserting the DB edge. I'd be interested if you can develop a way to alter your Algorithms to insert D Layer Edges-like CP for Vandenbergh.(just an Idea for this is that every algorithm doesn't directly solve them- it's a two-phase one, 1-Setup 2-Interchange, this way, the different part would be the blockbuilding during 1. Could work, but I doubt it is relevant for Speedsolving)



Thermex said:


> c.) I've proposed this idea before, it seems to me like the fastest of the three but it could be too alg-heavy:
> 1. CSP (what?!)
> 2. Solve the orientation of every piece on the D-layer except the DFR and FR pieces (Ultra fast+intuitive)
> 3. Solve the corners with HD NLL (36 fairly short algs)
> 4. Solve the edges (~200 algs if I'm calculating this right)



I actually like this. I'm generally not a fan of permuting pieces directly after CS as it results in pauses. My best guess is to insert D Layer edges as you could force good LSE/L5E cases


----------



## Thermex (Dec 4, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> What my method is at this point is:
> 1) CSP
> 2) Build 2 opposite D layer blocks, force Vs
> 3) NLL
> 4) L6E


I was thinking of including this same method in my list. It looks pretty good to me.


Sue Doenim said:


> Method A looks a lot like Yau-1.





Thom S. said:


> your Second block would also solve the DB Edge, this would be Yau-1


Good point, though I feel like not solving the DB edge here improves ergonomics a lot. I still probably won't pursue this anyway.


Sue Doenim said:


> B seems really promising, but I think the alg count would be more like 6!/2, or 360. That's why having opposite D-layer edges for L6E is important; it reduces symmetries a ton. That could be worked around, though. If you solve any block before L6C, you would have less than 76, I believe. C is the same kind of deal, by my raw calculations you would have 4*3*2 (number of cases for the 3 oriented D layer edges) *5*4*3 (remaining L5E) = 1440 algs. That's a lot. I'd look most at B.


Did you account for AUFs? For method B if you bring the edge that goes at DF to UF you reduce the number of cases to 5!/2 (cases with DF in U-layer) + 13 (L5E) + 13 more (swapped L5E) + 4 (EPLL) = 90 cases. For method C there should be more like 14^2 cases since there are only 14 cases for the bottom 3 layer and 14 L5E cases. Correct if I'm wrong but I'm not sure if you included AUFs in your statistics. I'll probably start developing B and C once I'm done with a couple of LxE methods for 3x3 and Twisty EG.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 4, 2017)

Let's try calculating it by D layer edge positions.
Both solved: 4
Swapped: 5
1 solved: 12 
1 swapped: 12x2=24
Adj. on U: 12x2=24
Opp. on U: 12
81 algs. Looks like you're a lot closer. 
Let's look at C.
Cases for back 3:
Solved
Adj.x4
Opp.x2
U permx8
O permx2
H perm
Z permx2
W permx4
Total: 24
24x12 L5E +49 PBL = 337 algs. Not quite 1440, but a bunch.


----------



## Thermex (Dec 4, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Let's try calculating it by D layer edge positions.
> Both solved: 4
> Swapped: 5
> 1 solved: 12
> ...


Cool! This really isn't that much considering PSC is only about 50 algs. I'll probably start working on this method next year.


Sue Doenim said:


> Let's try calculating it by D layer edge positions.
> Let's look at C.
> Cases for back 3:
> Solved
> ...


Your calculations look correct to me, I forgot to count the "parity" cases on the D-layer. Here's a replacement method that's pretty close to the original:
1. CSP
2. Solve the orientation of all but one corner on each face (pretty easy to do, could also be done algorithmically)
3. Solve corner permutation on both layers while inserting the remaining edge into the D-layer (48 algs)
4. EP (49 cases)


----------



## pizo45 (Dec 5, 2017)

complex reduction method (CRM)

1. solve all edges in the e slice and orient edges in the u and d layers (intuitive)
2. permute the edges while orienting corners on L (algs)
3. permute the corners while orienting the corners on R (algs)
4. permute the remaining corners

this has the mathematical advantage of permuting and orienting something at the same tiem for every step, just like in the snyder method, i think it would be able to get 40 moves average really really easy


----------



## James Hake (Dec 5, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> complex reduction method (CRM)
> 
> 1. solve all edges in the e slice and orient edges in the u and d layers (intuitive)
> 2. permute the edges while orienting corners on L (algs)
> ...


Could you provide an example solve? These steps seem rather complex.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 5, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> complex reduction method (CRM)
> 
> 1. solve all edges in the e slice and orient edges in the u and d layers (intuitive)
> 2. permute the edges while orienting corners on L (algs)
> ...


So essentially a corners last variant? I really doubt that it could be very efficient because you have to work around the solved edges which makes it really inefficient. Also, you permute edges while orienting corners algs will not be very good as the edges would work more naturally in the {U,D, double turns} movegroup but the corners would be more {R,U,D,L,F} (which incidentally is not very good either as most algs are 2 to 4 gen for a reason).


----------



## Arc (Dec 5, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> complex reduction method (CRM)
> 
> 1. solve all edges in the e slice and orient edges in the u and d layers (intuitive)
> 2. permute the edges while orienting corners on L (algs)
> ...





shadowslice e said:


> So essentially a corners last variant? I really doubt that it could be very efficient because you have to work around the solved edges which makes it really inefficient. Also, you permute edges while orienting corners algs will not be very good as the edges would work more naturally in the {U,D, double turns} movegroup but the corners would be more {R,U,D,L,F} (which incidentally is not very good either as most algs are 2 to 4 gen for a reason).


I just want to point out that step 4 doesn't orient and permute at the same time.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 6, 2017)

Here's a pretty cool Yau-ZZ thing I thought up.
1) 2 Opposite centers
2) Build 2 opposite cross edges (your line) and another non U edge, oriented, just like yau but with a random edge instead of the 3rd cross edge
3) Finish centers
4) Pair remaining edges, making sure F2L and cross edges end up oriented
5) ZZ F2L
6) LL as usual
4 probably works best with M slice pairing.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 6, 2017)

So - an algorithmic approach to Roux LSE. It's less efficient and worse in the long run, but probably easier to get a hold of.
So instead of doing EO -> ULUR -> L4P, you do EODB (or DF) -> L5E
I already have L5E algs here


----------



## Neuro (Dec 6, 2017)

Aerma said:


> So - an algorithmic approach to Roux LSE. It's less efficient and worse in the long run, but probably easier to get a hold of.
> So instead of doing EO -> ULUR -> L4P, you do EODB (or DF) -> L5E
> I already have L5E algs here


Trust me, doing EOLR and L4EP is probably the best way for a human to solve LSE. This and a few other LSE subsets may be useful under very certain circumstances, but even then it would be limited to a few useful algs, as most of them are just doing LR into L4EP anyway. Long been trying to come up with a super efficient alg based way to do LSE and all of them have fallen short for speed. EOLR is pretty easy to learn anyway.


----------



## efattah (Dec 6, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Trust me, doing EOLR and L4EP is probably the best way for a human to solve LSE. This and a few other LSE subsets may be useful under very certain circumstances, but even then it would be limited to a few useful algs, as most of them are just doing LR into L4EP anyway. Long been trying to come up with a super efficient alg based way to do LSE and all of them have fallen short for speed. EOLR is pretty easy to learn anyway.



EOLR+L4EP is a good method and proven, but I won't say that it is faster than the LMCF method of doing L6E which is basically the following:
1. Place one of UL or UR (or both) into the UL or UR slots in any orientation or permutation (this step is skipped 60% of the time)
2. Solve remaining UL/UR while orienting all edges
3. Permute M slice

Step 2 is the only step which uses algorithms and there are quite a few (32 direct set, 32 i-set, 32 d-set, 32 x-set, 32 r-set, 4 dd-set, 4 oo-set, 4 pure m-slice, 4 do-set, 4 dds-set, 4 dos-set = 184 cases of which around 2/3 are reflections).

EOLR claims to use around 60 algorithms but you also need reflections making it around 120, so similar.

The probability that UL doesn't contain either UL or UR is 4/6. In that same situation the probability that UR does not contain either UL or UR is 3/5. 4/6 * 3/5 = 12/30. So the probability that neither UL nor UR contains either of their respective edges is 12/30. That means the probability that they DO contain such an edge is 18/30. So for LMCF L6E, step 1 is skipped 18/30 solves, 60% of the time. In those 60% of cases I think the LMCF method is faster than EOLR. In the 40% of cases that neither UL nor UR contains either of their respective edges (in any permutation or orientation), then EOLR might be a bit faster. However, the LMCF method has another advantage in that it can be used for all sorts of hybrid methods where the L and R slices are not aligned, or out of phase by 90 degrees. Roux EOLR or any Roux LSE fails if the L and R slices are not aligned because the edge orientation cannot be easily determined.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 6, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Here's a pretty cool Yau-ZZ thing I thought up.
> 1) 2 Opposite centers
> 2) Build 2 opposite cross edges (your line) and another non U edge, oriented, just like yau but with a random edge instead of the 3rd cross edge
> 3) Finish centers
> ...


That's what I've done for years before I switched to Leor which is more optimised.

Here are some minor improvements:
2) Build DF and DB edges + add any other premade pair (why not a U edge?) but the DL edge is preferable
4) Pair the edges on the M slice. When done, there are always unoriented pairs and it's easy to oriented them with the cube rotated on the z-axis and (F R F') triggers or something like that. Sometime it's even possible to insert a pair in FL or BL.
5) Start F2L with z' rotation. The DL edge is already solved. This helps the transition a lot.
6) LL with a mix of COLL and ZBLL


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 6, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> complex reduction method (CRM)
> 
> 1. solve all edges in the e slice and orient edges in the u and d layers (intuitive)
> 2. permute the edges while orienting corners on L (algs)
> ...



Step 4 is CPLL which unfortunitly won't give you sub 40 Movecounts as They are too long



Sue Doenim said:


> Here's a pretty cool Yau-ZZ thing I thought up.
> 1) 2 Opposite centers
> 2) Build 2 opposite cross edges (your line) and another non U edge, oriented, just like yau but with a random edge instead of the 3rd cross edge
> 3) Finish centers
> ...



Although any 3rd edge is Step 2 can add efficiency, it is probably friendlier to just do 3 Cross Edges and have some moves more during 3x3.
Edge pairing on either E or M is more personal preferrence then/than(really not sure currently) method dependent but maybe yours is an exception and I'm wrong


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 6, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> That's what I've done for years before I switched to Leor which is more optimised.
> 
> Here are some minor improvements:
> 2) Build DF and DB edges + add any other premade pair (why not a U edge?) but the DL edge is preferable
> ...


I was thinking something along the lines of ignoring U edges so you wouldn't have to worry about as many, and half the time, you wouldn't even be able to orient them all. That's pretty cool though.


Thom S. said:


> Although any 3rd edge is Step 2 can add efficiency, it is probably friendlier to just do 3 Cross Edges and have some moves more during 3x3.
> Edge pairing on either E or M is more personal preferrence then/than(really not sure currently) method dependent but maybe yours is an exception and I'm wrong


I was going for a ZZ style F2L, but a CFOP style LL. You'd want to use than here.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 6, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I was going for a ZZ style F2L, but a CFOP style LL. You'd want to use than here.



Really bad feeling when you aren't sure about which word to use.

Not sure what to say about your idea. It could either be genious to neglect the U Layer edges or it could be the worst idea ever. I mean, it's possible to do EO + OLL Parity algorithms before 3xe Stage which could be more efficient and COLL/ZBLL/WV is even more beneficial on big cubes which wouldn't be possible without 
But it gives you a shorter pause during EO Edge Pairing and lookahead


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 6, 2017)

efattah said:


> 1. Place one of UL or UR (or both) into the UL or UR slots in any orientation or permutation (this step is skipped 60% of the time)
> 2. Solve remaining UL/UR while orienting all edges
> 3. Permute M slice



Good old corners-first approach. Not hard to learn, given the symmetries and obvious cases, knowing <20 sequences and tricks should be enough. I always wondered why people gave up using it.



efattah said:


> Roux EOLR or any Roux LSE fails if the L and R slices are not aligned because the edge orientation cannot be easily determined.



Not sure about this. It certainly makes it less obvious, but I feel it's possible with good look-ahead skills.


----------



## Arc (Dec 7, 2017)

Just some stats about optimal LSE vs EOLR


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 7, 2017)

efattah said:


> Roux EOLR or any Roux LSE fails if the L and R slices are not aligned because the edge orientation cannot be easily determined.



Fortunitly it can. After CMLL with different allignments you know which Edge is your special one so you can still do it if your head wraps around it fast enough.
The only exception is if you have e.g.: left-yellow on top, right-blue on top and after CMLL you see three unoriented edges in U and a Blue Spot at dF(both blue edges are in D) as there are 2 orientation for blue edges. Using only opposite colors can still give you effeciency while lookahead is not as bad


----------



## efattah (Dec 7, 2017)

Arc said:


> Just some stats about optimal LSE vs EOLR



I have never done a full calculation for all 184 cases of LMCF L6E, but the approximate average is 8.3 for the UL+UR+orient, plus 3.75 to permute the midges (correct me if I'm wrong on that), and the first step is 3 moves, but skipped 60% of the time, so 0.40 * 3 = 1.2. So the total for the LMCF approach would be theoretically 13.25 moves. However this does not account for the fact that in 60% of cases you need to do an M move to prepare the M slice edges for the UL+UR+orient step, so that adds another 0.6 moves for a total of 13.85 (approximately). EOLR according to the above table is 13.47.


----------



## Elo13 (Dec 7, 2017)

So a worse movecount, more algs, and a recog pause half the time.



efattah said:


> plus 3.75 to permute the midges (correct me if I'm wrong on that)



According to Arc's table it is around 4.8.


----------



## pizo45 (Dec 7, 2017)

BLockbuilding left right reduction method (BLRRM)

1. build a 1x2x3 intuitively on l
2. build solve the half cross that's on the d layer and the m slice while orientating the the edges
3. solve the rest of the cube with just R and U moves (sometimes u get parity, you can fix that by using commutatators)

example sovle coming soon


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 7, 2017)

Looks just like Leor. Look in the 3x3 example solves thread to see.


----------



## pizo45 (Dec 7, 2017)

exaple solve BLRRM (blockbuilding left irght reduction method:

D2 r2 U' R' F
U R2 U r U' M U' M2
U R2 U R' U2 R U R' U' R2 U R' U R U R' U2 R U R'
U2 // alg


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 7, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> BLockbuilding left right reduction method (BLRRM)
> 
> 1. build a 1x2x3 intuitively on l
> 2. build solve the half cross that's on the d layer and the m slice while orientating the the edges
> 3. solve the rest of the cube with just R and U moves (sometimes u get parity, you can fix that by using commutatators)



Pretty sure that has been proposed before.

In fact I'm even more sure I was one of those


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 7, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> BLockbuilding left right reduction method (BLRRM)
> 
> 1. build a 1x2x3 intuitively on l
> 2. build solve the half cross that's on the d layer and the m slice while orientating the the edges
> ...



Er, that's not parity--corners being unsolved is an even permutation and is a perfectly reachable state on 3x3.
Your method is basically leor but fish&chips instead of ZBLL.


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 7, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> exaple solve BLRRM (blockbuilding left irght reduction method:
> 
> D2 r2 U' R' F
> U R2 U r U' M U' M2
> ...


Where's the scramble..?

And you can use proper spelling/punctuation/capitalization please? We already have one lookadoo as is...


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 7, 2017)

pizo45 said:


> BLockbuilding left right reduction method (BLRRM)
> 
> 1. build a 1x2x3 intuitively on l
> 2. build solve the half cross that's on the d layer and the m slice while orientating the the edges
> 3. solve the rest of the cube with just R and U moves (sometimes u get parity, you can fix that by using commutatators)



It's a wonderful method. 
We call it Leor, for Left – Edge Orientation (and middle slice) – Right

You can't finish the cube with <R, U> only unless you solve the corner permutation during step 1 (and that is really hard).
But you can build the right block with <R, U> only and the last layer with the method of your choice.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 7, 2017)

idea~
1) 2x2x3 in bottom-back minus DB edge
2a) Solve FR, FL, and FD edges
2b) DB+EO
3) Last 2 corners + LL (not sure what the best way of doing this would be)


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Dec 10, 2017)

new method (bepp)

1) 2x2x3 block

1a) 2x2x2 block
create a 2x2x2 block

1b) 1x2x2 block
create an adjacent 1x2x2 block and attach it to the 2x2x2 block

2) eo
orient all edges and solve DF (with block in DB)

3) pairs

3a) forge pairs
forge the 2 remaining f2l pairs anywhere on the cube

3b) l2p+co
using an algorithm place the final 2 pairs while orienting all corners (1/115)

4) pll
permute all last layer pieces


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 10, 2017)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (bepp)
> 
> 1) 2x2x3 block
> 
> ...



At first, that's really similar to Petrus, but undebately worse.
My suggestion for you would be to just insert the last pair with Winter Variation or Summer variation(or even leave out EO and do VLS if you want to become a crazy dude), dealing with whole pairs or corners while trying to do something efficient.

Although your Idea to solve EO and DR/DL at the same time could result in some helpful algorithms


----------



## Cubow (Dec 10, 2017)

ZZ-B+

So as I know phasing just permutes the Edges so they are opposite to each other, but it doesnt completely permute them (correct me if I am wrong).

ZZ-B is a method, that uses phasing to reduce the LL algs to around 160-170

However, with Phasing, that completely orients the Edges we would have a CxLL Case. If my Calculations are correct it would be around 50 Algs for 1LLL.


Seems unrealistic because 1LLL with 50 algs would revolutionize (I am german, sorry for bad english) Speedcubing.

Would it work?

Btw this is my first post on speedsolving.com


----------



## Teoidus (Dec 10, 2017)

It would give you a very small "1LLL" set, but it's a lot of work to permute edges fully, and for not much benefit (L4C isn't amazing)

Also, welcome to the forums


----------



## Cubow (Dec 10, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> It would give you a very small "1LLL" set, but it's a lot of work to permute edges fully, and for not much benefit (L4C isn't amazing)
> 
> Also, welcome to the forums



That idea is the Reason why I signed up ^^

Before I signed up (20 min ago) I played a bit around with my cube. Permuting the edges while solving last F2L pair would be only 6 cases. 6 Easy cases, around 7 moves with triggers only (RUR‘ and that stuff). So it wouldnt be hard. And then... 50 LLL Cases...

Seems unrealistic, that no one thought about that before so I guess I made a mistake somewhere... This cant work 

Edit: Just looked it up, it would be around 86 algs with an average movecount of 12.
Seems ok to me for a 1LLL. The avg movecount would be even less than ZBLL then but with easier recognition and less algs. However, phasing+ would be around 5 moves more for F2L than with normal ZZ but because of the recognition of ZBLL being really hard, ZZ-B+ so phasing+ (thats how I call it ) + L4C may be even faster than ZBLL...

With just 86 algs. Well, thats an achievement


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 10, 2017)

Cubow said:


> This cant work



Well, L4C is already 84 Algorithms so it's a bit bigger than 50 but still, it would have been a really good idea if L4C were a good set, unfortunitely it's considered to have the worst Last Layer cases.
I'd love to see what you/we can come up with different phasing things.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 10, 2017)

Recognition for edge permutation before the corners are oriented is also quite difficult to achieve quickly.


----------



## Tao Yu (Dec 10, 2017)

CPLS -> 2GLL is probably a better idea in a similar vein, because 2GLL algs are faster:

1. Make a pair
2. Insert pair while forcing a 2GLL case (6 algs)
3. 2GLL (84 algs)

or

1. Insert FR edge
2. Solve DFR corner while forcing a 2GLL case (30 algs)
3. 2GLL

(Algs for the second step are here)


----------



## Hazel (Dec 11, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> CPLS -> 2GLL is probably a better idea in a similar vein, because 2GLL algs are faster:
> 
> 1. Make a pair
> 2. Insert pair while forcing a 2GLL case (6 algs)
> ...


If you expanded it to any F2L-1 method (CFOP, blockbuilding, etc.) then you could insert the FR edge while orienting LL edges as step 1 and you wouldn't have to do things like EOLine


----------



## Cubow (Dec 12, 2017)

Aerma said:


> If you expanded it to any F2L-1 method (CFOP, blockbuilding, etc.) then you could insert the FR edge while orienting LL edges as step 1 and you wouldn't have to do things like EOLine



EOLine doesnt only give you oriented edges on the last layer, but you also dont have to do cube rotations


----------



## Cubow (Dec 12, 2017)

Tao Yu said:


> CPLS -> 2GLL is probably a better idea in a similar vein, because 2GLL algs are faster:
> 
> 1. Make a pair
> 2. Insert pair while forcing a 2GLL case (6 algs)
> ...



I understand the first part but not the second, however it sounds like a good idea.
A 2GLL-Case is btw a case where corners are permuted and edges oriented.
Using ZZ or any other EO method Edges would already be oriented however I can imagine cornerpermutation being hard.
As corners arent oriented recognition could be a big problem.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 12, 2017)

Cubow said:


> EOLine doesnt only give you oriented edges on the last layer, but you also dont have to do cube rotations


Yes though at the same time you could also do something akin to FB->2x2x3->EO and still get no cube rotations. You can arguably also have betters lookahead.


Cubow said:


> I understand the first part but not the second, however it sounds like a good idea.
> A 2GLL-Case is btw a case where corners are permuted and edges oriented.
> Using ZZ or any other EO method Edges would already be oriented however I can imagine cornerpermutation being hard.
> As corners arent oriented recognition could be a big problem.


I think he knows exactly what 2GLL is (you might want to look up his yt) 
Also, the recognition for 2GLL is actually reasonably simple especially when compared to things such as ZBLL so misoriented corners would be fine. In fact, you only really need to look at the orientation of the corners and 2 edges to work out any case.

Also, please don't double post. If you feel like you want to add something or reply to another comment edit the original post. Your analysis is good and it looks like you're beginning to get a sense of what is good and what is bad but remember there are still rules on the forum to follow


----------



## Cubow (Dec 12, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Yes though at the same time you could also do something akin to FB->2x2x3->EO and still get no cube rotations. You can arguably also have betters lookahead.
> 
> I think he knows exactly what 2GLL is (you might want to look up his yt)
> Also, the recognition for 2GLL is actually reasonably simple especially when compared to things such as ZBLL so misoriented corners would be fine. In fact, you only really need to look at the orientation of the corners and 2 edges to work out any case.
> ...



Ok. Btw I had to look up what 2GLL is so I just explained it quickly for others who read this post who dont know ^^

But I think in general for a new efficient method the best base to start with is ZZ. It has blockbuilding which is more efficient than F2L in CFOP for example. Because its 3-Gen (Edges already oriented) there are no cuberotations and I personally think that recognition is alot easier when edges are already oriented, than if they arent.
ZZ basically combines Roux (blockbuilding, no cube rotations) with CFOP (easy F2L) for the first to layers + EO which is a small step with huge impact. I guess ZZ right now is the best method for the „future“ as it also allows more variants than Roux for example. ZZ makes also 1LLL possible which may be the standard for future speedsolving. I guess we should focus on LS-techniques (phasing). However it looks like there basically cant be anything new about phasing so we need different approaches to find a more effective way for LL+F2L. ZZ-CT is a good example, I heard that Chris Tran once said „Think outside the box“. I guess thats a good example.

Or maybe we should search for a completely different basemethod, Petrus also seems promising. Lars Petrus said on his website „A good Method does always something useful“. Maybe we should think about something different than solving a last-layer, Roux for example which solves LSE at the end. A last layer however always involves breaking something which gets us to long algorithms and while we do those it doesnt „always do something useful“.
As I said ZZ seems promising, especially compared to ZZ but a completely new method „Thinking outside the box“ + „Does always something useful“ would be really interesting. I guess we should get away from our „LBL“ thinking for that, maybe even without blockbuilding like in petrus. This sound weird but I feel like that the „LBL“ approach limits us in certain ways


That was a long post 
Sorry when I missed the topic a bit, its just some general ideas of how a new method „could“ look like. Maybe you already knew all what I wrote but thats just what came into my mind rn


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 12, 2017)

Cubow said:


> But I think in general for a new efficient method the best base to start with is ZZ.



I have been using *ZZ* for many years and then I've switched to *Leor* which I think is a step forward.
Leor is ZZ with the first two steps reversed: Left block first (à la Roux) then EO-line.

For me, *Leor* has many advantages over ZZ:
1) You take profit of pieces already in good place for a quick first block.
2) After step 1, there are no L moves until the last layer. At leat no L-moves during F2L.
3) During step 2 (EO-line), you may influence step 3 (right block); or sometimes a large part of the right block is done.
See: example 1, example 2.
4) The method is very flexible: you may start to orient the edges at the end of step 1; you may start to build the right block during step 2; you may do a partial EO-line, then complete the right block, then finish EO-line... You adapt to the situation.
5) Leor works very well for 4x4 too. See: four examples.

For the last layer, I've found that building the right block minus 1 edge then doing COLL + L5EPLL is more efficient (thanks to Justin Taylor), because L5EPLL adds only 24 algs over EPLL (12 for each edge FR and BR, but many are obvious mirrors) but they are not longer than EPLL algs and sometime they are shorter. Moreover Right block -1 edge is easier to perform (when building a complete right block is easy, I do it, of course).

It takes time to become accustomed to the different way to do the EO-line. It needs a lot of practice to find some tricks.

Overall, the ergonomics is better than ZZ, with a lot of possible optimizations.
And the method is fun because all 4 steps are very different.

You can find many examples I've posted in the 3x3x3 example solves thread.


----------



## efattah (Dec 12, 2017)

While I think ZZ variants can be fast, I have stated earlier in the thread that after great experimentation with many different methods I believe the future of speed solving will be in direct solving, rather than anything that relies heavily on orienting a large number of pieces then solving them afterwards. While the fastest solvers would be direct-solvers, a great majority of cubers might still use orient-permute methods due to easier recognition and fewer algorithms. So it depends which group you are developing for.


----------



## Y2k1 (Dec 12, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> I have been using *ZZ* for many years and then I've switched to *Leor* which I think is a step forward.
> Leor is ZZ with the first two steps reversed: Left block first (à la Roux) then EO-line.
> 
> For me, *Leor* has many advantages over ZZ:
> ...


This sounds interesting. Can I have a link to the algs for L5EPLL? (Sorry if posted earlier I havent seen these algs earlier.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 12, 2017)

Y2k1 said:


> Can I have a link to the algs for L5EPLL? (Sorry if posted earlier I havent seen these algs earlier.


I got them from Justin Taylor. Micki and him generated the biggest part of them. My contribution is minor.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 12, 2017)

Cubow said:


> Ok. Btw I had to look up what 2GLL is so I just explained it quickly for others who read this post who dont know ^^
> 
> But I think in general for a new efficient method the best base to start with is ZZ. It has blockbuilding which is more efficient than F2L in CFOP for example. Because its 3-Gen (Edges already oriented) there are no cuberotations and I personally think that recognition is alot easier when edges are already oriented, than if they arent.


 It really depends on the alg set in my experience. The main problem I have with ZZ is all the L moves which force regrips. It could be good but I find that the EoLine does too little and can often impede lookahead.


> ZZ basically combines Roux (blockbuilding, no cube rotations) with CFOP (easy F2L) for the first to layers + EO which is a small step with huge impact.


 I would be hesitant to say that ZZ combines the best aspects of Roux and ZZ because Roux benefits as it has very unrestricted free block building. It also has a harder F2L than CFOP. Instead of saying that it combines them I would say it walks a middle path on which it can't fully benefit from either aspect (not to say it couldn't be good but it isn't as straight forward as "it combines the best of Roux/CFOP".



> I guess ZZ right now is the best method for the „future“ as it also allows more variants than Roux for example.


 I would be very cautious in saying that more variants makes a method better. While you could make an argument that more variants=more areas to improve though at the same time a lot of the variants contradict each other so you can only use a handful at a time.


> ZZ makes also 1LLL possible which may be the standard for future speedsolving. I guess we should focus on LS-techniques (phasing). However it looks like there basically cant be anything new about phasing so we need different approaches to find a more effective way for LL+F2L. ZZ-CT is a good example, I heard that Chris Tran once said „Think outside the box“. I guess thats a good example.


LS techniques consist a far larger array than simply phasing (though phasing can be an ok technique when transitioning to ZBLL). ZZ-CT is also not very good at all. In fact, I think the general consensus is that it is worse than COLL/EPLL (the misconception is mostly due to the fact that Chris Tran is very good at marketing- incidentally I would consider most of what he says suspect until I get proof of the things he says, also, CT predates his proposal by a fair bit).



> Or maybe we should search for a completely different basemethod, Petrus also seems promising. Lars Petrus said on his website „A good Method does always something useful“. Maybe we should think about something different than solving a last-layer, Roux for example which solves LSE at the end. A last layer however always involves breaking something which gets us to long algorithms and while we do those it doesnt „always do something useful“.


Personally I think that this is probably the way to go. Incidentally you might want to have a look at 
this thread I posted on how current methods seem to fall into 2 camps in general and why some have more variants than others


> As I said ZZ seems promising, especially compared to ZZ but a completely new method „Thinking outside the box“ + „Does always something useful“ would be really interesting. I guess we should get away from our „LBL“ thinking for that, maybe even without blockbuilding like in petrus. This sound weird but I feel like that the „LBL“ approach limits us in certain ways


You might find a few more recent methods fairly interesting and see the variations that modern cubing has begun to cover (and a lot of them don't actually end in LL or use LBL) I would give Leor, SSC, PCMS, 2GR, M-CELL, ZB, 42 and LMCF a quite glance and maybe try to evaluate why they are good or perhaps not quite as viable.

I also made a thread which compiles quite a few different resources which method developers might want to take a look at. Harcs and cube explorer are also good for quick evaluation of basic methods.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't induce wall of text syndrome too much and I wish you all the best in your future explorations!


----------



## Cubow (Dec 12, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> It really depends on the alg set in my experience. The main problem I have with ZZ is all the L moves which force regrips. It could be good but I find that the EoLine does too little and can often impede lookahead.
> I would be hesitant to say that ZZ combines the best aspects of Roux and ZZ because Roux benefits as it has very unrestricted free block building. It also has a harder F2L than CFOP. Instead of saying that it combines them I would say it walks a middle path on which it can't fully benefit from either aspect (not to say it couldn't be good but it isn't as straight forward as "it combines the best of Roux/CFOP".
> 
> I would be very cautious in saying that more variants makes a method better. While you could make an argument that more variants=more areas to improve though at the same time a lot of the variants contradict each other so you can only use a handful at a time.
> ...



Thanks, I might look at all those methods tomorrow. But thanks for giving such big answer that covers all questions I would have asked 

I am excited to see what we can come up with and how long it will take, that the speedcubing majority switches from CFOP if an other method seems to be better and what method it will be. And when?

I guess it will take long to see a big change but probably there will happen something in like 5 years.

Btw the main reason why I am so interested in this topic is because I want the „best“ method or the „most efficient“ one so I dont have to learn new algs when a better method comes out xD (I am really lazy lol). I even stopped learning PLL xD (I already know 10 or so).

But yeah, thanks for your answer, seems like there are even more „good“ methods than I have exspected.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Dec 12, 2017)

new method (bfce)

1) 2x2x2 block
build a 2x2x2 block in DBL

2) F2l-1+P
solve the 3 pairs and place two of them in F2l along with DF and DR while the third pair goes in the top layer
not nessisarily in that order

3) copls
(corners orientate and permute last slot)
solve all the corners with the placement of the last slot with an algorithm (1/324)(you already have the pair)

4) ell
solve the final 4 edges with an algorithm (1/29)


----------



## efattah (Dec 13, 2017)

Cubow said:


> I am excited to see what we can come up with and how long it will take, that the speedcubing majority switches from CFOP if an other method seems to be better and what method it will be. And when?
> I guess it will take long to see a big change but probably there will happen something in like 5 years.



No matter what method we (or anyone else) finds, it is extremely unlikely that any majority of cubers would ever switch from CFOP. Personally I don't believe CFOP is the future, but we cannot argue that it is extremely fast, and the high movecount is offset by the extremely fast LL algorithms. Any new method would offer only a marginal improvement in speed potential at the expense of YEARS of re-learning (in all likelihood). For that reason, if some new 'grand' method was found, it would be new cubers that would most likely learn it. In that sense it could take a whole cubing 'generation' for the CFOPers to 'retire' and be replaced by people who never knew CFOP in the first place. The best example is Kian Mansour, the fastest Roux solver to date, who never even learned CFOP and started with Roux based on the accomplishments of the previous best Roux solver, Alex Lau.


----------



## Rubiksdude4144 (Dec 13, 2017)

My idea for a 'corners first' method:

1) Solve corners like a 2x2 (Ortega, CLL, EG etc.). Does not have to be relative to centers.
2) solve all center-edges (should create 4 bars of three that aren't perpendicular to each other). Can be done intuitively.
3) solve two opposite bottom edges. this should create 2 'U' shapes on opposite sides. (can be done intuitively)
4) Orient all of the edges using 'M' and 'U' moves. [EO]
5) Solve the last bottom 2 edges using 'M' and 'U' moves. [B2E]
6) Use M-perms, U-perms, and Z-perms to solve the top 4 edges [L4E]
7) solve centers using 'M' moves (minimum of 4 moves)

Tell me what you think


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 13, 2017)

This looks like a variation on SSC where you don't orient edges. Kind of a more primitive form of a good method.


----------



## Arc (Dec 13, 2017)

Rubiksdude4144 said:


> My idea for a 'corners first' method:
> 
> 1) Solve corners like a 2x2 (Ortega, CLL, EG etc.). Does not have to be relative to centers.
> 2) solve all center-edges (should create 4 bars of three that aren't perpendicular to each other). Can be done intuitively.
> ...


Tons of problems here. The first one is that solving E-slice edges after corners is terribly inefficient. Much better to start in the style of PCMS. Second problem here is that you're not solving the L/R centers with DL/DR, making recognition very difficult later and also forcing the solve to end in a silly center commutator. Third problem, you've broken down the LSE step from Roux into EO -> DF/DB -> EPLL. Which is bad. The classic Roux method of EO -> ULUR -> L4E is much better, and even better if you expand it to EOLR -> L4E. Last problem is that you're ending in a center commutator which is silly.


----------



## Rubiksdude4144 (Dec 13, 2017)

Tymon Kolasiński


Arc said:


> Tons of problems here. The first one is that solving E-slice edges after corners is terribly inefficient. Much better to start in the style of PCMS. Second problem here is that you're not solving the L/R centers with DL/DR, making recognition very difficult later and also forcing the solve to end in a silly center commutator. Third problem, you've broken down the LSE step from Roux into EO -> DF/DB -> EPLL. Which is bad. The classic Roux method of EO -> ULUR -> L4E is much better, and even better if you expand it to EOLR -> L4E. Last problem is that you're ending in a center commutator which is silly.


I know it is very inefficient and similar to roux. but not all methods have to be efficient.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 13, 2017)

Rubiksdude4144 said:


> Tymon Kolasiński
> 
> I know it is very inefficient and similar to roux. but not all methods have to be efficient.


What Arc is saying is that doing corners then E-slice is not only inefficient, but much slower then solving the four F2L pairs before doing CLL. Then, the best way to do L8E would be just to insert 2 D-layer edges to reduce it into LSE like in Roux, but at that point you're just doing Roux with slower and less efficient blocks.


----------



## efattah (Dec 13, 2017)

Rubiksdude4144 said:


> My idea for a 'corners first' method:
> 
> 1) Solve corners like a 2x2 (Ortega, CLL, EG etc.). Does not have to be relative to centers.
> 2) solve all center-edges (should create 4 bars of three that aren't perpendicular to each other). Can be done intuitively.
> ...



Since Waterman isn't really a corners first method (it solves one slice minus one edge before the remaining corners), then LMCF is probably the only 'current' corners first method that truly starts with the corners. I think more thought should be placed into how to best solve the edges after solving the corners. Having said that, I don't think what you propose is an improvement, but that it is not to discourage you from coming up with something else, more ingenious. In particular what is needed is a method in line with Waterman's advanced variation where you try to solve 1-2 edges at the same time as solving the corners, by either using different CLL variants for each case or by injecting M/M' moves into the CLL algorithms (which is what Waterman would do, and what tyrannical caterpillar does). If you can come up with a good way to do that, it would be huge.


----------



## xXPunchWoodXx (Dec 14, 2017)

VLS + TTLL = ZZCT for CFOP
I was just messing around and this was kinda cool. It might be pretty move efficient.

Steps
1. Cross
2. F2L - 1*
3.VLS**
4.TTLL

* The last f2l edge must be orientated and paired with a corner where the U color is facing towards you. 

** The the unpaired f2l corner will help identify what VLS case you have. VLS cases are identified by the edge orientation and corner orientation.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 14, 2017)

xXPunchWoodXx said:


> I was just messing around and this was kinda cool. It might be pretty move efficient.


What advantage would this have over VLS/PLL?
Also, unless it's a complete and entire method please post things like this in the new method/substep/concept thread


----------



## xXPunchWoodXx (Dec 14, 2017)

In a lot of cases TTLL has a better average move count and they the cases are generally pretty fast. They also are 2 gen or 3 gen. I also just thought that this method is just interesting.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 14, 2017)

I think @JTay proposed and developed something of that sort.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 14, 2017)

TTLL alternate?
So maybe you like ZZ and TSLE but you don't want to learn the extra 72 algs, I don't know, but here's another way to solve TTLL that's probably slower and less efficient but with less algs:
1) Use an EPLL to make a solved 1x2x2 block in UBL
2) L4C (11 algs? I'm not sure)
The cool thing about this L4C is that you don't have to worry about the UF and UR edges because they'll have to solve themselves since 2 edges can't be swapped.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 14, 2017)

Aerma said:


> The cool thing about this L4C is that you don't have to worry about the UF and UR edges because they'll have to solve themselves since 2 edges can't be swapped.


while this is true, you can get odd Parity for both Edges and Corners which evens itself out. Also, how do you solve the Bottom Layer Corner with L4C?


----------



## JTay (Dec 14, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I think @JTay proposed and developed something of that sort.


Yes, developed it earlier this year. It's the Ribbon Method. Check it out on the wiki. I've developed every single alg myself over the last few months. In short, solve an addition edge during cross in the E Slice, finish the three pairs, orient the last 9 pieces with TOLS, then permute those 9 with TTLL.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 14, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> while this is true, you can get odd Parity for both Edges and Corners which evens itself out. Also, how do you solve the Bottom Layer Corner with L4C?


You would probably just use an alg or commutator to solve the four corners.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 14, 2017)

Aerma said:


> You would probably just use an alg or commutator to solve the four corners.


My Problem with his sentense was the L4C as this Algorithm set already exists.


----------



## mDiPalma (Dec 14, 2017)

Aerma said:


> What Arc is saying is that doing corners then E-slice is not only inefficient, but much slower then solving the four F2L pairs before doing CLL. Then, the best way to do L8E would be just to insert 2 D-layer edges to reduce it into LSE like in Roux, but at that point you're just doing Roux with *slower and less efficient blocks*.



**faster and more efficient** , but ok

idk y yall h8 on pcms for no reason. try it

Yaknow, I feel that a lot of people don't form their own educated opinions because they are not naturally curious enough.

Everyone hates L4C, for example. Why? Because whoever put algs on the wiki put the optimal ones from some obscure orientation. THESE ARE ZBLLs PEOPLE. THERE ARE GOOD ALGS FOR THOSE CASES; THOSE JUST AREN'T IT. Because of this misconception, everyone immediately throws out any method idea that ends in L4C.

Everyone hates PCMS. Why? Because the name includes "S", suggesting 1/4 of this method is awkward S moves. You can do d/y moves to convert S to M. The average CFOPper does 10 TRILLION rotations per solve. Why is just 1 off-limits? Because of this misconception, everyone immediately throws out any idea that passes through a columns state.

Everyone hates CP-variants like CPLS. Why? Because some 9-yr old, somewhere in a thread last necro'd 100 years before Christ, said it was hard to detect corner permutation, and scarcely anyone has tried it since. Because of this, people throw out decent variants like CPLS, which are phenomenally efficient in their alg/movecounts, compared to other methods.

I think we need a reformation. An Ultron-esque clean slate. A great purge.

</rant>


----------



## Hazel (Dec 15, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> **faster and more efficient** , but ok
> 
> idk y yall h8 on pcms for no reason. try it
> 
> ...


Wow, you are really passionate about this 
Idk really, I just heard someone say that about PCMS a while back and it made sense. As a method, it is fun


----------



## Neuro (Dec 15, 2017)

I don't like PCMS that much personally, for some reason I can't do Pairs fast to save my life. But I can see some merit to it. Maybe what we can do is this:

1: Pairs: For some people this can be done extremely fast
2: Corners: 42 algs, all pretty easy
3: 1 Dedge +center: A little awkward, but with rotations it should be passable. Reduces the cube to <RrUM>
4: L7E (need a good way to do this)


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 15, 2017)

mDiPalma said:


> Yaknow, I feel that a lot of people don't form their own educated opinions because they are not naturally curious enough.



Yes, that happens literally everywhere. Noone believs me when I day this though



mDiPalma said:


> Everyone hates L4C, for example. Why? Because whoever put algs on the wiki put the optimal ones from some obscure orientation. THESE ARE ZBLLs PEOPLE. THERE ARE GOOD ALGS FOR THOSE CASES; THOSE JUST AREN'T IT. Because of this misconception, everyone immediately throws out any method idea that ends in L4C.



L4C is a bit like PLL. There are good and nice algorithms there as ZBLLs have relatively much research put into them, but as it is the ZBLL subset with the most solved, they have a higher tendency to have a higher movecount.



mDiPalma said:


> Everyone hates CP-variants like CPLS. Why? Because some 9-yr old, somewhere in a thread last necro'd 100 years before Christ, said it was hard to detect corner permutation, and scarcely anyone has tried it since. Because of this, people throw out decent variants like CPLS, which are phenomenally efficient in their alg/movecounts, compared to other methods.



With the amount of Methods that use CP I can't believe they are this rare but you have your reason to say this. I think the thing is that detecting six relative Corner Permutations during the solve requires about as much dedication to do pauseless as Petrus' EO step pauseless does(and I see good Petrus users still having just a little pause) to bring the time back in Last Layer but CPLS is something even I have to look into




mDiPalma said:


> Everyone hates PCMS. Why? Because the name includes "S", suggesting 1/4 of this method is awkward S moves. You can do d/y moves to convert S to M. The average CFOPper does 10 TRILLION rotations per solve. Why is just 1 off-limits? Because of this misconception, everyone immediately throws out any idea that passes through a columns state.



As I'm a Roux user(depends on mood and day) I wouldn't say automatically a Columns First method is bad but as I know E Slices aren't popular and I think nobody voluntarily uses S Slices, there is just so much to do when Edges are on every Slice and all of E, S, M aren't solved.


Why do I love to talk with strangers about twisty puzzle methods so much?


----------



## Neuro (Dec 16, 2017)

I’m learning how to solve Squan right now, and I’m confused as to why we don’t teach Roux n’ Screw as the primary beginners method. 

F2B is really easy, and all the algs you need to know are M2 (which basically isn’t an alg), inserting 1 D layer edge, Adj CP, Parity alg, and one EPLL. 4 (or 5 w/ M2) algs, and it’s possible you don’t even need the EPLL alg if you do it intuitively. 

Also quite fast; Roux n’ Screw can get sub-20 and lead into the Lin Method which has proven speed, rivaling Vandenberg.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Dec 16, 2017)

new method (BCE)

1) block
solve a 2x2x2 block in DBL

2) corners
solve all the corners using any 2x2 method (translating L,B,D to R,F,U)

3) edges
solve the edges intuitively using commutators


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 16, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I’m learning how to solve Squan right now, and I’m confused as to why we don’t teach Roux n’ Screw as the primary beginners method.
> 
> F2B is really easy, and all the algs you need to know are M2 (which basically isn’t an alg), inserting 1 D layer edge, Adj CP, Parity alg, and one EPLL. 4 (or 5 w/ M2) algs, and it’s possible you don’t even need the EPLL alg if you do it intuitively.
> 
> Also quite fast; Roux n’ Screw can get sub-20 and lead into the Lin Method which has proven speed, rivaling Vandenberg.



Yes, Roux'n'Screw, Lin and Yau-1 are all similarly good and beginner-friendly methods but they all have a flaw, which kills them for me(why we still teach Vandenbergh) and this is that almost every solve has a seeable pause after CS because you need to look at Separation(Orientation) and Permutation at the same time. F2B on Roux is really good because you have inspection and are able to plan out good blocks. After 4-6 Slices, it's just not feasible.

That's kind of why

But I mean, objectively you are right, yet Roux solvers also say that we should teach Roux as a Beginner Method because the intuition and few algorithms, and still, very few learnt it instead of Layer by Layer


----------



## Neuro (Dec 17, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Yes, Roux'n'Screw, Lin and Yau-1 are all similarly good and beginner-friendly methods but they all have a flaw, which kills them for me(why we still teach Vandenbergh) and this is that almost every solve has a seeable pause after CS because you need to look at Separation(Orientation) and Permutation at the same time. F2B on Roux is really good because you have inspection and are able to plan out good blocks. After 4-6 Slices, it's just not feasible.
> 
> That's kind of why
> 
> But I mean, objectively you are right, yet Roux solvers also say that we should teach Roux as a Beginner Method because the intuition and few algorithms, and still, very few learnt it instead of Layer by Layer


Interesting points, I suppose the recog required for it can be hard. I still think I'll learn to solve using Roux n' Screw. I don't like algs and currently use Roux on 3x3+, so my Blocks recog is pretty good. From there, idk. Not looking to be world-class, but things could change.

As for beginner 3x3 methods, idk if we've really got a good one yet. IMO, LBL doesn't provide a true understanding of the cube. It's very easy to understand though, which is where most other methods fail (blockbuilding can be hard). Looking for a good beginners method may be something I end up doing over the next few weeks. I think that CriticalCubing's tutorial was a step in the right direction. But in terms of why LBL is used, a) it's easy to understand; b) tutorials are incredibly saturated towards LBL. Like, 95% of videos are LBL tutorials. Probably going to make a video series over the 4 major methods as beginner methods


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 17, 2017)

Yeah, that's why LBL is so good as a beginner Method. You only need to have played around enough to intuitively understand how to build a cross. I mean, think about how hard it would be for non-cubers to build like a Roux Block or Petrus Block, but inserting one piece at a time is just right

Also, for Square-1, I personally also would like to have more freedom in Vandenbergh, do I made many tweaks and I'm working on Algorithm sets to 4(3 with luck)-look a solve, so there's that.
Keep solving Squan, it's really unique


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 17, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> L4C is a bit like PLL. There are good and nice algorithms there as ZBLLs have relatively much research put into them, but as it is the ZBLL subset with the most solved, they have a higher tendency to have a higher movecount.


This is bullsh— ahem, factually inaccurate.

Going from a somewhat outdated version of Jabari's ZBLL list I have saved, L4C takes 13.78 moves on average with speed-optimised algs. I don't recall what the move count is for speed-optimised ZBLL, but iirc it's around 14 moves? Not much of a difference, if any. And if you look at just FTM-optimal algs, ZBLL is 12.08 moves and L4C is 11.73 moves.



mDiPalma said:


> Everyone hates CP-variants like CPLS. […] Because of this, people throw out decent variants like CPLS, which are phenomenally efficient in their alg/movecounts, compared to other methods.


I agree with all of your post except this part. (Cargo cult is bad; people need to _reevaluate ancient opinions_ more often.) 2GLL has a nice move count if you include weird algs that are like 5-gen or 6-gen, but once you restrict to just RU algs, the move count blows up and it's not really shorter than other ZBLLs. It's still faster because 2-gen is nice for ergonomics, but not by much, and I don't think this makes up for having to spend more moves up front to solve CP. (I can't comment much on other CP first methods due to lack of experience, but from brief testing, the RrU OLLCP algs aren't that great either.)


----------



## BECubed (Dec 18, 2017)

I was brainstorming some method ideas and came up with a suggestion, here are the steps:
- Cross + 1 edge flipped
- F2L
- CMLL
- LSE

How does it sound? Currently I am averaging around 15 seconds with it.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 19, 2017)

BECubed said:


> I was brainstorming some method ideas and came up with a suggestion, here are the steps:
> - Cross + 1 edge flipped
> - F2L
> - CMLL
> ...


Well, the cross + 1 edge flipped seems pretty arbitrary; I don't really see what it accomplishes over a regular cross. I would just leave out the cross totally (Roux), or leave out one edge completely (3CFCE). Actually, with one flipped cross edge, you can force an arrow EO case pretty easily, so this, but allowing the flipped edge to be swapped with it's opposite. Or you could put any non F2L edge in the DF and DB spots. Then you could just not solve the cross and just do the DR and DL edges. At that point, though, I think you're better off doing roux.


----------



## BECubed (Dec 19, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Well, the cross + 1 edge flipped seems pretty arbitrary; I don't really see what it accomplishes over a regular cross. I would just leave out the cross totally (Roux), or leave out one edge completely (3CFCE). Actually, with one flipped cross edge, you can force an arrow EO case pretty easily, so this, but allowing the flipped edge to be swapped with it's opposite. Or you could put any non F2L edge in the DF and DB spots. Then you could just not solve the cross and just do the DR and DL edges. At that point, though, I think you're better off doing roux.


I agree, the sketch for this was originally meant to be like the TCLL of CFOP, where in 2x2's case you don't finish the layer, but in CFOP's case you just don't finish the cross. I also think it could be more efficient with ZZ-like blockbuilding, CMLL, and since you always get the same EO case, you could generate algorithms for the L5E and have it done more efficiently. Thanks though! - Erik


----------



## Neuro (Dec 19, 2017)

I’ve been learning big cube stuff, and I think that past 4x4 using LEOR is pretty good for Roux users.

1: Centers
2: Freeslice pairing (influence FB)
3: First Block (1x2x3 obviously)
4: EO Line (I usually insert DB and do EO+DF) 3r, R, M rarely
5: F2L
6: COLL
7: EPLL

It’s also possible to do ZBLL/ZZLL, but 2step LL should be fine. Let me know your thoughts (credit to Pyjam for inventing LEOR on 3x3)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I’ve been learning big cube stuff, and I think that past 4x4 using LEOR is pretty good for Roux users.
> 
> 1: Centers
> 2: Freeslice pairing (influence FB)
> ...


Pyjam actually already does this, but he does first block like in Meyer.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 19, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I’ve been learning big cube stuff, and I think that past 4x4 using LEOR is pretty good for Roux users.
> 
> 1: Centers
> 2: Freeslice pairing (influence FB)
> ...



I'd say that doing FB is faster before Centres and Edges,but duch a statement would need long testing. What my suggestion just for your LEOR case would be is to build Opposite Centres, FB and a SB square(could be partial, doesn't even need a correct corner) to reduce the Edge pairing pieces, which could help a lot at higher order cubes

While COLL and EPLL is a great Big Last layer way, I'd say ZBLL is definitely something to put into practise if you're going for 4x4+ as going up from 6x6, saving some moves can really make a difference + you won't need M Slices, what more could you wish for.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 19, 2017)

Here's something I thought of. It isn't the most efficient thing but lookahead is really easy because after the first step, all the pieces are on the F and U layers.
1) 2x2x3 in DB
2) Finish E layer
3) EODF
4) Insert last 2 F2L corners
5) ZBLL (or other LL method)


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 19, 2017)

I did not invent Leor. It would be like saying I've invented the warm water. I did invent the name, however. And Arc suggested that we use "Leor" and not "LEOR", and I agreed. 

I believe Leor is pretty good for 4x4:
1) 2 opposite centers
2) Left 4x3x1 block
3) Last 4 centers (Yau)
4) Edge pairing
5) EO-line
etc.

For 5x5 (and above)... hum... I'm not convinced by this order of steps. 

I've tried what neuro has suggested and I think it's better.
I understand steps 2 and 3 like this:
2: Freeslice pairing (influence FB) = placing the edges at their correct place.
3: First Block (1x2x3 obviously) = solving the 2 left corners.

However, my cube isn't great and I'm not good at 5x5. So, I don't think I'm the best judge.


----------



## BECubed (Dec 20, 2017)

Another thing that crossed my mind is VERY efficient corners first methods, like solving all the corners with advanced 2x2 methods, and then using 1 algorithm to solve all of the remaining edges. While not great in speedsolving, it would be good for potentially low movecount.

Reconstruction Solve:
F' L2 R2 D2 U' F2 D L2 U R2 D' L2 R' D L' U' B L R' F' L // Scramble

y L U R U R' U2 R U' R2 F R F' R U R' U' R U R' // Corners (19/34)
F' M' B' E2 F2 L F' E' L2 F M2 F' E2 L2 F // Edges (15/34)

34 HTM

See reconstruction on alg.cubing:
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F-_L2_R2_D2_U-_F2_D_L2_U_R2_D-_L2_R-_D_L-_U-_B_L_R-_F-_L_&alg=y_L_U_R_U_R-_U2_R_U-_R2_F_R_F-_R_U_R-_U-_R_U_R-_ F-_M-_B-_E2_F2_L_F-_E-_L2_F_M2_F-_E2_L2_F&view=playback


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 20, 2017)

Well, the thing is that there doesn't seem to be much application for this, as solving all edges is going to be really huge (like, REALLY HUGE) on algs, and doing sll edges is going to be really heavy on slice moves. Slice moves are also counted as 2 moves in HTM, and HTM is what's used for FMC. I would look at LMCF though. It's definitely a super cool method. 
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/full-lmcf-3x3-method-now-available.63998/


----------



## Hazel (Dec 20, 2017)

I thought of a LSLL subset that may actually be useful. The idea is that if there's a 1x3 block on the last layer of the LL color and the LS is paired or joinable, then you can use an algorithm to solve the LS and OLL at the same time. I've generated a few algs so far, and they aren't bad.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 20, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I thought of a LSLL subset that may actually be useful. The idea is that if there's a 1x3 block on the last layer of the LL color and the LS is paired or joinable, then you can use an algorithm to solve the LS and OLL at the same time. I've generated a few algs so far, and they aren't bad.


 So, a subset of VLS? I think it would only have 17 cases for the made pair, and 9 for the split pair.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 20, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> So, a subset of VLS? I think it would only have 17 cases for the made pair, and 9 for the split pair.


Yep! So the number of algs would range from 9 to 52, 9 if you’re just doing joinable from one angle, 52 for both joinable and connected and with pairs in the back.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 21, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I thought of a LSLL subset that may actually be useful. The idea is that if there's a 1x3 block on the last layer of the LL color and the LS is paired or joinable, then you can use an algorithm to solve the LS and OLL at the same time. I've generated a few algs so far, and they aren't bad.



Sounds pretty useful but the 1LLL Subset with a line is also just 53 Algorithms/54 for flipped line, and Jabari himself said they are fast so some LS algorithms where you don't break the line might be even more useful


----------



## Hazel (Dec 21, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Sounds pretty useful but the 1LLL Subset with a line is also just 53 Algorithms/54 for flipped line, and Jabari himself said they are fast so some LS algorithms where you don't break the line might be even more useful


That's true, but then you would have to learn twice the amount of algorithms since you would need a handful for preserving the line, and then the 1LLL set.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 21, 2017)

Aerma said:


> That's true, but then you would have to learn twice the amount of algorithms since you would need a handful for preserving the line, and then the 1LLL set.


To be fair, you need the Line VLS Cases and PLL so both of us have a one-look LS and a one-look Last Layer


----------



## Hazel (Dec 23, 2017)

I've been experimenting with a new 3x3 method I came up with recently, and I think it's actually pretty good. I think of it as a Petrus that's less efficient but has better lookahead:

1) 2x2x3 block in DB
2a) Solve the last 2 E-layer edges
2b) EODF
2c) Insert last 2 corners like you would in regular F2L
3) ZBLL (or COLL/EPLL, etc.)

My best time with this method so far is 11.00, and so far my best Ao50 is 16.92. I've had about 5 or so 13-second solves, and a few 12-seconds ones as well. What I like about this is that there's a lot of flexibility. For example, if during the 2x2x3 stage you see a solved F2L pair that isn't a part of the 2x2x3, you can still insert it to make 2a and 2c a bit faster. I also think there's potential for subsets to make the LL better, like using Winter Variation, Magic Wondeful, VLS etc. You could also use CLS if you get a good case for it.
Plus, I personally really enjoy solving with this method, more than CFOP actually 

Here's an example solve:

F2 R' B2 F2 R' U2 L2 B2 F2 U2 R2 B' R' D' U' B D2 F R2 F' R'

z2 F2 U L' B2 D2 F' D L U2 L2 // 2x2x3 (10/10)
F' L' U L // E-layer (4/14)
M' U M U' M' U' M U2 M' U M // EODF (11/25)
U2 L' U L U2 L' U L // Left corner (8/33)
y' U' L' U R' U' L U R // CLS (8/51)
U' R2 F2 R U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F R2 // G-perm (16/67)

Again, not very efficient but each step after the 2x2x3 is very ergonomic on its own and since look-ahead is pretty easy, you can have a high TPS and have fast solves.


----------



## Neuro (Dec 23, 2017)

Interesting idea mixing PCMS and 42/Roux

1: 1x2x2 block on L
2: Make F2L pairs
3: CxLL
4: L7E

I'm hoping this can get good TPS and high efficiency but it requires testing. The 2nd step is highly variable, I like RUMrF. Should be noted it's pretty easy to plan ahead and get 1 extra F2L pair during inspection (even if it's just the Roux FB). I think it has some potential with improvements. Going to experiment with L7E quite a bit. You can use Roux EO/EOLR to insert DR while doing EO and do LR edges->L4EP. I think an algorithmic approach could be good as well, so I'm checking out buffers/setup to find good algs/systems.

EDIT: Ran analysis on HARCS, and it appears that this is an expected movecount:

FS is ~5 moves
F2L is ~9 moves (this likely raises significantly in human solves)
CxLL is ~11 moves (algs)
L7E is ~13 moves (again, likely raises when human solves)

So theoretically, this is a 38 move method on average. With humans solving, I'd expect ~45 moves in speedsolves. What you can also do is CFOP style F2L when making the pairs. It'll increase movecount, but it's proven to be fast.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 24, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I've been experimenting with a new 3x3 method I came up with recently, and I think it's actually pretty good. I think of it as a Petrus that's less efficient but has better lookahead:
> 
> 1) 2x2x3 block in DB
> 2a) Solve the last 2 E-layer edges
> ...


Edit to this method, CLS is definitely the way to go. Really nice algs, and a 1 in 72 chance of a last layer skip every solve!


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 24, 2017)

Aerma said:


> I've been experimenting with a new 3x3 method I came up with recently, and I think it's actually pretty good. I think of it as a Petrus that's less efficient but has better lookahead:
> 
> 1) 2x2x3 block in DB
> 2a) Solve the last 2 E-layer edges
> ...



I have neutral feelings about it.
Blockbuilding is basically the same.
2 a,b,c are basically Petrus as the step is called -Finish F2L - and you are just doing EO during it. 



Aerma said:


> What I like about this is that there's a lot of flexibility. For example, if during the 2x2x3 stage you see a solved F2L pair that isn't a part of the 2x2x3, you can still insert it to make 2a and 2c a bit faster. I also think there's potential for subsets to make the LL better, like using Winter Variation, Magic Wondeful, VLS etc. You could also use CLS if you get a good case for it.


Yes, this is why I like FreeFOP so much. You don't really have to have a Method, just use what you get and have a solid game plan


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

This thread is about new methods that can be developed to solve a 3x3, to get the same averages as CFOP. Post methods that could be developed into a viable speedcubing method on this thread, or new ways to solve specific things in methods, (e.g. Last Layer variant). To Start off, I will just briefly post a new method for the 3x3 which I developed and could be as fast as CFOP
The steps:
1. EO, Usually takes about 5 moves. Not sure whether to keep this step in method or not...
2. Blockbuild four corner-edge pairs. This step normally takes 5 moves per pair
3. COLL to solve corners while preserving edge orientation. COLL is I think 10 moves on average
4. L8E. Solve in any way possible. I don't know how many algorithims their would be to solve the rest in one alg, but it would be interesting to see if someone would make that set. What I do is solve the L and R Layer edges, which normally takes 6 moves and permute the M slice which takes 4 moves.

Overall that's a move count of 45, so it's pretty efficient. I hope to see new methods come in this thread soon. Thank You!


----------



## DGCubes (Dec 26, 2017)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> This thread is about new methods that can be developed to solve a 3x3, to get the same averages as CFOP. Post methods that could be developed into a viable speedcubing method on this thread, or new ways to solve specific things in methods, (e.g. Last Layer variant). To Start off, I will just briefly post a new method for the 3x3 which I developed and could be as fast as CFOP
> The steps:
> 1. EO, Usually takes about 5 moves. Not sure whether to keep this step in method or not...
> 2. Blockbuild four corner-edge pairs. This step normally takes 5 moves per pair
> ...



L8E seems tough, especially because rotations would likely be required. If you were to do it in one alg, it would require 2,580,480 algs, which is about 5,000 times the amount in ZBLL. Maybe it could be reduced a bit if you take symmetry into account, but it still wouldn't be humanly feasible.



Spoiler: math



Edge permutation = 8! / 2
Edge orientation = 2^8 / 2
Total L8E cases = EP * EO = 8! * 2^8 / 4 = 2,580,480


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> L8E seems tough, especially because rotations would likely be required. If you were to do it in one alg, it would require 2,580,480 algs, which is about 5,000 times the amount in ZBLL. Maybe it could be reduced a bit if you take symmetry into account, but it still wouldn't be humanly feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So happy you read this DG (your my favourite YouTuber

But yes, I agree it would be extremely hard to solve L8E in one step, however is that number with all the 8 edges oriented? I'm not good at math. I say this step should be executed by solving the L and R layer edges then permuting the M slice edges. I personally believe this method can be better than CFOP, if anyone has any ideas how this method is or needs changes to be faster, please say so.

Again, thank you so much for reading this, DG, I love you.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

Over the past few days, I have come up with a method which in my opinion can be faster than CFOP. Please give me direction on whether this 3x3 method is or can be faster than CFOP or why it can;t be or needs improvements to be. Right now I am unsure. I will now go through the steps.
1. Edge Orientation. Speed Cubers say that this is hard when really it isn't, it just takes time to get used to. EO averages 5 moves
2. 4 Corner Edge pairs. Trying to blockbuild this can get you 5 moves on average for each pair.
3. COLL. COLL will preserve your edge orientation while solving the corners
4a. L8E. Solve the L and R layer edges. When done correctly, this averages 6 moves.
4b. Solve the middle layer. Averages 4 moves with easy simple algorithims.

Please let me know if this method is viable, or maybe tell me a different to solve L8E, but now I am unsure.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 26, 2017)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> This thread is about new methods that can be developed to solve a 3x3, to get the same averages as CFOP. Post methods that could be developed into a viable speedcubing method on this thread, or new ways to solve specific things in methods, (e.g. Last Layer variant). To Start off, I will just briefly post a new method for the 3x3 which I developed and could be as fast as CFOP
> The steps:
> 1. EO, Usually takes about 5 moves. Not sure whether to keep this step in method or not...
> 2. Blockbuild four corner-edge pairs. This step normally takes 5 moves per pair
> ...



Your first sentense makes me sad. This thread is about every Concept/Idea/Full Method you think is viable, not just 3x3 Speedsolving.
Your method seems not too bad, but I doubt it has much potential. Just EO means in between the Pairs could be E Layer edges which need a S2 to get out. Plus I'm actually sure this already exists as a Columns first Variant but I need someone to back me up there


----------



## DGCubes (Dec 26, 2017)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> But yes, I agree it would be extremely hard to solve L8E in one step, however is that number with all the 8 edges oriented? I'm not good at math.



Oh shoot, you're right, I forgot you did EO in the beginning. In that case, it is notably less, at 20,160 algs (8!/2). Still way too many to be feasible, but maybe it could be done in two steps?

Thanks for the compliments, btw.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Oh shoot, you're right, I forgot you did EO in the beginning. In that case, it is notably less, at 20,160 algs (8!/2). Still way too many to be feasible, but maybe it could be done in two steps?
> 
> Thanks for the compliments, btw.



No Problem 
Yes, that's what I suggested. Solving R layer and L layer edges (4 edges) at the same time, if done correctly can be done in 6 moves, than permutation of m slice can be done in about four. I believe this would be the fastest way to solve L8E. This is the fastest way I believe it has potential to be faster than CFOP, is that possible?


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> Your first sentense makes me sad. This thread is about every Concept/Idea/Full Method you think is viable, not just 3x3 Speedsolving.
> Your method seems not too bad, but I doubt it has much potential. Just EO means in between the Pairs could be E Layer edges which need a S2 to get out. Plus I'm actually sure this already exists as a Columns first Variant but I need someone to back me up there


Sorry, this was originally in a new thread I created.
I don't think I've seen this anywhere else though (the method) 
The edges could also be taken out with D M2, which is easier to finger trick.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 26, 2017)

Step1: perfectly fine and nice and standard.
Step 2: I assume you mean like in PCMS? This a good step in that method though you need to be able to plan a fair amount ahead after EO which remains challenging and one of the main arguments against metods like ZZ. Also, having a reduced moveset possible will make it more inefficient so I'd think that the movecount for each pair will be greater than 5 especially in a speedsolve.
3) All good perfectly standard step (though it might be work looking as some algs which preserve only pairs and EO which may be shorter)
4) Are you sure about that movecount? I have dabbled in similar things because of SSC phase 2 and I usually have a higher movecount that than for that step.
5) middle layer: yep fine nice step.

Additionally, the moveset wold not be a particularly nice one as you don't really reduce the cube group very quickly which could lead to a lot of S2s, and similar which are not very good for speedsolving.

Overall, it is an interesting method and could have some potential though there are definitely some issues which would nee to be addressed before I would consider it definitely "better than CFOP". (It's worth noting I don' consider CFOP to be the best method anyway other than possibly for big cubes).


----------



## DGCubes (Dec 26, 2017)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> No Problem
> Yes, that's what I suggested. Solving R layer and L layer edges (4 edges) at the same time, if done correctly can be done in 6 moves, than permutation of m slice can be done in about four. I believe this would be the fastest way to solve L8E. This is the fastest way I believe it has potential to be faster than CFOP, is that possible?



Hmm, if your estimated move counts are correct, I think there's definitely some potential here. I feel like it might not be faster than CFOP though. Comparing each step...

EO is about equal to cross in speed and move count.
F2L is probably a bit better on CFOP; yours has no rotations but is harder to find pieces (because they could be anywhere on the cube).
COLL is comparable to either OLL or PLL in speed/recognition time.
L8E seems like it would be slower than either OLL or PLL, because even if it's decently efficient, it seems hard to recognize and execute.

It doesn't really have any steps that are better than their CFOP counterparts, so personally I wouldn't say it's faster. These are just my opinions though; it's very possible that these steps could be much faster than I'm imagining.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

Thanks


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 26, 2017)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> This thread is about new methods that can be developed to solve a 3x3, to get the same averages as CFOP. Post methods that could be developed into a viable speedcubing method on this thread, or new ways to solve specific things in methods, (e.g. Last Layer variant). To Start off, I will just briefly post a new method for the 3x3 which I developed and could be as fast as CFOP
> The steps:
> 1. EO, Usually takes about 5 moves. Not sure whether to keep this step in method or not...
> 2. Blockbuild four corner-edge pairs. This step normally takes 5 moves per pair
> ...


Well, I made a post in your other thread though that appears to have been deleted so I'll rephrase here:

1) pretty standard and not too bad; only issue could be making the next few steps more inefficient
2) Are you *sure* about those movecounts? PCMS has the same movecount for F4P and that doesn't have EO in it (which usually makes it more inefficient) I think a more likely movecount would be about 24-26.
3) again pretty standard not much to comment on (though it may be worth looking at algs which don't preserve the M or S slices as well)
4) Again, are you sure about that movecount? I have dabbled a fair amount in L8E because of SSC phase 2 and I always find the movecount will be higher than that (more like 8 or so). YOU may also want to consider pseudoblocks (like UFUB in Roux) to get your projected movecount.
5) again pretty standard not much to comment on.

Another couple of points I would bring up is that this has significantly harder lookahead compared to most methods (especially CFOP) as well as a worse movegroup. This is because you don't really restrict the cube very quickly by building blocks/ filling in slices/layers.

Overall, I would say the method has some potenting though it definitely does have some issues which would need to be rectified before I would consider it "better than CFOP" (though it's worth noting I don't think that CFOP is the best current method we have anyway).

You might also find a few of the links I'm my sig reasonably useful/interesing to you.

Anyway, I hope to see more methods/improvements from you soon!


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Well, I made a post in your other thread though that appears to have been deleted so I'll rephrase here:
> 
> 1) pretty standard and not too bad; only issue could be making the next few steps more inefficient
> 2) Are you *sure* about those movecounts? PCMS has the same movecount for F4P and that doesn't have EO in it (which usually makes it more inefficient) I think a more likely movecount would be about 24-26.
> ...



Thanks, I'll do some improvements and get back to this tomorrow


----------



## Hazel (Dec 26, 2017)

This may be the wrong place to post this, but is there any speedsolving-viable way of solving CLS intuitively? I'd really like to learn it but 95 algorithms (excluding OCLLs) is quite a lot.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 26, 2017)

It depends on what you want to accomplish but I think that only the I and O cases are worth the pain.
So, 16 + 27 = 43 algs.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 26, 2017)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> Thanks, I'll do some improvements and get back to this tomorrow


 I think one thing about this is that it is really similar to SSC. Definitely check that out.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 26, 2017)

Yes, I got inspired by SSC for this method.

Actually, it's a lot more like SSC than I thought, SSC is a great method and I'll probably switch to that instead of using Roux (why do I keep on switching methods). However I still see potential in the method I made and will try to improve it.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 27, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> Big Cubes Roux
> 1. Opposite Centers
> 2. 2 opposite blocks simutaneously
> 3.CMLL
> ...



This is pretty much Lewis


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 27, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> This is pretty much Lewis


I was playing around with Lewis and I just removed the 3rd block, so yeah


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 30, 2017)

While I was messing around with Ortega, I had and idea about solving the 2x2x2 with VLS in Ortega. 
STeps:
1.Solve a V(like the HD method by @Sue Donym)
2.Do a VLS , putting the last piece in and orienting the LL.
3.PBL
Avg movecount: 18.1


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 30, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> While I was messing around with Ortega, I had and idea about solving the 2x2x2 with VLS in Ortega.
> STeps:
> 1.Solve a V(like the HD method by @Sue Donym)
> 2.Do a VLS , putting the last piece in and orienting the LL.
> ...



This method would be great to add to Ortega to get sub 3.5 averages maybe even sub 3. I might work with you create algs for this .

Quite a few scrambles can have three pieces solved already or can be done in one move, so this method is great!


----------



## Hazel (Dec 30, 2017)

1001010101001 said:


> While I was messing around with Ortega, I had and idea about solving the 2x2x2 with VLS in Ortega.
> STeps:
> 1.Solve a V(like the HD method by @Sue Donym)
> 2.Do a VLS , putting the last piece in and orienting the LL.
> ...


That's identical to the SS method


----------



## Neuro (Dec 30, 2017)

I don’t remember if it’s been suggested for SQ1 but I’ve got an interesting idea for a method

1:CSP
2:F2B
3:dedge+CP
4:L5E

CSP has quite a few cases but definitely doable. Dedge+CP is 6 algs and L5E is 12 excluding EPLL. Idk if it’d be worth it over Lin but it could be a nice improvement. Could be done w/o CSP but idk the # of algs. Any idea what that’d be?


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 30, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I don’t remember if it’s been suggested for SQ1 but I’ve got an interesting idea for a method
> 
> 1:CSP
> 2:F2B
> ...



All of these algorithms exist but I think this combination is really new.
If I can recall this correctly, full L5E with parity is 25 or 35 Algorithms(At least the website I found out about Yau-1 said so).
This could be a viable Variant to Lin. 

I think we should automaticly include CSP now in Square-1 Methods as it's easily learnable since Cale's Method exists.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 30, 2017)

Neuro said:


> I don’t remember if it’s been suggested for SQ1 but I’ve got an interesting idea for a method
> 
> 1:CSP
> 2:F2B
> ...


That's nice, will benefit Roux users like me on Squan.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 30, 2017)

Aerma said:


> That's identical to the SS method


Good point, but my method has less algs(26) compared to the Star-Sun.


----------



## Neuro (Dec 30, 2017)

Thom S. said:


> All of these algorithms exist but I think this combination is really new.
> If I can recall this correctly, full L5E with parity is 25 or 35 Algorithms(At least the website I found out about Yau-1 said so).
> This could be a viable Variant to Lin.
> 
> I think we should automaticly include CSP now in Square-1 Methods as it's easily learnable since Cale's Method exists.


IMO there’s kind of a family of F2B “methods.” Potential variants that can be exploited listed (algcount is w/ use of CSP)

-Use Lin if a dedge is in place: 6 LE+CP and 4 EPLL algs (10)
-New method if dedges not solvable by M2: 6 E+CP and 12 L5E [discount EPLL] (18)
-Use PLL if dedges are solvable w/ M2: [21-4 EPLL] (17)
***TOTAL: 45 algs***

Potential sets

-1 solved dedge, solve LE+LL: 72 (?)
-1 dedge in opp spot, solve LE+LL: 73 (?)
-New LL algset when dedges solves by M2 U2 M2 equivalent: 22 (?)

Using potential sets+PLL gives ~188 algs. 

I think a combo of all the potential methods would be pretty insane for solves but the existing methods are plenty fast, too.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 30, 2017)

Neuro said:


> IMO there’s kind of a family of F2B “methods.” Potential variants that can be exploited listed (algcount is w/ use of CSP)
> 
> -Use Lin if a dedge is in place: 6 LE+CP and 4 EPLL algs (10)
> -New method if dedges not solvable by M2: 6 E+CP and 12 L5E [discount EPLL] (18)
> ...


Straight L6E is 90 algs, I think, and only 36 if you factor in overlap with your other sets.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Dec 30, 2017)

Roux SQ1


----------



## Sue Doenim (Dec 31, 2017)

Here's a cool K4 upgrade I made.
1) Solve up to FB+centers point in like Meyer. Note that the FB will be your first layer.
2) Finish first layer-1 corner
3) Solve F3L-1 piece per layer using keyhole
4) Solve the remaining first layer corner and second layer edge like an F2L pair
5) CLL
6) Solve last third layer edge and pair another edge with a commutator.
7) Finish with K4 ELL
Probably not great. Working on an example solve.
EDIT: x' y' Rw2 U' Rw2 y' U' Rw' U' Rw F Lw' U2 Lw // F2Cz' D Lw D' F' U L D' R U Rw' L' F U2 l2 L2 U L// BlockRw 3Rw U 3Rw' Rw2 U2 3Rw2 U 3Rw Rw U2 Rw2 U Rw U' Rw U' Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw U' Rw'// CentersRw' U R' U' R' 3Rw2 U' R U R2 Rw.U2// Finish layer-Cz' D2 U R U' R' 3Uw' R U R' e R U' R' 3Uw' Uw R U R' e R U' R' Uw U R U' R' Uw//Keyhole F3L-1R U2 R' U' R U R'// Oops, I accidently solved the top one too.Uw U2 R U2 R' U' R U R' U2 R' F R F' U'// CLL 3Lw U L' U' m' U L U' L2 Lw R' U' R U L Lw' U' R' U 3Dw' U' R' Uw' U R U2 R' Uw U' R F // ELL
How do I do slice turns in 4x4 on alg.cubing.net?


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 3, 2018)

After the L/R step ( step 4b), I do a U2 of what normal cubers do. This places the white bar on yellow and vice versa. In L4E there will be no chance of the 'Dots' permutation and if there is a 'single dot' then there will be a L4E skip/ much lower movecount. This results in better cases and more skips.
This thread may be moved to the Concepts thread, fine by me.


----------



## Rcjas (Jan 3, 2018)

This is a zz method where we have to place edge to skip oll. 
You have to make f2l-1 edge and place that edge face you and apply th alg for that specific case, so there are 26 algs. Check the video so that you will have better understanding.


----------



## Rcjas (Jan 3, 2018)

This method name is ALE. A-Avinash. L-Last. E-Edge


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 3, 2018)

Rcjas said:


> This is a zz method where we have to place edge to skip oll.
> You have to make f2l-1 edge and place that edge face you and apply th alg for that specific case, so there are 26 algs.



Done before, and it's called Brooks Last Edge (BLE).


----------



## Spencer131 (Jan 3, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> After the L/R step ( step 4b), I do a U2 of what normal cubers do. This places the white bar on yellow and vice versa. In L4E there will be no chance of the 'Dots' permutation and if there is a 'single dot' then there will be a L4E skip/ much lower movecount. This results in better cases and more skips.



Can you provide an example? I'm confused.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 3, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> After the L/R step ( step 4b), I do a U2 of what normal cubers do. This places the white bar on yellow and vice versa. In L4E there will be no chance of the 'Dots' permutation and if there is a 'single dot' then there will be a L4E skip/ much lower movecount. This results in better cases and more skips.
> This thread may be moved to the Concepts thread, fine by me.


The thing is, 4C (3rd step of L6E) starts as soon as you put in the two edges. It is usually then AUFed to solve L and R because those cases closer to solved. You're just arbitrarily adding in a U2. You're using the same dots algorithm, you're just doing the <M,U> version, cancelled into it. See the CFTOP method by @Tao Yu .


----------



## Rcjas (Jan 4, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> Done before, and it's called Brooks Last Edge (BLE).


I dont know about how many methods are there because i am new to cubing so i dont know about BLE.


----------



## BECubed (Jan 4, 2018)

Is there any method for 4x4 that is kind of like CSP? I think it would be awesome to fix OLL/PLL parity errors during centers/edges, although, I'm not sure how possible that would be.


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 4, 2018)

Rcjas said:


> I dont know about how many methods are there because i am new to cubing so i dont know about BLE.



One of the rules of this thread is to do research, if your method has been proposed before. 



BECubed said:


> Is there any method for 4x4 that is kind of like CSP? I think it would be awesome to fix OLL/PLL parity errors during centers/edges, although, I'm not sure how possible that would be.



Centers last


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 4, 2018)

BECubed said:


> Is there any method for 4x4 that is kind of like CSP? I think it would be awesome to fix OLL/PLL parity errors during centers/edges, although, I'm not sure how possible that would be.


Determine wing parity during inspection, and solve the first three centres with the corresponding amount of quarter slice/wide moves. (Ideally, fully plan the first three centres during inspection as well, but this is almost impossible because most of the inspection time is already spent on tracing wings.) This avoids OLL parity.

Combining this with redux or Hoya is easy (since those start with doing the first three centres anyway) but using it with Yau is considerably harder because you have to keep track of parity throughout first three centres _and_ the three cross dedges. (And it gets even worse for Yau with half-centres, because you'd need to keep track of parity throughout F2C + 3 cross dedges + four centre bars.)

(Technical detail: actually, you don't need three centres; tracking parity up to solving two _adjacent_ centres also works. The reason is that once you have two adjacent centres solved, as long as you don't "break up" those two centres, the permutation parity of the wings won't change.)

It's basically impossible to avoid PLL parity during inspection because that depends on how edge pairing is done. You can leave pairing the last two edges to the last layer, then determine permutation parity on the fly and do an appropriate alg to finish edge pairing, but this is slower than just doing a PLL parity alg if/when it comes up (unless you have crazy fast ZBLL/1LLL recognition skills).


----------



## BECubed (Jan 4, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> One of the rules of this thread is to do research, if your method has been proposed before.
> 
> 
> 
> Centers last


...


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 4, 2018)

BECubed said:


> ...



I can't seem to find it currently, but I remember reading on a Speedsolving Wiki Page that Centers Last Methods, such as Cage, avoid Parity, as by solving the Wings and Edges first, the interchangeable Centers are always in an even permutation


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 4, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> I can't seem to find it currently, but I remember reading on a Speedsolving Wiki Page that Centers Last Methods, such as Cage, avoid Parity, as by solving the Wings and Edges first, the interchangeable Centers are always in an even permutation


This explanation is kind of wrong. The real reason is that neither "OLL parity" nor "PLL parity" are relevant to cage. There's a different type of "parity" where the last few wings to solve (in order to finish the cage) are in a 2-cycle or 4-cycle, but those have shorter and nicer algs (1-12 moves) than OLL parity (14-16 moves).


----------



## Hazel (Jan 5, 2018)

I know this isn't the right place to post this, but I don't know where else to.
So I'm switching methods again, I was using M-CELL for a while but I dislike blockbuilding. But I don't know what method I want to use, so some suggestions would be nice. I'd like a method that requires little to no blockbuilding (definitely less than Roux or Petrus) but also requires not too many algorithms (like much less than CFOP), and I'd much prefer one that doesn't end with LL like in ZZ, because I'm a bit sick of LL. Any ideas?


----------



## sqAree (Jan 5, 2018)

Aerma said:


> I know this isn't the right place to post this, but I don't know where else to.
> So I'm switching methods again, I was using M-CELL for a while but I dislike blockbuilding. But I don't know what method I want to use, so some suggestions would be nice. I'd like a method that requires little to no blockbuilding (definitely less than Roux or Petrus) but also requires not too many algorithms (like much less than CFOP), and I'd much prefer one that doesn't end with LL like in ZZ, because I'm a bit sick of LL. Any ideas?



This sounds like SSC would be perfect!


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 5, 2018)

Aerma said:


> Any ideas?


columns first method
human thistlethwaite algorithm
human kociemba algorithm
corners first methods


----------



## Hazel (Jan 5, 2018)

sqAree said:


> This sounds like SSC would be perfect!


I looked over Shadowslice's proposal and I like it! I think if I switch to SSC I'll go for the original proposal version rather than the newest one, it makes much more sense to me and requires a bit less thought haha


----------



## sqAree (Jan 5, 2018)

Aerma said:


> I looked over Shadowslice's proposal and I like it! I think if I switch to SSC I'll go for the original proposal version rather than the newest one, it makes much more sense to me and requires a bit less thought haha



The problem of the original proposal is that you are supposed to plan eo + 3 edges in inspection (which is a lot already) and later one of those edges gets unsolved anyway. But both variants use a similar number of algs (whereas wv/sls algs are a bit harder than ol5c ones iirc).


----------



## Hazel (Jan 5, 2018)

After solving a bit with SSC I got bored, so I think I'll probably just go back to CFOP and start doing an event other than 3x3


----------



## efattah (Jan 6, 2018)

Aerma said:


> I know this isn't the right place to post this, but I don't know where else to.
> So I'm switching methods again, I was using M-CELL for a while but I dislike blockbuilding. But I don't know what method I want to use, so some suggestions would be nice. I'd like a method that requires little to no blockbuilding (definitely less than Roux or Petrus) but also requires not too many algorithms (like much less than CFOP), and I'd much prefer one that doesn't end with LL like in ZZ, because I'm a bit sick of LL. Any ideas?



LMCF beginner's method variant fits the bill. Only 26 algorithms and you can get sub-10 singles. No block-building, no LL.


----------



## BECubed (Jan 6, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> This explanation is kind of wrong. The real reason is that neither "OLL parity" nor "PLL parity" are relevant to cage. There's a different type of "parity" where the last few wings to solve (in order to finish the cage) are in a 2-cycle or 4-cycle, but those have shorter and nicer algs (1-12 moves) than OLL parity (14-16 moves).


Interesting.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 6, 2018)

new method (B3pL)

1) build a 2x2x3 block
a) build a 1x1x3 block
b) place the 4 edges and 2 centers

2) solve F2l and a U layer pair
a) forge 2 pairs made only of F2l pieces, and one pair of only U layer pieces
b) place the 2 F2l pairs and the 1 unused F2l edge while orienting the U layer pair

3) solve last layer (1-look <= 972 algs (<= 486 not including mirrors))
or
a) solve the last layer corners while maintaining the U layer pair (min 53 algs, max 106 algs)
b) solve the last 3 edges (12 algs)

screamble:U B D U' D' B F' B F' U' L B' D' U F' D' L' F' B D F D' B F' U L
0)x' y
1a) F' D F2
1b) E M' U' r2 - u' R u' R U R u2 y
2a) DU' R U R' D' - F2 U2
2b) F U' L F' L' - L' U2 L y U' L' U2 L

3-1lll) U' L' U2 L2 U2 L2 U' L2 U' L2 U L U'

3a) U R U R' U R U2 R'
3b) U' L' U L' U' L' U' L' U L U L2 U'


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 7, 2018)

I've got a pretty crazy idea here. It's a hybrid between LMCF and BLD solving. 
0 [inspection]) BLD trace the corner solution, look at edges and plan out first E2L pairs
1) Execute corners using 3-style commutators
2) Execute planned E2L, finish E2L
3) L6E
Insane BLD people can memo in >10 seconds, so 3-4 seconds for corners. Add in 2-3 seconds for picking up cube and starting timer, you have 8-10 seconds for planning E2L things. You should be able to get insane stuff done. 1 looking anywhere from L10-L8E, and even more possibly. Since not a lot moves around during E2L pairs, it should be possible to get a bunch planned out. I'd like to know what you think, especially @efattah .


----------



## Hazel (Jan 7, 2018)

Proposal for a Roux-variant method called C-Turtle (pronounced like "sea turtle"):
Basically, it's Roux with about 2.5 times as many algs (but I don't think there's even one bad alg), but it solves CMLL while finishing the blocks.
1) C-Turtle
1a- First block, but the DFL corner can be any corner as long as it's oriented
1b- Second block, but the DFR corner can be any corner as long as it's oriented
2) L6C
2a- Insert one D-layer corner with CLS, 102 algs
2b- Insert the last D-layer corner while solving CP, 6 algs
2) LSE (just like in regular Roux)

I call it C-Turtle because a turtle is (no offense to turtles) basically a cute but strange lump with a shell, and after step one, the solved D-layer pieces is basically an odd lump, and the solved E-layer resembles a shell. The C part is because the solved pieces after step one resemble a C shape when the center is also solved, and also because it's a pun (like sea turtle).


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 7, 2018)

Aerma said:


> Proposal for a Roux-variant method called C-Turtle (pronounced like "sea turtle"):
> Basically, it's Roux with about 2.5 times as many algs (but I don't think there's even one bad alg), but it solves CMLL while finishing the blocks.
> 1) C-Turtle
> 1a- First block, but the DFL corner can be any corner as long as it's oriented
> ...


what if you place the DBL corner in DFR?
edit: DBR in DFL


----------



## Hazel (Jan 7, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> what if you place the DBL corner in DFR?
> edit: DBR in DFL


I meant that you could put any corners in DFR and DFL besides DBR and DBL, because DBR and DBL are needed to make the blocks.


----------



## efattah (Jan 7, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> I've got a pretty crazy idea here. It's a hybrid between LMCF and BLD solving.
> 0 [inspection]) BLD trace the corner solution, look at edges and plan out first E2L pairs
> 1) Execute corners using 3-style commutators
> 2) Execute planned E2L, finish E2L
> ...



So you are suggesting solving the corners in such a fashion that the edges are not affected...? Which allows you to use the inspection time to plan the E2L phase? If so, someone with practice can see two E2L pairs into the future (4 pieces), or if there is a triplet, then 5 pieces, most of the time at least. In fact, interestingly, E2L lookahead difficulties usually make E2L solves significantly sub-optimal. Re-doing a solve much slower I can usually do a way better job of reducing moves & optimizing. So being able to plan E2L during inspection, the savings in terms of move counts would be significant. A few times ever I had the luck of such an easy CLL skip that I could already look ahead into the E2L phase during the inspection, and those instances were my PB singles. I will also say that if I start with a cube that has the corners already solved, I can finish the cube in an astonishingly short time if I am allowed to use the 15 seconds to plan E2L.


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 7, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> I've got a pretty crazy idea here. It's a hybrid between LMCF and BLD solving.
> 0 [inspection]) BLD trace the corner solution, look at edges and plan out first E2L pairs
> 1) Execute corners using 3-style commutators
> 2) Execute planned E2L, finish E2L
> ...



This is very interesting and I can see much potential. Only question is how much time is lost due to cummutators instead of something like EG

Didn't think much about this one, but how about using your commutators to only solve the 2x2 layer(may end in faster cases, as full 3-Style Corners gives you more options) then E2L and at last a CxLL Set, which solves Part of L6E?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 7, 2018)

But,

4 commutators for corners = ~9 * 4 = 36 moves

Compared to ~13-15 moves for EG... I'm sure you can turn faster from planning more in inspection, but can you turn so fast that it overcomes a 20 move disadvantage?

In fact the movecount of this method would be comparable to that of CFOP, and I don't think you'll be able to turn faster than a CFOPper.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 7, 2018)

One interesting thing is how it would compare to normal BLD. It would definitely be different. For one, your orientation is not locked in by the centers.
You could pick an angle where at least one corner is solved. You could also solve the U layer corners an AUF away from solved. You could, like @Thom S. said, solve D corners and end with a CLL that only affects a few pieces. I'll do an example solve.
Scramble: F R L2 B R L2 F2 L U F U2 B2 L' U2 R2 L' U2 R B2 R
Inspection:
y'// I now solved one of the D layer corners
Memo: TX// I solve 2 D corners
L(Q)// All D corners are solved, shoot to fast U corner position.
CLL will be T 2-gen
R D' L' U2 L D2 L' U2 L D' R'//TX
R' U L' U' R U L U'//LQ
U R U2 R U' R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R//CLL
33 moves, but only 30 with cancellations. You'd probably see them pretty easily. I am kinda losing faith in this though.


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 7, 2018)

Teoidus said:


> But,
> 
> 4 commutators for corners = ~9 * 4 = 36 moves
> 
> ...



Valid point.
If we consider that every 3-Cycle can be executed Sub-1, at four commutators, we actually loose only two seconds from a 2x2 expert. The only Question is if higher efficiency and TPS in E2L or higher efficiency and TPS in Corners is worth it


----------



## efattah (Jan 7, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> Valid point.
> If we consider that every 3-Cycle can be executed Sub-1, at four commutators, we actually loose only two seconds from a 2x2 expert. The only Question is if higher efficiency and TPS in E2L or higher efficiency and TPS in Corners is worth it



There is even more to than that. If you don't constrain any corners and leave all of them free, you can force (for example) the blue-yellow edge to always been in the DBL position and then solve the corners in such a fashion that that fixed edge becomes solved, by solving the corners 'around' the edge. I did some random scrambles and found that almost half the time there seems to be two opposing edge pieces that are oriented and aligned. In that case you force them to the D face, solve the corners and you finish the corners with 2 edges solved (50% of the time), or 1 edge solved (every time). With a decent E2L case you can see a pair and a triplet (5 edges) into the future. Which means you can see the entire solve except for L6E, most of the time. I would even venture that in 1 in 50 solves you would be able to see the entire solve in the inspection.

If you consider that even with CFOP, lookahead challenges still limit the solve times (especially averages), so a new method with the same movecount that allows you to see further ahead into the solve would be huge. The corner commutator method would be similar to a CFOP solve where you can see the entire solve except PLL, in the inspection.

Furthermore, if my guess is true that you could see the entire solve in the inspection 1 in 50 times, you could use this method for 3BLD and try for world record singles. You would need to go to around 4 competitions to have a decent chance, but when it happens you would get a 55-60 move BLD solve, which could be finger tricked in 5-6 seconds or even faster.


----------



## Spencer131 (Jan 7, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> Valid point.
> If we consider that every 3-Cycle can be executed Sub-1, at four commutators, we actually loose only two seconds from a 2x2 expert. The only Question is if higher efficiency and TPS in E2L or higher efficiency and TPS in Corners is worth it


I think the corners could be done in 3-4 seconds by top bld solvers, but there's still no way to justify spending more than an extra second on corners.

Here is a mediocre idea I had and I dont think its on the lmcf doc. You should be able to at least predict the edges at bl, bd, and dl because 2x2 algorithms can always be done with RUF so that back section of the cube don't be affected.


----------



## efattah (Jan 7, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> I think the corners could be done in 3-4 seconds by top bld solvers, but there's still no way to justify spending more than an extra second on corners.
> 
> Here is a mediocre idea I had and I dont think its on the lmcf doc. You should be able to at least predict the edges at bl, bd, and dl because 2x2 algorithms can always be done with RUF so that back section of the cube don't be affected.



I sort of do this already... when I get an EG-1 case I know the edge that sits between the 'bar' at the BD position never changes, so I can plan to use it in the first E2L pair/triplet. But good point about RUF.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 7, 2018)

This is an idea for a zz 4x4 with inspiration from ns4 and zz-hoya, although I haven’t tried it out and it could be really bad, but here goes. 

1. Solve your F and B colours and place on L and R (so I have blue and green for zz on 3x3, so I’ll solve them into L and R).

2. Solve your line edges and 2 other oriented but random edges into FL and BL.

3. Solve D and B centre and place the FL edge between them. (Also, if possible, pair up another edge while doing so.)

4. Solve two edges. Place one oriented in BR and one oriented in DF. 

5. Pair the last 6 edges and do Petrus style eo. OLL parity here.

6. ZZF2L.

7. COLL and EPLL+parity.

Example solve coming tomorrow, when I have time. 

Honestly, for all I know this could be groundbreaking or completely stupid and should be buried. Please say if it is either. Also, first method idea!


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Jan 8, 2018)

How about this method for solving a 2x2, it may be dumb, but it may be good.....
1. Orient corners average 5 moves
1a) 2 adjacent corners oriented 
1b) One out of 72 algorithims
2. Solve corners don't know how many moves
Don't know how many algs, or if it's doable.

There's already a method like this called Sortega except you sort the corners and then do a pbl, which I would enjoy however it is very hard to predict the PBL, while this method you do a bunch of it is easy to predict your last algorithim in inspection. Tell me what you think


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 8, 2018)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> How about this method for solving a 2x2, it may be dumb, but it may be good.....
> 1. Orient corners average 5 moves
> 1a) 2 adjacent corners oriented
> 1b) One out of 72 algorithims
> ...


This method is one of the methods that gets reproposed every once in a while. It's not really viable due to the second step's algcount. More than a few hundred. The HD method fixes these problems. In HD, you orient all corners, like in Guimond, but you force Vs on both sides. Then you use one of 36 algs to solve. Check the link in my signature for some more details.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Jan 8, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> This method is one of the methods that gets reproposed every once in a while. It's not really viable due to the second step's algcount. More than a few hundred. The HD method fixes these problems. In HD, you orient all corners, like in Guimond, but you force Vs on both sides. Then you use one of 36 algs to solve. Check the link in my signature for some more details.



ThankYou!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 8, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Example solve coming tomorrow, when I have time.


It is tomorrow, and I have time:
F2 R UW R2 BW L UW’ RW’ F2 RW// F and B centres, 10/10
U R UW2 R’ L’ UW2 U R’ z R’ F2 LW’ RW’ U D’ // Line edges and 2 random and oriented edges, 14/24
R B’ L U’ L F’ RW L’ U’ l2 U2 l2 L D’ L’ // D and B centres and position oriented edge, 15/39
R’ UW’ R U R’ F R’ F’ R UW R2 U2 R2 U2 R2// Solve 2 edges, place at BR and FL oriented. FL to allow for centre building, 15/54
RW U’ RW’ L F’ RW’ F2 RW L’// Solve last two centres and place edge in DF oriented, 10/64
F’ UW’ F’ U2 F UW L’ U’ L R U2 R’ UW’ R U R’ F R’ F’ R UW// Pair edges, 21/85
R U’ R2 F R B’ U2 RW U2 RW’ U2 RW’ D2 RW D2 RW’ B2 RW B2 RW’ D2// Orientate edges + Oll parity. Accidentally placed mis-oreinted edge in BL at the start, 21/106
y’ U’ L’ U’ L R U’ R’ U’ R’ U’ R U’ L2 U’ L U2 L’ U L R’ U’ R U’ R’ U R// ZZF2L, 26/132
U’ R U2 R D R’ U2 R D’ R2 U2 R U R’ U’ RW2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 RW2 U R U’ R’// Last Layer, 27/159

Just for reference, this is like my second solve with this method, and I got a 142 mover with yau on the same scramble, so a bit more practice, and it could be possible. Or I'm really inneficient on 4x4. And I also lost the scramble. Sorry.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 13, 2018)

new method (BFLE)

1) create a 2x2x3 block in DB
this step should be seen in inspection (9-15 moves)

2) solve the 1x2x3 block in FD
solve the block using intuition (13-21 moves)

3) LL-eo
use a speed optimal algorithm that solves everything in the U layer ignoring eo (1/496 algs)(7-15? moves)

4) eo
solve eo using a speed optimal algorithm (1/8 skip chance)(1/3 algs)(0-14 moves)(11.25 moves avg)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 13, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (BFLE)
> 
> 1) create a 2x2x3 block in DB
> this step should be seen in inspection (9-15 moves)
> ...


Not the best idea. First of all, your style of F2L is not super feasible. One looking a 2x2x3 is not easy. Otherwise we'd have people making XXCrosses every solve. Second, you're using a giant algset to force a tiny, bad set of cases. You're better off with almost any other LL method.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 13, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> It's not really viable due to the second step's algcount. More than a few hundred.


Actually, it's "only" about 150 if I'm counting it right (reduced by AUFs both before and after the alg). It's _possibly_ viable, but there isn't much reason to use it over EG.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 13, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> Second, you're using a giant algset to force a tiny, bad set of cases


the reason I'm using this set off ll algs is that, for the first set of ll-eo, you aren't held back from the edges orientation, the algorithm will be better and more efficient the advantage for the second step of eoll is that there is a 1/8 skip chance. i was afraid that the 2x2x3 block would be a bit hard to conceive in 15 seconds, but if enough practice went into seeing the block and how pieces intertwine, we should be able to find a way to make this happen.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (BFLE)
> 
> 1) create a 2x2x3 block in DB
> this step should be seen in inspection (9-15 moves)
> ...


So this is basically freefop with 493 (I think, because same as zbll) algs then eo. You’re better off doing oll/pll, as pure edge flip algs aren’t very good. I guess you get good skip chances, but vanilla cfop is better. As is vanilla roux or zz.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> You’re better off doing oll/pll, as pure edge flip algs aren’t very good.


i know pure edge flips are not that good. this is what caused me to think of ignoring the eo until unavoidable. this allows for better algs for LL-eo, so if you get a skip, it will be better than using zbll when edges are already oriented. i could be wrong on this, but i always thought zbll was 496 algs. am i wrong?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> i know pure edge flips are not that good. this is what caused me to think of ignoring the eo until unavoidable. this allows for better algs for LL-eo, so if you get a skip, it will be better than using zbll when edges are already oriented.


 I don’t see the logic in this tbh, as FRUR’U’F’ is a lot better than doing the pure edge flip, and the chance of a skip is exactly the same. And zbll algs are already developed and fast, so I do see why without caring for eo the algs could be better, but it won’t be significant.


Abram Lookadoo said:


> i could be wrong on this, but i always thought zbll was 496 algs. am i wrong?


 I just checked the wiki, it says 493.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I don’t see the logic in this tbh, as FRUR’U’F’ is a lot better than doing the pure edge flip, and the chance of a skip is exactly the same. And zbll algs are already developed and fast, so I do see why without caring for eo the algs could be better, but it won’t be significant


there are some algorithms (≈7/8) that are faster if you ignore edge orientation. the reason i prefer LL-eo → eo is that nearly all solving is done is when there is less to mess up. and to counter the fact that zblls are more developed here is a website with every single ll case (17 moves or less) and how fast it is. (http://birdflu.lar5.com/?pos=____&list=algs)


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> i know pure edge flips are not that good. this is what caused me to think of ignoring the eo until unavoidable. this allows for better algs for LL-eo, so if you get a skip, it will be better than using zbll when edges are already oriented. i could be wrong on this, but i always thought zbll was 496 algs. am i wrong?



> I know the pure edge flips aren't good
> Let's propose a method with pure edge flips!

?????????


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 14, 2018)

New 4x4x4 Reduction method( this might have been thought of before, but don't think I am copying as I thought of it myself)
1. 2 opposite centers
2. Pair 6 edges and put them on the R and L slice ( 2 or 3 moves each)
3. Remaining centers
4.Pair remaining edges using 6- reduction method 
5.3x3 stage
Basically I modified centers first and had a more efficient edge pairing.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 14, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> 3. Remaining centers


This step sucks because it's extremely heavy on slice moves.

Edge pairing after centres are done takes ~3.5 moves per dedge, compared to ~3 moves per dedge if you do it between the first two centres and the other centres, which means that you're saving (3.5−3)×6 = 3 moves on edge pairing compared to plain reduction, and saving 3 moves doesn't make up for how you need to use slice moves throughout the centres.

(I like the idea though, and I've experimented with keeping oriented edges on L and R to make transition into EOline easier, but the centres are just impossible to do quickly.)


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (BFLE)
> 
> 1) create a 2x2x3 block in DB
> this step should be seen in inspection (9-15 moves)
> ...



Not saying that this method is good, but try your EO with FR and/or FD flipped, as they may or may not have better pure flip Algorithms


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

Teoidus said:


> > I know the pure edge flips aren't good
> > Let's propose a method with pure edge flips!
> 
> ?????????


the idea here is that edge orientation could still be a problem when other pieces are unsolved, and if edges are solved finger tricks are less used. so instead this method hopes for the 1/8 chance of getting a skip on the last step.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the idea here is that edge orientation could still be a problem when other pieces are unsolved, and if edges are solved finger tricks are less used. so instead this method hopes for the 1/8 chance of getting a skip on the last step.


So this is a method built for singles. 1/8 sounds high, but recognition would be bad for the edges, and you’re more likely to not get a skip in an ao 5 than you are, then you have bad flip algs to do. CFCE is probably better, and CFOP is definitely better than CFCE. (And roux and zz are better than CFOP)


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> So this is a method built for singles. 1/8 sounds high, but recognition would be bad for the edges, and you’re more likely to not get a skip in an ao 5 than you are, then you have bad flip algs to do. CFCE is probably better, and CFOP is definitely better than CFCE


yes, this method was made with singles in mind.

is it really proven that cfop is better than cfce?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 14, 2018)

1/8 skip chance means nothing without context

Here's a method I call (new Array(4).fill(0).map(e => String.fromCharCode(32 + 95 * Math.random())).join("")):

1. Solve everything but the last corner
2. Solve the last corner

100% SKIP CHANCE GUYS!!!!!!! THE LAST STEP IS GUARANTEED TO SKIP.

OMG. THIS IS A METHOD MADE FOR SINGLES


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

Teoidus said:


> 1/8 skip chance means nothing without context
> 
> Here's a method I call (new Array(4).fill(String.fromCharCode(32 + 95 * Math.random()).join("")):
> 
> ...



i did give the 1/8 chance context, as an eo skip.

your method is really bad.
also the name is hard to pronounce.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 14, 2018)

But why have 7/8 * pure edge flip movecount + 1/8 * 0 when you can have like, on average, 5 in normal petrus?

If you want 7/8 * pure edge flip movecount to be on average the same or better than 5,
the average movecount of pure edge flip algorithms (with AUF) has to be at most 40 / 7 or 5.71428...

Do you really think LL pure edge flip algorithms average 5.7 moves?

Or, more succintly put
you could just use petrus


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> yes, this method was made with singles in mind.
> 
> is it really proven that cfop is better than cfce?


Firstly, there's no point for methods with singles in mind. It'll never be used at a high level. Also, try CFCE for a month, then CFOP. Which one is better? CFOP - better recognition, better algs. Simple. And I agree with @Teoidus . Petrus is better. And the point of his bad method was to illustrate that skip methods aren't good. Especially if you depend on skips.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 14, 2018)

The simple calculation with petrus EO does not even take into account the astronomical amount of effort you spend forcing a pure flip ELL. In fact, with that same effort, I'm pretty sure you can just solve the LL in one alg...


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

Teoidus said:


> In fact, with that same effort, I'm pretty sure you can just solve the LL in one alg...


it would take more effort because the algorithms are longer.

if you ignore eo, it will almost always result in a better algorithm, and if paired with a skip it will be faster than if you solve eo then use one alg, or even get an eo skip in petrus, and finish with zbll.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 14, 2018)

Yes, but notice you already lost on average 5 moves vs petrus's EO to do your pure flips. (pure flip ELL generously averages 10 moves)

So unless you are saying that your algorithms are so good that they average less than 9 moves (ZBLL averages around 14), I would be very surprised if your method is any more efficient than petrus.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

Teoidus said:


> average 9 moves


out of 12 tests the average for speed optimal algs is 12.25 htm
so it is more efficient if you get a skip for eo


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 14, 2018)

Sure, and it's more efficient if you get a skip in Petrus, too. It's more efficient for any method if they get a skip, of course, but on average, your method is less efficient.

This is also ignoring the fact that blockbuilding the F2L without EO is more awkward than with EO (where it's entirely RU).


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

Teoidus said:


> This is also ignoring the fact that blockbuilding the F2L without EO is more awkward than with EO (where it's entirely RU).


this is not a fact, it's an opinion.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 14, 2018)

Not really.

Please post a reasonable sample of example solves of an F2L in your method that you find ergonomic and comparable in efficiency to petrus's RU F2L.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> this is not a fact, it's an opinion.


It is a fact in 95% of cases.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

Teoidus said:


> Please post a reasonable sample of example solves of an F2L in your method that you find ergonomic and comparable in efficiency to petrus's RU F2L.



(hand) scramble r U2 R' U M L' U L U F U F l' U2 l F' U F2
U R U2 R2' F R F' L' U' L U2 l' U' l
(hand) scramble F R U2 F U F' R' U R' F R U2 F2 U2 l' U' l U' F' U
L' U' L U' F U' M' U M U' l' U' l U2 M' U2 M


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> this is not a fact, it's an opinion.



This time, you are wrong. F2L with EO done is nicer


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> This time, you are wrong. F2L with EO done is nicer


the reason is that eo is already solved, compared to if its not.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 14, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> (hand) scramble r U2 R' U M L' U L U F U F l' U2 l F' U F2


U R U2 R2' F R F' L' U' L U2 l' U' l//Finish F2L, 14/14
U' R' L' U2 L U L' U2 R U' L//Solve corners, permute edges, 11/25
38 in total, as optimal for adjacent eo is 13.

Petrus style (same scramble)
L' U2 L2 F' L' y'//EO, 5/5
U' R' U R U' R2 U R2 U2 R' U R U R' U R U' R'//F2L, 18/23
R2 U' R2 F' D2 B U2 B' D2 F U R2// LL, 12/35.

All this is using optimal algs for LL. 3 moves less, with a lot of <RU>.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> U' R' L' U2 L U L' U2 R U' L//Solve corners, permute edges, 11/25


the speed optimal ll solution for mine is R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 L R -- R u R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 u' U' R' -- U2
37 htm, 33 atm


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 14, 2018)

Speed optimal ll for the petrus approach: R' U L' U' L R U2 L' U L U L' U L, 14 htm. Add the 5 moves for eo, that's 19.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 14, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Speed optimal ll for the petrus approach: R' U L' U' L R U2 L' U L U L' U L, 14 htm. Add the 5 moves for eo, that's 19


the speed optimal alg for this is R' U R U F' U R' U R F U F' U F
but+18 for f2l and +1 for auf, and you get 38 htm (37 with cancelations)


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 14, 2018)

[QUOTE="new method (BFLE)

1) create a 2x2x3 block in DB
this step should be seen in inspection (9-15 moves)

2) solve the 1x2x3 block in FD
solve the block using intuition (13-21 moves)

3) LL-eo
use a speed optimal algorithm that solves everything in the U layer ignoring eo (1/496 algs)(7-15? moves)

4) eo
solve eo using a speed optimal algorithm (1/8 skip chance)(1/3 algs)(0-14 moves)(11.25 moves avg)"[/QUOTE]
Just use Petrus


----------



## SigiVick (Jan 17, 2018)

elrog said:


> *Please read before posting*
> 
> I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed. This is a place to post them. I have come up with many ideas and didn't want to post a new thread for every one of them when most don't get very far. Perhaps if an idea gets very far, it may deserve its own thread, but until then, it should go here.
> 
> ...


----------



## SigiVick (Jan 17, 2018)

Ok, so I'm completely new to this forum, but I think this is the right place to post this:

I was just sitting with my 3x3 doing some solves (Roux) when I got an idea for an alternative way of doing LSE.


Do EO while solving the DF/DB edges.


EPLL (H-perm, U-perm, Z-perm)
I think doing an EPLL could be faster than doing 4c, and solving the DF DB edges is probably faster than 4b.

Does anyone think this might have potential??


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 17, 2018)

Firstly, did you mean to post it twice? You’ll probably want to delete one of the posts. Secondly, I’m pretty sure that this has been proposed many times, but something called “eolr” is definitely superior. You solve eo and place the L and R edges on D, which gives you a U/U’, M2 U/U’ then permute the last 4 edges. There’s another method called ZBRoux, where you solve eo and the two D edges before cmll, then you finish with a zbll alg, which is similar (or the same, not sure) in terms of movecount and probably speed.


----------



## SigiVick (Jan 17, 2018)

Ok, I didn't know about that.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 17, 2018)

Yeah, it's definitely not better. For one, when solving EO and DF DB, you need to also solve the centers, so it would probably be harder than EOLR. Secondly, all of the EPLLs are actually setups to a 4C, so 4C is more efficent.
Edit: oh yeah, welcome also


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 17, 2018)

SigiVick said:


> Ok, so I'm completely new to this forum, but I think this is the right place to post this:
> 
> I was just sitting with my 3x3 doing some solves (Roux) when I got an idea for an alternative way of doing LSE.
> 
> ...



This is one of the most frequently proposed methods, but noone ends up doing it seriously(Except for one guy I have seen on a Tao Yu video)


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

new method (BPSL)

1) 2x2x2 block
create a 2x2x2 block in DBL

2) pairs
a) build 2 of the 3 f2l pairs

b (if adjacent when solved) place the two pairs along with the shared edge piece
---(if not adjacent when solved) place the two pairs and any D layer edge piece in place

3) square
solve f2l while tracking the edge permutation of the last layer

4) ollep
solve oll while permuting the edges (1/331? algs)

5) cpll
(1/12 skip) if not solved permute the last corners (1/4 algs)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 18, 2018)

I don’t like the way of doing f2l and I’m confused to how you’ll track the edge pieces’ permutation, but I do like the idea of ollep, although I have no idea how good or bad the recognition/algs are (I feel like algs would be good and recognition bad), although there’s the question of what’s better out of cpll and epll (when comparing to ollcp).


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I don’t like the way of doing f2l and I’m confused to how you’ll track the edge pieces’ permutation, but I do like the idea of ollep, although I have no idea how good or bad the recognition/algs are (I feel like algs would be good and recognition bad), although there’s the question of what’s better out of cpll and epll (when comparing to ollcp).


i am solving f2l this way so that if one pair is bad you could solve the other two.

you track the ep so you can just look at the oll and already know the ep

the full ollcp/ollep will take too long to calculate, but epll is better than cpll. (both have the same skip chance)


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 18, 2018)

or you could just use petrus


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 18, 2018)

What I mean with the f2l, is why can’t I just do cfop style f2l? And secondly, you say “you track the ep so you can look at the oll and already know the ep”, but how do you actually do that? I guess if you do phasing ignoring eo, that would reduce the cases to 3, but (from what I know) there’s no way you can reduce the cube and keep ep like you can with cp. Similarly, tracking the “edge permutation” will probably be unnecessary, like tracking cp. Just recognise it. Unless it’s 2gr.

[EDIT] made it better.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> What I mean with the f2l, is why can’t I just do cfop style f2l? And secondly, you say “you track the ep so you can look at the oll and already know the ep”, but how do you actually do that? I guess if you do phasing ignoring eo, that would reduce the cases to 3, but (from what I know) there’s no way you can reduce the cube and keep ep like you can with cp. Similarly, tracking the “edge permutation” will probably be unnecessary.


i don't like cfop f2l, it is not flexible enough

you have to track each individual edge, or track them like 3 gen cp tracking, knowing witch 2 have to swap, and what happens to the swap for every possible move.

edge permutation has a 1/4 chance to involve looking at 3 sides (if you dont know corner permutation)
thats why im tracking it


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jan 18, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> i don't like cfop f2l, it is not flexible enough


so why not use a petrus/roux/zz/pcms/m-cell/freefop style f2l

ollep probably isnt the best idea, as if you use oll you only need to see 2 sides but the increase in recognition time for identifying the 3rd side will take too long to be wroth it as cpll isnt exactly amazing


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 18, 2018)

I see what you’re saying, but petrus f2l is very flexible, as is zz, and kind of roux (well, blocks), and zbll works well with all 3 (as does ollcp with roux in pinkie pie), so I don’t see what this method has over these three. Or cfop.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

genericcuber666 said:


> so why not use a petrus/roux/zz/pcms/m-cell/freefop style f2l
> 
> ollep probably isnt the best idea, as if you use oll you only need to see 2 sides but the increase in recognition time for identifying the 3rd side will take too long to be wroth it as cpll isnt exactly amazing



petrus oriente edges takes too long too recognize
roux trying to top
pcms L8e is hard to navigate
m-cell trying to top
freefop 2x3x3 block cant be seen from inspection

for ollep i am tracking ep from the last step. it's suprisingly easy so far


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I see what you’re saying, but petrus f2l is very flexible, as is zz, and kind of roux (well, blocks), and zbll works well with all 3 (as does ollcp with roux in pinkie pie), so I don’t see what this method has over these three. Or cfop.


zz too many regrips for f2l
pinkie pie roux reducing to <M2,U> too early is less efficient


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 18, 2018)

<sort of rant type thing>
Petrus eo is actually very easy to recognise. Very easy. It takes me two seconds at most to do petrus eo. My comp pb is sub 10 and with petrus, so trust me on this. ZZ f2l regrips aren’t a massive issue for me. I regrip barely more than a cfoper, and I don’t rotate. Freefop and petrus can be used in conjunction with each other, as long as you know oll. I get your doubts about pcms. Pinkie pie can be very fast, Kian Mansour thinks so and he is definitely the best roux solver. I kinda know mcell, but I know that it could probably be fast. 

Using your logic though: bpsl - awkward f2l with weird lookahead. The 2x2x2 and the two pairs can’t be seen in inspection.

</sort of rant type thing>


----------



## Noa (Jan 18, 2018)

Original post
I've thought about a way to do LL + LS quite quickly. My idea is to orient and permute the corners while inserting LS, then there's 4 OLLs you can get from there(one of them being OLL solved completely). Then use ELL to orient and permute the LL edges. That would be LS, OLL and PLL solved in 2 algorithms.

I just can't find a method that orients and permutes the corners while inserting LS. If anyboody know of such methods please tell me.

It would also be great if somebody could teach me how you find all the possible cases. E.g. how would you go about finding all the possible cases for PLL.
This is if there isn't any method out there that meets my requirements, I will maybe be able to make it myself.

2nd post
I have done some work and I am pretty sure, that for a method that orients and permutes the LL corners while inserting LS, while egnoring LL edges, there wil be 324 unique cases. I haven't done the math, since i don't know how, therefore I am not sure if there is only 324 cases. If anyone could do the math i would really appreciate it.

I did this by using Cube Explorer and making it figure out a lot of generators for cases where the LS corner and edge are paired up and in LL right about the slot they're supposed to go in to. I let it go on to find about 130.000 generators, out of those 130.000 there were 324 unique cases. But I'm still not sure if there are more.

I think, but I'm not sure that i am the first to do this method, I was thinking of calling it HVLS(Hansen Vejlø Last Slot((Hansen for the guy whom helped me make this method and Vejlø for myself)). An alternative name would be COPLS(Corners Permutation and Orientation Last Slot), OPCLS(Orientation and Permutation of Corners Last Slot) or CLLLS(Corners Last Layer Last Slot).
If I'm not the first to come up with this, please feel free to correct me, i will gladly credit him/her.

I will be learning these 324 algorithms over this and next year(I'm not that fast a learning algorithms, so it'll take a while), if there is found more cases I will certainly learn those as well. I hope this will become a replacement for the normal LS + OLL + PLL, though the Alg. count is quite high.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jan 18, 2018)

@Abram Lookadoo pro tip, use your method for a week, then if there is a flaw fix it, if not then post it here. Dont post unfinished methods. thanks.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Using your logic though: bpsl - awkward f2l with weird lookahead. The 2x2x2 and the two pairs can’t be seen in inspection.


you will have to track one pair and hope another jumps right into your vision


PapaSmurf said:


> It takes me two seconds at most to do petrus eo.


two seconds is a really long time for speedsolving


PapaSmurf said:


> ZZ f2l regrips aren’t a massive issue for me


it must just be the way I'm forming the sides then


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

genericcuber666 said:


> @Abram Lookadoo pro tip, use your method for a week, then if there is a flaw fix it, if not then post it here. Dont post unfinished methods. thanks.


i do not see any flaws with my methed

and you're not a pro. 
you do not get paid for doing this.
this is not a pro tip.


----------



## genericcuber666 (Jan 18, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> i do not see any flaws with my methed
> 
> and you're not a pro.
> you do not get paid for doing this.
> this is not a pro tip.


in that case let me (a pro) help you!



Abram Lookadoo said:


> 1) 2x2x2 block
> create a 2x2x2 block in DBL


this step is fine nothing to say about it




Abram Lookadoo said:


> 2) pairs
> a) build 2 of the 3 f2l pairs
> 
> b (if adjacent when solved) place the two pairs along with the shared edge piece
> ---(if not adjacent when solved) place the two pairs and any D layer edge piece in place




this is the route of alot of your problems for the method (in my pro opinion), in the two best cases you will have df or dr unsolved, however you have solved 3 pairs at this point making it awkward to do the next step.




Abram Lookadoo said:


> 3) square
> solve f2l while tracking the edge permutation of the last layer



again, this step is akward due to what has been solved previously, in adition ep tracking is not nice, i use zzll which involves phasing, which is tracking two ll peices in ls, however adding a third edge and F moves would mean having to see a third side and would vastly reduces lookahead.

if you want to use your ll improve this step (but dont use your ll because...)




Abram Lookadoo said:


> 4) ollep
> solve oll while permuting the edges (1/331? algs)
> 
> 5) cpll
> (1/12 skip) if not solved permute the last corners (1/4 algs)




this ll is not good, if you wanted to track something in your 3rd step tracking eo and forcing zbll would be better, it seems your overestimating how good zblls, ignoring eo, are. furthermore recognizing zblls without eo will be slow. VERY slow. 





tl;dr
the first step is good, but petrus follows up better


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

genericcuber666 said:


> in that case let me (a pro) help you!


are you really paid for making and calculating the usefulness of new methods.


genericcuber666 said:


> this is the route of alot of your problems for the method (in my pro opinion), in the two best cases you will have df or dr unsolved, however you have solved 3 pairs at this point making it awkward to do the next step.


all the cases are the same either y-rotated or mirrored or both. there is none better than another.


genericcuber666 said:


> again, this step is akward due to what has been solved previously, in adition ep tracking is not nice, i use zzll which involves phasing, which is tracking two ll peices in ls, however adding a third edge and F moves would mean having to see a third side and would vastly reduces lookahead.
> if you want to use your ll improve this step (but dont use your ll because...)


this step is not awkward at all. after you complete the previous step you are left with the same as if you are using m-cell. for the ep tracking, you still have to follow only two pieces and with each set of moves the pieces you follow change. and with enough practice can be read this fluently. and in tracking i mean following their permutation through the step so you can use the knowlage for the next step


genericcuber666 said:


> this ll is not good, if you wanted to track something in your 3rd step tracking eo and forcing zbll would be better, it seems your overestimating how good zblls, ignoring eo, are. furthermore recognizing zblls without eo will be slow. VERY slow.


i am not even using ll-eo in this method at all. they are however faster than zblls (if you get an eo skip)


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 18, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new method (BPSL)
> 
> 1) 2x2x2 block
> create a 2x2x2 block in DBL
> ...



Like said, your way of doing F2L is a bit weird but there is one thing I can't stand


Abram Lookadoo said:


> any D layer edge piece in place


I mean, there are situations, where this is usegul to reduce Algorithm sets, but usually it's a bad idea. Think about it, why would you solve a piece in the wrong spot to solve it again? It doesn't make sense.



Abram Lookadoo said:


> i do not see any flaws with my methed



You know the saying
Four eyes see more then two
? We can see flaws you can't see and we try to help you optimize your method by telling you them


Abram Lookadoo said:


> they are however faster than zblls (if you get an eo skip)


Do we have to go over this again? If you have a faster time when getting a skip you should either have ridiculous skip chances(kind of like in ZZ-CT) or you have a considerably worse step. The Content of your sentense compares to the following
I don't learn OLL and PLL because I could just get a LL skip and don't need them then.



Abram Lookadoo said:


> and you're not a pro.
> you do not get paid for doing this.
> this is not a pro tip.


Backstabbing: Are you a pro in reading the profession and salary of a person just by seing his post?



Abram Lookadoo said:


> are you really paid for making and calculating the usefulness of new methods.


Indeed I do. I am Part of the 
Totally Official ,Not A Gag National International Rubik's Cube And Other Twisty Puzzles New Methology Corporation TM and I get paid 6 dollars an hour to tslk to people about their methods. But let's ask you 
Would you get paid if you talk to your customers the way you talk to us?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 18, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> Like said, your way of doing F2L is a bit weird but there is one thing I can't stand


you could solve it like m-cell if you want


Thom S. said:


> I mean, there are situations, where this is usegul to reduce Algorithm sets, but usually it's a bad idea. Think about it, why would you solve a piece in the wrong spot to solve it again? It doesn't make sense.


you never place a wrong edge in this method. it says "any D layer edge piece in place". it never says put it in any place. it means solve the D-edge


Thom S. said:


> You know the saying
> Four eyes see more then two
> ? We can see flaws you can't see and we try to help you optimize your method by telling you them


i have never heard that saying, so i don't know it.


Thom S. said:


> Do we have to go over this again? If you have a faster time when getting a skip you should either have ridiculous skip chances(kind of like in ZZ-CT) or you have a considerably worse step. The Content of your sentense compares to the following
> I don't learn OLL and PLL because I could just get a LL skip and don't need them then.


this is not a good comparison. 1/15552 is too unlikely to happen in a tournament, while 1/8 is.


Thom S. said:


> Backstabbing: Are you a pro in reading the profession and salary of a person just by seing his post?


i just can not stand that phrase, and feel the need to counter them strongly. and no to the second part.


Thom S. said:


> Indeed I do. I am Part of the
> Totally Official ,Not A Gag National International Rubik's Cube And Other Twisty Puzzles New Methology Corporation TM and I get paid 6 dollars an hour to tslk to people about their methods. But let's ask you
> Would you get paid if you talk to your customers the way you talk to us?


never heard of the corporation.
i don't get paid for this, so i don't know.


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 18, 2018)

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or if you're just this dense lol


----------



## Tao Yu (Jan 18, 2018)

Noa said:


> I've thought about a way to do LL + LS quite quickly. My idea is to orient and permute the corners while inserting LS, then there's 4 OLLs you can get from there(one of them being OLL solved completely). Then use ELL to orient and permute the LL edges. That would be LS, OLL and PLL solved in 2 algorithms.
> 
> I just can't find a method that orients and permutes the corners while inserting LS. If anyboody know of such methods please tell me.
> 
> ...



You could first make a pair and then use WVCP to orient and permute the corners.

You should check out COALL. It's somewhat similar to your idea.


----------



## Arc (Jan 19, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> zz too many regrips for f2l





PapaSmurf said:


> ZZ f2l regrips aren’t a massive issue for me. I regrip barely more than a cfoper, and I don’t rotate.



My 2 cents here.
Try doing linear blocks. Plan all the way through EOLine + DL in inspection and then track one of the two LB pairs and then build it (which is like 7/8 times pure RU, 1/8 maybe one L), insert it and open slot (make sure you don't hide pieces to the other pair though). Finish up your second pair (always pure RU) and insert it with a single L. Continue as if you had just done the rotation after Petrus EO.

If there's something really super duper easy for RB, I'll just build RB first (which is a lot more L than building LB first unfortunately but it's still not switchy which is where the regrips are from) and then do a z. I'm y2 z neutral (in general, for ZZ I _only_ solve red top/white front) so it's not weird for me at all. Might be weird if you're not z neutral at all.

A common misconception is that it's less efficient to do this. Well there is _some_ truth to that. What is not true is that it is inherently less efficient to do one block at a time. However you are much more restricted on which pairs you build, meaning you have fewer options and are less likely to have an easier case available. That is where efficiency drops a little. But in reality, are you really looking at all 8 possible pairs after EOLine to find the most efficient? Nah you just go with the first you see, otherwise you end up with huge pauses.


----------



## Noa (Jan 19, 2018)

Tao Yu said:


> You could first make a pair and then use WVCP to orient and permute the corners.
> 
> You should check out COALL. It's somewhat similar to your idea.


Yes! this is just what I'm looking for, but when I open the WVCP page there isn't any pictures of the cases.


----------



## Noa (Jan 20, 2018)

When making a new method, how do you find all the possible cases?

Like if i wanted to find all the PLL cases, how would i do that?


----------



## Tao Yu (Jan 20, 2018)

Noa said:


> Yes! this is just what I'm looking for, but when I open the WVCP page there isn't any pictures of the cases.



I don't know how to fix that unfortunately, so you are probably going to have to either do them backwards to figure out what cases they solve, or try to make your own Google sheet of them.

I might try getting them into my alg trainer at some point.



Noa said:


> When making a new method, how do you find all the possible cases?
> 
> Like if i wanted to find all the PLL cases, how would i do that?



I think you can do this with HARCS, but I don't know how to do it myself. I think @Arc or @mDiPalma might be able to help you though.

HARCS link: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/harcs-jarcs-replacement-cube-solver.63241/


----------



## rebucato314 (Jan 21, 2018)

I'm thinking of new ways to use TTLLs with CFOP:

Option 1:
1. Ribbon (Cross + one 2nd layer edge)
2. F2L-1 + EO
3. TSLE (only 25 algs since EO is done)
4. TTLL (72 algs+ 21 PLL algs)
I think it is not superior to ZZ-CT, but it could be a stepping stone to it when switching to ZZ-CT or the following option from CFOP.

Option 2:
1. Cross
2. F2L-1
3. Solve orientation and last F2L edge (unknown number of algs)
4. TTLL (72 algs+ 21 PLL algs)
This creates some sort of "CFOP-CT" method. I hope somebody could look into how many algs step 3 has. If it has <500 algs, maybe it could become a better method than CFOP or even ZB. A stepping stone would be to insert the edge and do TOLS, with 173 algs.

Option 3:
1. Cross
2. 1st layer - 1 corner
3. 2nd layer with keyhole
4. Beginner TOLS (solve edge orientation with 1 alg, then corner orientation with
sune and 2 TSLE cases)
5. 2-look TTLL (solve corners, solve edges with U perm, 8 algs)
Again, more of a stepping stone than a full method. The alg count is very low, so it might be possible to use this as a beginner method. It would be even better if someone can find a way to do corners for TTLL with 1 or 2 algs.

I'll do example solves if I have time.


----------



## JTay (Jan 21, 2018)

Howdy @Quinson, I'm the creator of Ribbon. I still believe TOLS + TTLL is the best approach for LSLL. For a three look approach, I think the best thing to do is ELS, TOLS with edges oriented, and TTLL. Also, unfortunately, inserting edge + full orientation is approximately 1300 algs, which doesn't seem practical when you consider how little effort it takes to insert the edge early in the solve.


----------



## rebucato314 (Jan 22, 2018)

JTay said:


> Howdy @Quinson, I'm the creator of Ribbon. I still believe TOLS + TTLL is the best approach for LSLL. For a three look approach, I think the best thing to do is ELS, TOLS with edges oriented, and TTLL. Also, unfortunately, inserting edge + full orientation is approximately 1300 algs, which doesn't seem practical when you consider how little effort it takes to insert the edge early in the solve.



Oh... Well option 2 is off the table now
By the way, are all of the TOLS algs optimised? I was wondering if there is a way to solve it more intuitively like ColorfulPockets did with TSLE


----------



## JTay (Jan 23, 2018)

Yes, I've put a lot of work into optimizing them, they should be on the Ribbon page and be pretty well updated. There isn't really an intuitive way of doing it, it's much better to just treat them like learning more OLL algs.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 27, 2018)

1. EO
2. Corner Orientation( without affecting edges) 2 look(top bottom)
3. Orient everything else( opposite colours) 1 look
4.Permute everything 4 look
You can basically spam TPS


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 27, 2018)

new ll method OLLPP

1) solve oll while phasing both edges and corners using 1/509 algs (phasing corners is forcing a solved or diagonal corner permutation). 

2) then solve the rest using 1/5 algs. this includes a 1/8 skip chance and a 1/8 H-perm.


----------



## Arc (Jan 27, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> 1. EO
> 2. Corner Orientation( without affecting edges) 2 look(top bottom)
> 3. Orient everything else( opposite colours) 1 look
> 4.Permute everything 4 look
> You can basically spam TPS


This sounds like a bad version of SSC.


----------



## Thom S. (Jan 27, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> new ll method OLLPP
> 
> 1) solve oll while phasing both edges and corners using 1/509 algs (phasing corners is forcing a solved or diagonal corner permutation).
> 
> 2) then solve the rest using 1/5 algs. this includes a 1/8 skip chance and a 1/8 H-perm.



It doesn't seem horrible, but tell me/try to sell it to me
why should I choose these 514 Algorithms instead of ZBLL's 493 Algorithms or OLLCP's 334 for that matter? What new feature does it give me?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 27, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> It doesn't seem horrible, but tell me/try to sell it to me
> why should I choose these 514 Algorithms instead of ZBLL's 493 Algorithms or OLLCP's 334 for that matter? What new feature does it give me?


i believe that a good alg set is one that covers as many good algs as possible, while minimizing the amount of bad algorithms. the fact that the algs for this method is determined by all aspects of last layer makes it so that less of the faster algorithms are missed. to prevent longer algorithms, the phasing makes more than one algorithm actually work for each case, so a solved cp, and a diagonal cp, will be the same. the phasing is also used to minimize the amount of time to recognize the case (im still not sure about cp phasing recognition), as well as makes sure the alg count doesn't get to high.
after doing this you will have a 1/8 chance skip and a 1/8 chance H-perm. the rest of the pll cases here are not to good.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 29, 2018)

I think that ollcp gives the same benefit for less algs, and as you like the skip stuff, every 1 in 12 solves are a pll skip. It depends on the recognition, but I don't see why it should be any better. Nice idea though.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 29, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I think that ollcp gives the same benefit for less algs, and as you like the skip stuff, every 1 in 12 solves are a pll skip. It depends on the recognition, but I don't see why it should be any better. Nice idea though.


the 1/12 is not a pll skip, it is called an epll skip, but i wanted to check other ways to solve ll before really learning algs.

in ollcp there are many bad algorithms due to long swaps, but making corners only half solved in ollpp removes most of the long algorithms. i do not know if new long algorithms are with ollpp, but i did make this for the recognition.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 29, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the 1/12 is not a pll skip, it is called an epll skip


Meh. You know what I meant. And I think that you should gen some algs just to see. Also, what about solving two adjacent corners? You can’t get diag swaps then, and the chances of better plls is increased. So Aa and Ab, F, H, T, Z. The only bad one in that set is F. Compare to diag phasing, E, H, Na and Nb, Z. There is a much higher chance of a bad pll. Correct me if I’m wrong though.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Jan 29, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Meh. You know what I meant. And I think that you should gen some algs just to see. Also, what about solving two adjacent corners? You can’t get diag swaps then, and the chances of better plls is increased. So Aa and Ab, F, H, T, Z. The only bad one in that set is F. Compare to diag phasing, E, H, Na and Nb, Z. There is a much higher chance of a bad pll. Correct me if I’m wrong though.


solving adgacent corners will get the algorithm count to above 1000, if you dont look at the other corners.
the skip chance after this will still be 1/8 and will have better algs for the second set.
some (random) algs i just found (http://birdflu.lar5.com/?pos=____&list=algs) (picked the best of the algs that solve lt)
F' L' U y' L' U L U' L' U2 L F R
R U R' U R U2 R'
F' L' U L U' L' y' L' U' L F R
R U2 R' F R' F' R2 U2 R'


----------



## Nicky Steingraber (Jan 31, 2018)

BWPOP (Block Wing Pair OLL PLL) 
First you will build a 2x2x2 block (Block)
then u build the 2 F2L pairs connecting to the block witch creates a "wing" face on the white face (assuming u started on white) (wing)
then u solve the middle layer which now it only has one edge left so u do that 
then insert the missing cross edges 
then do the last F2L pair
then OLL and PLL is the same 
Here is a recontruction if u don't understand:
: L2 B2 U' F2 D R2 U R2 U2 L2 D2 L' U R' F' U' R B2 R' D' B

y' // inspection
D R' U L U' L U2 F' U F // 2x2x2 Block
B2 U y' R U R' y' U2 L' U' L U' F U2 F' // F2L 1 and F2L 2
y M' U' M y' U2 R U' R' U2 y M' U2 M// usally suppose to insert 2 cross edges got lucky there
y' U R U' R' U2 R U' R' //

this is just First 2 layers because OLL and PLL don't change


----------



## architmahale (Feb 3, 2018)

uh. Yeah.

(example reconstruction below, but first, story time.)

I randomly created this "method" when I was high on multiple medicine when I had the flu. I just thought of it and tried it out. It's sort of odd, but I managed to get an average of 19 with it. Which is alright. Anyway, here is the breakdown.

Step 1: Create 2/4 of a cross, but in one line going from the left center to the right center.
Step 2: Place 2 edges of the above color in to the cross piece positions of the F and B face, that way when doing "F2L" none of the edges needed to make a pair are in the D face.
Step 3: Pair up all edges and corners and insert regularly. You should have ALL of F2L done by this step except for 2 cross pieces which are currently somewhere in the U face.
Step 4: Orient the corners using recognizable OLL algs.
Step 5: If there are headlights in the oriented corners, put it to the left and do a T-Perm. If there are not any headlights, do a Y-Perm.
Step 6: Insert last 2 edges using M, M', U, and U' moves only.
Step 7: You will end up with 1 of 4 PLLs. Either a Ua, Ub, H, or Z. NOTHING else can possible come. 25% chance for Ua, 25% chance Ub, and so on for H-Perm and Z-Perm.
Step 8: Celebrate and Contemplate wtf you just did lol.

This method honestly is weird. I DO NOT KNOW IF IT ALREADY EXISTS. I WAS JUST MESSING AROUND A FEW WEEKS AGO AND THIS IS WHAT I CREATED. This is why I dubbed it RouxFOP: It's like Roux, sort of. There is NO LSE, more like L2E. I don't know why if you can put in 2 cross pieces in the beginning, you can't put the other 2. But nonetheless, here is reconstruction with the steps and instructions AT THE END OF THE SOLVE. This is my solve with this "method."

----------

Scramble:
F R2 U2 R U2 L F2 L' U2 R2 F2 U2 D F2 R2 F' D B R' U

Inspection:
x (blue bottom, orange left. Don't ask why I do blue cross, I just do it.)

Solve:
B D' (2 cross pieces) (2)
R U' R' B2 (2 green pieces in the F-face and the B-face) (4)
y U L U' L' (1st pair) (4)
R' U2 R U R U R' U y' L U' L' (2nd pair) (11)
U' R U R' (3rd pair) (4)
y U2 R U R' U2 R U' R' (4th pair) (8)
y' R U2 R' U' R U' R' (Corner Orientation) (7)
M U2 M' U M' U2 M (Last 2 cross pieces) (7)
U2 [M' U M U2 M' U M] U (OLL) (9)
[M2 U M U2 M' U' M2] U (PLL) (8)

________________________________
time: 18.425
turn count: 64
TPS: 3.47

Here we go, this is for you efficiency guys, people thinking "what did I just do," and *Syd* Barrett, *S*hine on *Y*ou crazy *D*iamond.

First was B D' which put in the Orange-Blue edge and the Red-Blue edge. This creates the beginning of the REDGE (right pairs) and LEDGES (left pairs).

Second was to put 2 green edges in the F-face and B-face. When pairing, it is possible for an edge to be in the FD 3 pieces or the BD 3 pieces. Putting in the two green pieces serve as "fillers" and prevent the edges needed to finish pairing stay out of those positions. It is helpful so you don't have to fish them out using F and B moves when needed to complete a pair.

Then I start pairing and inserting all the pairs.

After all the pairs have been paired and inserted, next is flipping all the corners up. This is achieved by performing the corresponding OLL cases. THIS IS NOT OLL, JUST MAKING THE CORNERS FLIP UP. Sometimes they are sunes, antisunes, and a few other OLLs. In this case, antisune was done.

Now, all the corners are oriented. Next is to INSERT THE LAST 2 CROSS PIECES. DO THIS ONLY WITH M and U moves. After this is done, you will always get one of three OLL cases. Either the checkered one, the two flipped edges making an "H" shape. You can also get one with the two edges flipped next to each other, the one which actually happened. I did this OLL by using M and U moves, not the one with the sexy and then the M'.

Then was simple, U and then U-perm.

It is like Roux, but also isn't. The inserting of the last two cross pieces is where things skew out. When I should my friends, they said "Can't you just finish the cross in the beginning if you're already doing two of them?" the answer is yes, yes I can. But did I want to? No. I was high on advils (pain relievers).

Once again I'm going to say this again. I KNOW THIS METHOD IS WEIRD. I thought of it when I was really sick one day wishing I could use my cube. I didn't want to get all my germs on it. I somehow conceived of this method. My fastest time to date is 15.913. I average sub-19 with it.

So please please please please tell me what you guys think. Thanks.

UPDATE: I think I just posted this in the wrong category. Just joined this website, don't know how stuff works. Please lead me in the correct direction, oh wise ones.


----------



## Oatch (Feb 3, 2018)

architmahale said:


> I randomly created this "method" when I was high on multiple medicine when I had the flu. I just thought of it and tried it out.



The idea of building F2L except for 2 cross edges, then inserting them with <M, U> and then doing last layer has been suggested before, with different methods for reaching this cube state and dealing with LL afterwards. To reiterate what most people think about this idea: it's pretty inefficient to insert the cross edges with M and U moves and then carrying on, it's probably better to use LSE at that point.

A more promising idea that I was playing around with at one point that follows a similar vein of thinking is to insert two U-layer edges into the DF and DB positions, like what you have done, but to specifically place the UL and UR edges instead. Simultaneously, edges are oriented while you place the edges, so you essentially make a pseudo-EOLine. Then you blockbuild the left and right blocks as normal. Once you get to LL, perform COLL and then you reach a cube state where you've skipped 4a of Roux LSE and setup to finish 4b extremely quickly because the corresponding edges are already setup at the bottom and are only an M2 away from being solved (+ maybe an AUF). Then all that remains is 4c which can usually be done quite with less moves than EPLL. The movecount should be quite a bit lower than your suggested variant. Again, I'll just emphasise that what I've suggested is nothing groundbreaking and has definitely been considered before, but I thought you may be interested in it.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Feb 3, 2018)

the final method I'm proposing (SBOPP)(squares-block-orient+phase-pll)

1) solve an edge piece in DB

2) solve the two 2x2x1 blocks in BLD and BRD

3) solve the first two layers using intuition while locating and tracking the edge phasing for the next step

4 26/27) solve oll and phase the edges using 1/163 algorithms
4 1/27) if you get an co skip use 1/155 algorithms to solve ll

5) solve pepll (phased-edge-pll) using 1/9 (1/24 skip)

example solve
R' L' F' U B U' F L' F R B U L D' F U R L R D' U' L' B L' F B

1) B2
2a) L2 U F R x' U' R' U x R2
2b) L2 F' (U2 D') L (D U') L'
3a) F' U2 l' U2 l F'
3b) U' L' U L U2 y' R U R'
4) U2 F R U R' U' R U' R' U R U R' F'
5) 1/24 skip


----------



## Thom S. (Feb 3, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the final method I'm proposing (SBOPP)(squares-block-orient+phase-pll)
> 
> 1) solve an edge piece in DB
> 
> ...



Last Layer doesn't seem that bad, just without a straight advantage. But your First Two Layers - The Phrase 
Or you could just use Petrus
couldn't fit more. Effectively the only difference is the missing EO Part.

Also, why your last Proposal? Did you have some aggreement to make like 13 Methods and then leave or did you just give up?


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Feb 3, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> Last Layer doesn't seem that bad, just without a straight advantage. But your First Two Layers - The Phrase
> Or you could just use Petrus
> couldn't fit more. Effectively the only difference is the missing EO Part.
> 
> Also, why your last Proposal? Did you have some aggreement to make like 13 Methods and then leave or did you just give up?


this method is based on all the research i have learned, and i believe it has enough efficiency, lookahead and tps with a small enough alg count to be the fastest method i can make. so all i have to do is get good at the method and learn the algorithms.


----------



## architmahale (Feb 3, 2018)

Oatch said:


> The idea of building F2L except for 2 cross edges, then inserting them with <M, U> and then doing last layer has been suggested before, with different methods for reaching this cube state and dealing with LL afterwards. To reiterate what most people think about this idea: it's pretty inefficient to insert the cross edges with M and U moves and then carrying on, it's probably better to use LSE at that point.
> 
> A more promising idea that I was playing around with at one point that follows a similar vein of thinking is to insert two U-layer edges into the DF and DB positions, like what you have done, but to specifically place the UL and UR edges instead. Simultaneously, edges are oriented while you place the edges, so you essentially make a pseudo-EOLine. Then you blockbuild the left and right blocks as normal. Once you get to LL, perform COLL and then you reach a cube state where you've skipped 4a of Roux LSE and setup to finish 4b extremely quickly because the corresponding edges are already setup at the bottom and are only an M2 away from being solved (+ maybe an AUF). Then all that remains is 4c which can usually be done quite with less moves than EPLL. The movecount should be quite a bit lower than your suggested variant. Again, I'll just emphasise that what I've suggested is nothing groundbreaking and has definitely been considered before, but I thought you may be interested in it.


Thank you! So whatever I've been doing is extremely inefficient? Got it. Also hello fellow Pink Floyd fan.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Feb 4, 2018)

Oatch said:


> The idea of building F2L except for 2 cross edges, then inserting them with <M, U> and then doing last layer has been suggested before, with different methods for reaching this cube state and dealing with LL afterwards. To reiterate what most people think about this idea: it's pretty inefficient to insert the cross edges with M and U moves and then carrying on, it's probably better to use LSE at that point.
> 
> A more promising idea that I was playing around with at one point that follows a similar vein of thinking is to insert two U-layer edges into the DF and DB positions, like what you have done, but to specifically place the UL and UR edges instead. Simultaneously, edges are oriented while you place the edges, so you essentially make a pseudo-EOLine. Then you blockbuild the left and right blocks as normal. Once you get to LL, perform COLL and then you reach a cube state where you've skipped 4a of Roux LSE and setup to finish 4b extremely quickly because the corresponding edges are already setup at the bottom and are only an M2 away from being solved (+ maybe an AUF). Then all that remains is 4c which can usually be done quite with less moves than EPLL. The movecount should be quite a bit lower than your suggested variant. Again, I'll just emphasise that what I've suggested is nothing groundbreaking and has definitely been considered before, but I thought you may be interested in it.


That's ZZ 4C. It's not a new method, but it's definitely viable. I like it.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 6, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the final method I'm proposing (SBOPP)(squares-block-orient+phase-pll)
> 
> 1) solve an edge piece in DB
> 
> ...


2 things: 
This one is obviously from a zz user, but couldn't you do eo and that edge piece (so a half line) and then blocks will be <RULF2>, or you could just use petrus, then for ll, if you want to phase, just use zz-b, or you could go full out and use zz-a.
For last layer, you can't depend on skips every 1/24 solves. That's like me saying "I use COLL so that I get a 1/12 pll skip every time!", but I don't. It's because a really fast epll is faster than a g-perm, and I don't like g-perms.

Also, with your example solve, without that skip you'd be getting at least 55 moves, probably more in a speedsolve from inneficiencies during F2L.

But I like the idea of half EOline for Petrus. I have no idea how well it would work though.


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Feb 6, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> 2 things:
> This one is obviously from a zz user, but couldn't you do eo and that edge piece (so a half line) and then blocks will be <RULF2>, or you could just use petrus, then for ll, if you want to phase, just use zz-b, or you could go full out and use zz-a.
> For last layer, you can't depend on skips every 1/24 solves. That's like me saying "I use COLL so that I get a 1/12 pll skip every time!", but I don't. It's because a really fast epll is faster than a g-perm, and I don't like g-perms.
> 
> ...


the reason i don't use eo is so i have more ways to make the squares. this barely reduces the movecount, but more importantly, increases useful finger tricks

for last layer many of the oll cases can be mirrored or right front inverted to get a different case with the same speed. the question is does it take much more recognition? also 1/24 is better than 1/72.

the ll was the hardest part to get to feel right in this method, but you could orient the edges while finishing the last block and finish with zbll if you want.

I'm not going to use petrus, I'm using SBOPP.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 6, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> (SBOPP)(squares-block-orient+phase-pll)
> 
> 1) solve an edge piece in DB
> 
> ...


I see little reason to use this.

The 1st 2 steps are Ok but not great. Maybe doing 3/4 Cross (even pseudo) and inserting pairs would be better. Also, free blockbuilding 2x2x3 in the back garners same result with more room for flexibility.

Intuitive F2L isn't bad in the 3rd step but fingertricks won't be too great. 

Why not do phasing EO+ZZLL? You'd have only 7 EO+Phasing algs and ZZLL is 169 cases; significantly less than what you'd be using. Sure, there aren't as many skips, but the algs are easier to recognize and are already fairly well optimized (ZZLL at least.) You could even just use EO+Last pair, COLL, and EPLL. Just 45 algs (assuming intuitive EO+LP) with a higher skip chance and incredible algs.

Perhaps something like this

1: 1x2x3
2: Finish Cross (Steps 1 and 2 is one approach to 2x2x3+Last Cross edge, allow variation)
3: F2L (CFOP-y, fast and intuitive but allows variations and tracking) EO or track phasing depending on LL variant
4: LL (however you want, depends on how you do F2L (COLL/EPLL, EO+Phasing/ZZLL, OLL/PLL, EO+ZBLL, lots of room)


----------



## Abram Lookadoo (Feb 6, 2018)

Neuro said:


> I see little reason to use this.
> 
> The 1st 2 steps are Ok but not great. Maybe doing 3/4 Cross (even pseudo) and inserting pairs would be better. Also, free blockbuilding 2x2x3 in the back garners same result with more room for flexibility.
> 
> ...


the first step is made inflexible so it is easier to one look the back block with being able to locate other pieces for the next step. i honestly don't see why you think building a 3/4 cross will be better than the way I'm doing it.

the finger tricks are actually good for the third step

the reason i do not use eo+phasing→zzll is that an algoithm is better if it has less exact things it could do. lets use oll as an example. oll as we know it is good, but pure oll is bad, because you can no longer mess up the permutation.

about alg optimization, every fastest algorithm (except i dont trust the ell algs) to solve every case can be found at
http://birdflu.lar5.com/?pos=____&list=algs


----------



## Noa (Feb 7, 2018)

Noa said:


> Original post
> I've thought about a way to do LL + LS quite quickly. My idea is to orient and permute the corners while inserting LS, then there's 4 OLLs you can get from there(one of them being OLL solved completely). Then use ELL to orient and permute the LL edges. That would be LS, OLL and PLL solved in 2 algorithms.
> 
> I just can't find a method that orients and permutes the corners while inserting LS. If anyboody know of such methods please tell me.
> ...



Bump.


----------



## Neuro (Feb 7, 2018)

Technically this idea has been done in form of WVCP; where you have all edges oriented and you solve the corners+LS in 1 look. However, you have naming rights b/c yours doesn't preserve EO. There are 27 CO states from (U) R U' R' insert, and 6 possible CP states, so you get 27*6=162 algs. However, it's generally agreed that the recognition takes too long and algs are usually bad (at least in WVCP.) I think it could work, but CP recog is very difficult to do quickly w/o a constant orientation in my experience; not to mention having to see the CO at the same time. Long recog time and (potentially) bad algs. 

It's not a bad idea, but w/o a LOT of practice it's not very viable IMO. However, what you may try doing is using this as an opportunity to learn a subset of 1LLL. This is purely an idea, no idea the feasibility here. Perhaps insert using no-EO Winter Variation, and use the subset of 1LLL where all corners are oriented? Less algs than ZBLL and easier to recognize  Maybe with speed-optimized algs it could be fast?


----------



## Noa (Feb 8, 2018)

Neuro said:


> Technically this idea has been done in form of WVCP; where you have all edges oriented and you solve the corners+LS in 1 look. However, you have naming rights b/c yours doesn't preserve EO. There are 27 CO states from (U) R U' R' insert, and 6 possible CP states, so you get 27*6=162 algs. However, it's generally agreed that the recognition takes too long and algs are usually bad (at least in WVCP.) I think it could work, but CP recog is very difficult to do quickly w/o a constant orientation in my experience; not to mention having to see the CO at the same time. Long recog time and (potentially) bad algs.
> 
> It's not a bad idea, but w/o a LOT of practice it's not very viable IMO. However, what you may try doing is using this as an opportunity to learn a subset of 1LLL. This is purely an idea, no idea the feasibility here. Perhaps insert using no-EO Winter Variation, and use the subset of 1LLL where all corners are oriented? Less algs than ZBLL and easier to recognize  Maybe with speed-optimized algs it could be fast?



I think you a right when saying the recognition will take long, but this can become better with (Possibly a lot) practice. At least i hope so. Maybe i can come up with some super fast recognition metod, who knows.

I'm also hoping the algs will be better, since i don't perserve EO, but i'm not sure in any way, I don't have much experience in method making, so I'll just have to try it out and so how well it works. Thank you for your opinion on the matter.


----------



## Terence Tan (Feb 18, 2018)

I don't know if this is new or not
(keep in mind that this is not for speedsolving) - R3-T


1) build a 1x2x3 in the D layer

2) solve the E slice with the empty face

3) EO

4) CO

5) complete F2L (1x1x3)with R2,U moves

6) PLL


----------



## 1001010101001 (Feb 18, 2018)

This method is pretty wierd, probably a substep of Petrus. Basically Petrus + L5E
1. 2x2x3 block in DB
2. Bar in LF + EO
3. Last 5 corners + RF edge
4. L5E


----------



## Thom S. (Feb 18, 2018)

Terence Tan said:


> I don't know if this is new or not
> (keep in mind that this is not for speedsolving)
> 
> 
> ...



Solving the full E Layer maked the whole method bad for everything. EO algorithms could be much shorter if only half of the layer is solved. Don't know what CO does for you as you destroy it later. May I ask you why you want to do this?
Either you destroy your solved Edges or you use Commutators. Both is inefficient.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Feb 18, 2018)

Terence Tan said:


> I don't know if this is new or not
> (keep in mind that this is not for speedsolving)
> 
> 
> ...


This looks a lot like Hexagonal Francisco, which is not a bad method.


----------



## Hazel (Feb 18, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> This looks a lot like Hexagonal Francisco, which is not a bad method.


I used HF for as a main method for a little while, and I think if one takes the time to learn full CLS really well, it can be really good


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 19, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the reason i do not use eo+phasing→zzll is that an algoithm is better if it has less exact things it could do. lets use oll as an example. oll as we know it is good, but pure oll is bad, because you can no longer mess up the permutation.


Saying this while proposing a method that triples the chances of getting F perms and N perms (compared to plain OLL + PLL) is extremely galaxy-brain.



Neuro said:


> Why not do phasing EO+ZZLL? You'd have only 7 EO+Phasing algs and ZZLL is 169 cases; significantly less than what you'd be using. Sure, there aren't as many skips


EO + phasing / ZZLL has a 1/24 skip chance, so it's actually exactly as many skips as OLL + phasing / phased PLL.


----------



## Terence Tan (Feb 19, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> Solving the full E Layer maked the whole method bad for everything. EO algorithms could be much shorter if only half of the layer is solved. Don't know what CO does for you as you destroy it later. May I ask you why you want to do this?
> Either you destroy your solved Edges or you use Commutators. Both is inefficient.



Orient the corners using OCLL's
then solve the remaining of F2L with R2,U moves 

Because the E slice is solved there can only be 0, 2 or 4 misoriented edges

4 misoriented -arrow 
example -(D) M' U M (D') or S moves

2 misoriented - other alg


----------



## Palmtop Tiger (Feb 22, 2018)

Terence Tan said:


> I don't know if this is new or not
> (keep in mind that this is not for speedsolving)
> 
> 
> ...




I think the problem with this method is that you solve the whole e layer. (as Thom S. already mentioned)
Doing f2l with R2 and U moves seams to complicated, but maybe I'm missing something.
If you would only solve half of the e layer you could basically do a weird version of petrus.
However doing the whole e layer would be good in a method that ends with last six edges and last 5 corners. Maybe something like

build a 1x2x3 block in the D layer

solve the E slice while solving corner orientation (place one corner and do the rest with something similar to tsle for example)

Solve Permutation of the last six corners with a set of algs
L5E
would be better.


----------



## rebucato314 (Feb 23, 2018)

2x2 method ideas:

2x2 CT: 3 solved pieces in a layer (V), orientation, permutation
2x2 Crazy CT (terrible name, I know): Bar, orientation, permutation
2x2 WV: V, WV, PLL
1LLSLL: V, solve everything else


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 23, 2018)

Quinson said:


> 2x2 method ideas:
> 
> 2x2 CT: 3 solved pieces in a layer (V), orientation, permutation


 Have a look at VOP


> 2x2 Crazy CT (terrible name, I know): Bar, orientation, permutation


 Why not orient, permute? Just as easy really.


> 2x2 WV: V, WV, PLL


Interesting but again largely superceded by VOP


> 1LLSLL: V, solve everything else


 I know of at least one person who is actually learning this already and you may also want to look up 42/22.


----------



## Thom S. (Feb 23, 2018)

Quinson said:


> 2x2 WV: V, WV, PLL



Might take a look at Stern-Sun


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Feb 24, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> Have a look at VOP
> Why not orient, permute? Just as easy really.
> Interesting but again largely superceded by VOP
> I know of at least one person who is actually learning this already and you may also want to look up 42/22.


 Who is learning full l5c?


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 24, 2018)

SomeRandomZZUser said:


> Who is learning full l5c?


I believe @WACWCA is learning straight L5C.

I'm currently learming 42 algs which give a similar thing to it


----------



## Neuro (Feb 25, 2018)

How many different/useful 2x2 sets are there to learn?

What I have as a list rn are

CLL
EG-1
EG-2
LEG-1
NLL
LOLS (useful in this scenario or no?)
L5C (how many sets are actually useful/decent to recognize? is BTR better?)
TEG (how many sets are there? just TEG-2+/- ?)
PBL
TCLL+/-

Let me know if I forgot anything


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 25, 2018)

Neuro said:


> How many different/useful 2x2 sets are there to learn?
> 
> What I have as a list rn are
> 
> ...


Depending on your definition if useful, OL5C, OLS, PLS and other RoTFL subsets may or may not be useful.


----------



## alwin5b (Feb 26, 2018)

Neuro said:


> L5C (how many sets are actually useful?)



CLS (solve DFR and orient U layer corners) is used in 2x2GR

Edit: just saw that shadowslice already mentioned OLS, which is identical with CLS on a 2x2.


----------



## rebucato314 (Feb 27, 2018)

A ZZ variant that someone probably experimented with: ZZ-42
Step 1: EO
Step 2: F2L-1 + 1 oriented top layer corner
Step 3: Conjugated COLL
Step 4: L5E
The most practical way to do L5E is using conjugated EPLLs for 3 cycles and 2-2 swaps, while using optimised algs for 5 cycle cases.

There aren’t many advantages of using this over 42 as far as I know. The only one I can think of is low alg count for L5E since EO is solved.
I’ll do example solves when I have time.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Feb 28, 2018)

Frisk Method (Skewb)

Beginner Frisk Method:
1. 1st layer but 1 is unoriented (rotated) [3/4 solved layer or EG layer] 
2. VHLS (10 easy algs)
3. OLL/EG-OLL (6 easy algs)
4. L4C (3 easy algs)

Intermediate Frisk Method:
1. 1st Layer but 1 is unoriented [EG or solved layer]
2. VHLS + Winter Variation(optional) [18 algs]
3. Advanced Sarah's Case (23 algs or less) + EG-L4C(OLL is solved but EG layer isn't, and optional)[4 algs]
4. L4C (sometimes)

Advanced Frisk Method:

Variant (1):
1. 3/4 Layer [solved or EG]
2. VLS [90 algs]
3. L4C & EG-L4C

Variant (2):
1. 3/4 Layer [solved or EG]
2. VHLS+WV
3. NS Last Layer (23 algs) & NS-EG Last Layer (28 algs)


----------



## cubeshepherd (Feb 28, 2018)

Metallic Silver said:


> Frisk Method (Skewb)
> 
> Beginner Frisk Method:
> 1. 1st layer but 1 is unoriented (rotated) [3/4 solved layer or EG layer]
> ...


I really like the sound of this method. Do you have any links for the algorithms yet?


----------



## alwin5b (Mar 3, 2018)

Different way to do EOCross:

Since z rotations don't change EO, you can build the cross on the right face (or the left side if you are left-handed) and do a z rotation afterwards. The steps are:

0. Rotate the cube such that the cross center faces to the right, and recognize EO just like you would if cross were on bottom.
1. Solve EO while making sure that oriented cross pieces don't end up in the FL or BL positions. In particular, don't have two unoriented cross edges in FU and FD at the same time (also not BU and BD at the same time).
2. Solve cross on right using only <R, U, D> moves.
3. z rotation

Pros:

<R,U,D> is a nice and ergonomic move set
having more structure to the solve (i.e. restricting to <R,U,D>) makes it easier, because there are less cases to consider
Cons:

Worse look-ahead into your first F2L pair because of the z rotation. If you build your first F2L pair before the z rotation, look-ahead still suffers, because you have to do the z rotation eventually.
Example solve:

[R U L' R2 B R' U R' U z

Edit March 7:
after experimenting with it, I think doing EO while separating cross pieces to the L and D layers, then doing cross on D with <L,D> moves is better than the above. It eliminates the rotation, is very ergonomic, and the number of possible cases where the cross pieces are oriented and on the L, D layers is tiny.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Mar 3, 2018)

cubeshepherd said:


> I really like the sound of this method. Do you have any links for the algorithms yet?


I already made a video of the method.
The VHLS algs and the EG-OLL algs are in it.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 5, 2018)

5x5x5 method idea: Yau4 optimized for EOCross 3x3 stage. Maybe Zao? As in ZZ + Yau.

1a) Solve 2 opposite centers
1b) Pair and insert 3 cross edges like in 4x4 Yau
1c) Line up the last 3 tredge pieces in the M slice and pair them up, then insert into cross without messing up centers
2) Solve 4 edges and insert them into the U layer as you solve them. Make sure they're oriented correctly in regards to your ZZ orientation as you insert them! If you have to use the edge flip algorithm make sure that an unsolved edge is in the UL position (in Speffz it's 'B') so that you don't misorient any edges.
2b) Last 4 Edges like in redux. If you have to use the edge flip algorithm, always use the same edge in UL twice in a row so you end up with a maximum of 1 misoriented edge in the U layer.
3a) 3x3 stage! Start by orienting the edges, there will be a maximum or 4 bad edges and they will always all be in the E layer, so turning them into good edges should be easy. Make sure you don't mess up the cross!
3b) Continue with 3-gen F2L (U L and R), then COLL/EPLL or ZBLL.

If anyone likes, I can make an example solve sometime this afternoon.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 5, 2018)

So, I briefly thought about this, but from chris Olson’s yau5 Tutorial, I thought that you could make your line edges and two other edges (orientated), plus the centres like in normal yau5. Then you pair up any two edges (or the pairs) and put them on L. Then you rotate, do Petrus eo and zzf2l, although I do feel like normal yau5 with Petrus eo then <RU> f2l is better.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 5, 2018)

@Aerma and @PapaSmurf, I have 2 ways I'd suggest going about doing ZZ on 4x4/5x5

This one provides EO Cross which could have faster F2L

1) F2C
2) 3 Cross Edges (as in Yau)
3) Centers
4) Last Cross edge, rotate to preferred orientation _(unless you're CN which in that case just do a z' everytime )_
5) Edge Pairing (6-2 or 3-2-3)
6-2
5a) Pair 6 edges while doing EO simultaneously
5b) Pair L2E with a specialized algset that solves EO for both edges
3-2-3
5a) Pair 3-2 edges while doing EO simultaneously
5b) Pair L3E with a specialized algset that solves EO for all 3 edges

I'd learn both the L3E and L2E sets to be safe and have more flexibility while pairing
(This isn't necessary on 5x5, all you need are standard L2E algs)

6) Standard ZZ solve (I'd suggest F2L, COLL, EPLL+Parity)

This one only provides you with EO Line but may be more efficient

1) F2C
2) EO Line edges + 1 random oriented edge (positions same as in Yau 3 cross edges) If CN this can be super efficient
3) Centers
4) 1 random edge, oriented and placed in UL. Perform z'.
5) Same as above
6) Same as above (with the exception of true blockbuilding F2L)

You could also combine the 2 and end with 3 cross edges already solved but it depends on what you like.

EDIT: You don't _need_ the L2E/L3E subsets, you could pair all edges while doing EO until you have either 0 or 1 bad edge, in which case you can use an edge flipping alg. The subsets will probably make you faster though.

While we're on the topic of 5x5 methods, I've made a 1st draft that models itself off of both Yau-5 and Meyer on 4x4.

1) LR Centers
2) FB
3) Centers
4) 1 random edge in UL, rotate z' y' or use M slice pairing
5) Freeslice 4 edges (one must be an SB edge, place oriented in U/R depending on how you pair)
6) L4E
7) Solve as normal

FB's comparable to 3 cross edges, edge pairing's pretty good once you get used to 4r/4u moves, prepping an SB edge allows for better SB lookahead, and of course the rest of the solve is pretty good if you're good with M slices on big cubes (magnetic cube basically required)

Should be about the same efficiency as Yau 5/redux->CFOP. I suspect it's slightly slower than Yau5/redux->CFOP but it's still a really good method IMO.

I did a solve with it that's 192 STM. I'm awful at freeslice pairing but I did get pretty lucky on 3x3 stage. For reference, the WR 5x5 solve is 221 moves using redux-CFOP.

I didn't want to have any larger of a text wall than this post already is so here's a link to the solve


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 5, 2018)

My zz-4x4 method goes like this:
1. L/R centres.
2. 3 from: Random orientated edges
Random orientated edges
Line edge
L cross edge
Place them like a yau cross on L. If you have green on front, white on bottom red will be on the left.
3. L4C
4. Whatever you didn’t do for step 2. Solve the pseudo yau cross.
5. Do a z’ rotation then 3-2-3 edge pairing for the rest of the edges.
6. Solve the eoline while preserving the other three pseudo cross edges on L.

7. Do a y then Petrus style eo + parity.

8. y’ and ZZF2L

9. COLL/EPLL

I average slightly slower with this than yau after about a week, but theoretically it should have a very similar movecounts. The only drawback I see is the necessary y and y’ rotations for eo, although rotationless f2l and more efficient first three edges and 3x3 stage should help.

With yours, @Neuro, doing eo and edge pairing at the same time (to me) seems inefficient and annoying, but I haven’t done it a lot.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 5, 2018)

It is but I hadn't thought of anything better so it's what I used. Your 4x4 method looks pretty nice, haven't seen that approach before. I guess I didn't understand your earlier post because the methods actually look pretty nice now that I look at it again


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 5, 2018)

Thanks. I think that the other posts that I’ve done on it/other ideas haven’t been that specific one, but it’s definitely the best idea I’ve come up with. And any critiques are welcome. Zz needs it’s own 4x4 method.


----------



## Sion (Mar 6, 2018)

This is Just a whim thought, so just take this with a grain of salt, but wouldn't it be ultra efficient for ZBLL users to Miss one cross edge, Leaving one whole layer fully open, F2l, L5EOP, ZBLL, Or F2L- DF Edge, WV, L5EOP, EPLL? It would probably be a bit less efficient movecount wise, but I'm sure it's much more ergonomic since L5EOP is two gen for the most part.

Basically:

Cross - One edge
F2L+WV
L5EOP
PLL

Or for more experienced solvers:
Cross-One Edge
F2l
L5EOP
ZBLL

This was just a small thought I had, which happens to be a mashup of My Columns Method and CFOP.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 6, 2018)

@Neuro You've clearly put a lot of thought into this  The problem with that though is that you have to memorize extra algorithms that may not be that good just for the edge orientation, and I don't know if recognition would be all that great either. Maybe your ideas would just be an advanced variant? I personally like doing it my way and I'd rather not learn a bunch of extra algs and steps.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 7, 2018)

Sion said:


> F2L+WV


If I knew full ZBLL and could recognise them instantly, I wouldn't bother with any of the WV cases other than the three-movers. PLL has a _very minor_ move count advantage over ZBLL and it doesn't make any sense to spend 3+ moves force oriented corners when PLL saves less than that over ZBLL. (In practice, some ZBLL sets are harder to recognise than others and move count isn't the only deciding factor, but the rough idea is still the same—WV is a lot less useful if you're using ZBLL.)



Sion said:


> It would probably be a bit less efficient movecount wise, but I'm sure it's much more ergonomic since L5EOP is two gen for the most part.


It's MU 2-gen _provided that the free edge is in DF or DB_. If it's in DL or DR, you need a y/y' rotation to fix it.

I mean, it's not a new method and it's not really bad either (look up 3CFCE and ZBRoux). Around 0.1% of the time, when I mess up my F2L blockbuilding, I do the "L5EOP into ZBLL" thing. (I never force it, but when it happens, it happens.) This method has some nice advantages, like being able to look ahead to determine your CLL case while doing L5EOP, and it should even be relatively easy to look ahead to the EP (arrow EO case has two stickers immediately visible!), essentially telling you which ZBLL case you have so (in theory) you don't have to pause to recognise at all.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 7, 2018)

I just remembered the method I worked on a while back called WaterRoux, and I realized you can apply 42 style corner recog to it and greatly decrease the # of corner algs. It'd look something like this for those who don't remember WaterRoux:

1) Roux style FB (1x2x3 on Left)
2) L6C (this is only 42/84 algs because of 42 style recog. 42 for standard, 84 if you use EG set)
3) ANY 2 Redges (this can be either algorithmic or intuitive. 35 cases including mirrors. Either RrUM or different moves if it's faster obviously)
4) L7E
4a) Insert 1 redge while doing EO (algorithmic or intuitive)
4b) Solve UL and last redge
4c) Same as in Roux, adjust R layer as needed

42 to 150+ algs depending on variant

I think this may have some decent potential. Influencing corners shouldn't be too hard and a lot of the solve can just be algs. You don't have to switch in and out of face moves/RrUM moves so if that was a problem for anyone this may help. Should be really efficient if L7E is done properly (more research on L7E needed.) Let me know what you think

EDIT: EG Corners in 42 doesn't work, do normal 42 only. EG's still a useful set and if you want to be OP you could learn the algsets required to do EG-42


----------



## 1001010101001 (Mar 10, 2018)

It is off topic here, but:
Roux CMLL can be solved with only commutators. I use this CMLL because I hate learning algs ( I developed my own)
Example: U, X Checkerboard:
(r' U r' D') ( R U R' ) (D r U' r)


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 10, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> It is off topic here, but:
> Roux CMLL can be solved with only commutators. I use this CMLL because I hate learning algs ( I developed my own)
> Example: U, X Checkerboard:
> (r' U r' D') ( R U R' ) (D r U' r)


Well yeah. Any positon can be solved using commutators (hence BLD) and it's possible to deconstruct most (all?) algs into cancelled comms and conjugates.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Mar 10, 2018)

So Roux has zero algs with this cmll method.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 10, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> So Roux has zero algs with this cmll method.


If you don't memorise any of the commutators and conjugates you use and always come up with them on the fly, then yeah, "zero algs".

But now I'm curious: how would you do the twelve S/AS cases, in a way such that you can explain the purpose of every move? ("Zero algs", like you said.)


----------



## Thom S. (Mar 10, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> So Roux has zero algs with this cmll method.



Well, you can applicate Commutators to any Twisty Puzzle and have a Zero Algorithms Method so it doesn't mean that much


----------



## _zoux (Mar 11, 2018)

Quinson said:


> A ZZ variant that someone probably experimented with: ZZ-42
> Step 1: EO
> Step 2: F2L-1 + 1 oriented top layer corner
> Step 3: Conjugated COLL
> ...


that's zipper.


----------



## Sion (Mar 13, 2018)

Here's another whim method I feel May be better for beginners compared to LBL, because it is very intuitive and simple. It is a sort of belt method, but I don't feel like going through 248 pages to see if it's new.

I Call it SBS- Sion's Bread Slice. I don't know why I call it this, but I do. 

1: Solve the middle layer minus one edge.

2: Through the missing edge, intuitively permits the D Layer. You don't need advanced algorithms, if any at all.

3: Solve missing edge. I assume if you want to speed this method up for some reason, you could use some sort of Alg set to orient the Last layer while inserting the final belt edge.

3: Solve the Last layer with any method of your choice.

The reason this would be more beginner friendly is that it doesn't rely on any algorithms for the F2l. You don't need to break apart a first layer, which is what most beginners fear. Instead, they are greeted with a 3/4 belt -which for some reason I call a Bread Slice- which has an open edge to insert stuff through. 

Here is an example solve with SBS: https://alg.cubing.net/?type=reconstruction&setup=U-_R2_B2_U_F2_U_F2_L2_B2_R2_B-_D_F-_D-_U2_B-_F2&view=playback&alg=D_F_y-_M2_L_U_L-//Belt_ y_M_U2_M-_D2_R_U_R-_D_R_U-_R-_D_M-_U2_M_D_R_U_R-_D-_U_R_U-_R-_D-_M__U2_M-_D-__U_R_U_R-//D_Layer_ U_R_U-__R-_U-_F-_U_F//_Last_Edge U_r_U-_r-_U-_r_U_r-_y-_R-_U_R//OLL z_U_R-_D_R2_U-_R_U_D-_R-_D_R2_U-_R_D-//_PLL L_//_D_Layer_&title=Bread Slice Method Example 

Scramble: U' R2 B2 U F2 U F2 L2 B2 R2 B' D F' D' U2 B' F2

D F y' M2 L U L'//Bread Slice

y M U2 M' D2 R U R' D R U' R' D M' U2 M D R U R' D' U R U' R' D' M U2 M' D' U R U R'//D Layer

U R U' R' U' F' U F// Last Edge

U r U' r' U' r U r' y' R' U R//OLL

z U R' D R2 U' R U D' R' D R2 U' R D'// PLL

L // D Layer

Surprised it made it under 100 moves. The solve wasn't optimised, and the LL had some rather long and move consuming PLLs.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 14, 2018)

Sion said:


> Here's another whim method I feel May be better for beginners compared to LBL, because it is very intuitive and simple. It is a sort of belt method, but I don't feel like going through 248 pages to see if it's new.
> 
> 1: Solve the middle layer minus one edge.
> 
> ...


I actually quite like this idea, gives beginners a different way to do F2L that's more flexible but can still be easy to understand if taught correctly. I'd still say to use EO->CO->CP->EP for LL of course. For D layer, I think there's two approaches to use, a 2-phase style and a direct, blockbuilding style. The 2-phase style places edges and then does corners similar to standard beginners method and is what I'd probably teach people first. Second approach is straightforward and most people should be able to understand it quickly. Here're example solves with both styles for D layer

BLOCKBUILDING

2 STEP

May I make a video on the method and see what people think? You'll get full credit of course. Any other modifications you have in mind can be put in the video as well.


----------



## Sion (Mar 14, 2018)

Neuro said:


> May I make a video on the method and see what people think? You'll get full credit of course. Any other modifications you have in mind can be put in the video as well.



Oh absolutely! I would actually appreciate if you displayed Sion's Bread Slice further into the community! 

Maybe it could lead to an optimised form if it gets popular, like how CFOP is an optimized LBL, Maybe other people could find ways as to make SBS a speed method. 

I personally think it has some potential, especially from how easy it is to build a 3/4 belt, which allows for a plethora of freedom in turns. Not to mention, Your Blockbuilding variant and my Traditional variant both made it under the 100 movecount mark, even when the solves were intended to be optimal. Your 2 Step Seems insanely easy to understand as well, especially since the D layer is broken down into its constituent parts as compared to Where I proposed to just do it wherever as long as it was permuted correctly. 

I can't wait to see where this goes!


----------



## Palmtop Tiger (Mar 14, 2018)

Sion said:


> Here's another whim method I feel May be better for beginners compared to LBL, because it is very intuitive and simple. It is a sort of belt method, but I don't feel like going through 248 pages to see if it's new.
> 
> I Call it SBS- Sion's Bread Slice. I don't know why I call it this, but I do.
> 
> ...



This kinda reminds me of how f2l is done in some of these single alg methods like the Sexy method (https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Sexy_Method)
But instead of starting with belt-1 they start with cross and do the belt-1 afterwards. The question is what is better. To me 

1.cross
2.belt 

seams more intuitive than 

1.belt
2.cross


----------



## Sion (Mar 14, 2018)

Palmtop Tiger said:


> This kinda reminds me of how f2l is done in some of these single alg methods like the Sexy method (https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Sexy_Method)
> But instead of starting with belt-1 they start with cross and do the belt-1 afterwards. The question is what is better. To me
> 
> 1.cross
> ...



Cross then belt would actually be trickier for a beginner, because then beginners would be more concerned about breaking apart the cross to form the belt. It would also rely more on algorithms. SBS is intended to have a fully intuitive F2l that tries to ease up on breaking certain structures (Eg: Trying to not break the cross apart in F2l, Trying not to break the F2B blocks in roux, etc.) 

The open edge in the belt is an open access point to properly place cubies in the D layer. 

Also, the Bread Slice/Belt helps give reference to beginners of where one layer cubies should go. when solving Cross and Corners in LBL, The most common thing I see is that they solve it, but only the face, not the layer. Because there is a Belt, It shows beginners how corners match with edges, and how edges match with centers more intuitively.


----------



## Micah Wingfield (Mar 16, 2018)

So I have been working on this method for about a month. It is a method where you do cross and f2l then you permute and orient corners at the same time leaving you with one of three olls which give you u, z, or h perm. Let me know what you think about it.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 16, 2018)

This is CFOP with OLLCP.
(or CFOP with COLL? When do you do EO?)


----------



## Micah Wingfield (Mar 16, 2018)

not coll. in a way it is because of the permutation of corners but it is in evey case and the olls you are left with won't move the corners keeping them permuted


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 16, 2018)

Micah Wingfield said:


> not coll. in a way it is because of the permutation of corners but it is in evey case and the olls you are left with won't move the corners keeping them permuted


OLLCP solves OLL and CP


----------



## Micah Wingfield (Mar 16, 2018)

ok well I guess my method is ollcp just less algs since it's just cp


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Mar 17, 2018)

Isn't it just CFCE but with 2-look ell?


----------



## Micah Wingfield (Mar 17, 2018)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what 2 look ell or cfce is. Please elaborate on that.


----------



## Thom S. (Mar 17, 2018)

Micah Wingfield said:


> I'm sorry but I'm not sure what 2 look ell or cfce is. Please elaborate on that.



Explanation first, then opinion:
What you mean is orienting and permuting the Corners every time which is called CLL(for 3x3 in this case)

ELL is Edges of the Last Layer. You say to first orient the edges in three OLLs/2 and then Permute them with some Perms. ELL does that in one step and has 29 Algorithms although it is generally avoided because recognition for it is objectively not as great as other sets.

If I can follow you completely, this is what your method does
Cross
F2L
CLL
ELL/two look
Then, you "invented" the CFCE Method


----------



## Micah Wingfield (Mar 18, 2018)

oh. I guess I "invented" a new method. haha but thanks for letting me know about that so I don't claim to be the creator to anyone.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 21, 2018)

Micah Wingfield said:


> oh. I guess I "invented" a new method. haha but thanks for letting me know about that so I don't claim to be the creator to anyone.


It's a common mistake, I've made it many times myself! I thought I made up a promising new 3x3 method over the winter holidays in 2017 but it turns out it was identicle to one called Hexagonal Francisco. Hopefully one day I'll come up with a method that's both viable and original


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 21, 2018)

Aerma said:


> It's a common mistake, I've made it many times myself! I thought I made up a promising new 3x3 method over the winter holidays in 2017 but it turns out it was identicle to one called Hexagonal Francisco. Hopefully one day I'll come up with a method that's both viable and original





Spoiler



Hexagonal fransisco is also a victim of not being original


----------



## 1001010101001 (Mar 21, 2018)

Is this 2x2 method taken
1. Sort white/yellow
2. Sort green/blue
3. Orient all


----------



## Hazel (Mar 21, 2018)

Triangular Francisco varient?

1) Build the Triangle + E-Layer. Make sure that at least one unsolved D-layer edge is oriented correctly.
2) Insert a D-layer edge (into the disoriented slot if there is one) while solving EO
3) CLS
4) Insert the last edge while solving CP (6 algs, one of which is M' U2 M)
5) EPLL

Steps 2 and 3 can be done in any order, and there's a 1 in 12 chance of a LL skip! I tried a few of the step 4 algs, and they aren't too long or bad, even the diagnal swap one. CLS has a lot of cases though, but they're all really fast and are mostly just taking the E-layer edge out and inserting the F2L pair a certain way.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 22, 2018)

Tell me if this is crazy but I think I've realized something great

If we use BTR-esque setup, we can reduce ZZ-C's OLS set from 501 possibly down to 128 or less.

Basically if we set the cube up so that a U layer edge and an oriented corner are placed BTR style, you have 8 OCLL cases. From there, the edge can be in 1 of 4 places and the corner in 1 of 4 cases. 8*4*4=128

By recognizing the OCLL and the location of the F2L pair pieces, you can perform 1 alg that will orient all corners properly and solve the pair in such a way that when you fix F2L your OLL is completely done!

Here are some examples for those who are confused. It's a hard concept to write but it's actually quite simple once you see it.

EXAMPLE 1
EXAMPLE 2
EXAMPLE 3

This can be made even more crazy if you learn it so that you only need a U layer edge for BTR setup (corner doesn't matter.) Even here, you still have less algs than with normal ZZ-C, giving 128*4=384

This can also be applied to ZZCT, with any corner and a U layer edge being placed in back and using 1 of 32 algs for TSLE. If the corner orientation doesn't matter, 32*3=96 in comparison to the normal 104 (so maybe not entirely worth it to use twisted corner)

EDIT: Typed in the wrong number. 128*3=384, not 128*4. Also these stats have some variance due to symmetry. May be more or less than those given here.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 22, 2018)

LSLL method idea:
1) Build a 2x2 square on U - doesn't have to be permuted, should only take a few moves
2) Insert last F2L edge while solving EO and preserving the square
3) CLS, but with less cases
4) PLL

1/72 chance of LL skip, that's pretty nice.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Mar 23, 2018)

Aerma said:


> LSLL method idea:
> 1) Build a 2x2 square on U - doesn't have to be permuted, should only take a few moves
> 2) Insert last F2L edge while solving EO and preserving the square
> 3) CLS, but with less cases
> ...


That sounds pretty cool! Can you do a few example solves?


----------



## Hazel (Mar 23, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> That sounds pretty cool! Can you do a few example solves?


Thanks, and sure!

*L F' L2 U2 D2 R B' R' U2 D2 L U2 F*

F' U F // Square
U F' U' F // EO+FR
y' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R' U R // CLS
R perm

*L' B2 D' R2 D B2 L U2 F' U' L' U L U F*

R U' R' U2 F' U2 F // Square
F R' F' R // EO+FR - at this point you could just do TTLL, but I'm going to continue as usual for this LSLL method.
U' R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 // CLS
G perm

*U2 R U2 R2 F2 R2 U R2 F2 R U' L F2 L' U*

U F' U F // Square
U2 F' U F // EO+FR
y M' U2 r' U' F2 U F2 R // CLS
R perm

New note: There are 12 cases for step 2, one being a skip. I'll make a spreadsheet of all the cases with the best "algs" to solve each one when I have time, unitl then here are all the algs:


Spoiler



- R’ F R F’
- U’ R U R’
- *skip*
- R U’ R’
- F R’ F’ R
- F’ U F
- U F’ U’ F
- R U’ R’ U F’ U F
- F’ U F U’ R U’ R’
- R U’ R’ U2 F’ U’ F
- F U R U’ R’ F’
- R’ F R F2 U F


And another note, this method makes it so there's only 72 CLS cases (66 if you exclude a skip and OLL cases!) as opposed to 105 (99 minus skip/OLL). Not to mention that the cases my method avoids are the ones that have the hardest recognition!
As a side note, what if instead of 12 simple EO+edge cases, we solved CP as well and during CLS we only used 2-gen algs? That would make 72 EOCP algs, but a 1/12 chance of a LL skip instead of 1/72, hm...


----------



## Neuro (Mar 23, 2018)

In relation to my last post, what if we were to place the F2L edge in place of the U layer edge during BTR and then only recognize the location of the corner on the OCLL? Should have even less cases and easier setup. Makes it so that corner orientation during BTR is practically unnecessary and all that's needed is the edge in position. 6 setup moves max (corner placed w/edge so that with R they're both in back) from true ZZ F2L-1 (average is 2 moves) and influencing during the solve is easy.

Just 24*4=96 cases for full ZZ-C!


----------



## Aaron Stettner (Mar 24, 2018)

Hey everybody,
I've been working on a new 5x5 method called Raymond method. It's a block building reduction method that has three stages,
1. First block (3x4x5)
2. Right Group (Solve remaining centers and edges while inserting final two cross edges)
3. 3x3 stage (solve with petrus for 2-gen)

The method is not fully complete but I will put out more data when it is completely finished. If you want to help collaborate with me on this method you can talk to me and I'll give you more information. I have high hopes or this method, and with what I've been able to figure cubers should be able to get sub-1 with Raymond. More information will be coming out soon.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 24, 2018)

I've created a doc for my LSLL method, here. In it I also have a link to the EO+Edge algorithms


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 24, 2018)

What does right group mean?


----------



## Aaron Stettner (Mar 24, 2018)

Right group is probably not the right name for it, and I haven't had time to name it something better. Basically, after completing the first step, which creates a 3x4x5 block you solve the rest of the edges and centers


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Mar 24, 2018)

What's the average move count?


----------



## Aaron Stettner (Mar 24, 2018)

I have not found the average move count yet, and don't know if I ever will. Right now I really need people to help me find the most efficient way to build a 3x4x5 block on 5x5, and then from there people will just need to practice the method to get fast. Like Yau5, the 3x3 stage is extremely fast because you already have two of your f2l pairs inserted, and with Raymond not only do you have to f2l pairs inserted but you can solve the rest of 3x3 stage 2-gen.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 24, 2018)

Have you tried OBLBL?

(Also, it seems like your method involves some sort of EOpairing (since it finishes reduction with EO done), which is almost guaranteed to suck. Maybe you can find a way to get around its inherent suckiness, and that would be really cool, but I don't consider this likely.)


----------



## Aaron Stettner (Mar 24, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> Have you tried OBLBL?


OBLBL is similar to Raymond, however there are some big differences. I am still working on the EO and I have something in mind, and it would add very little time to the solve to do it, and then reduce more time due to its benefits.


----------



## Gx Cuber (Mar 26, 2018)

Here is G2L an F2L method that I made that is supposed to be easy. It avoids making a cross and instead, it starts intuitively. I have to give credit to QiYI as the beginner's method it has contains algorithms (that I did not make) in my method. Here is the link (With Pictures :3) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sC535JmRwaJNbM-cUUY3kuvOdyGguQGdEiET2VZ4aRM/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Neuro (Mar 27, 2018)

Gx Cuber said:


> Here is G2L an F2L method that I made that is supposed to be easy. It avoids making a cross and instead, it starts intuitively. I have to give credit to QiYI as the beginner's method it has contains algorithms (that I did not make) in my method. Here is the link (With Pictures :3) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sC535JmRwaJNbM-cUUY3kuvOdyGguQGdEiET2VZ4aRM/edit?usp=sharing


Be sure to use proper nomenclature. Cross is already an intuitive step, even for beginners (unless you use daisy)

Don't get me wrong, I actually like this. Inserting 2 edges will be much easier for a beginner to grasp than all 4 cross edges at once.

Although I'd suggest doing the mirror of the second case for the 1st one, makes it easier to learn.

Edge to FR= (U) R U' R' U' F' U F
(U) R U' R' F R' F' R
Edge to FL= (U') L' U L U F U' F'
(U') L' U L F' L F L'

For the entire method you should only need 
R U R' U'
Edge->FR
Edge->FL
F (R U R' U') F'= EO for LL
JPerm or any adjacent corner swap PLL
One of the U perms (I like Ua viewed from the back and MU)

Example


----------



## Hazel (Mar 30, 2018)

*1LLSLL with only 821 algs!*

Here's how it'd work: You'd do one of 328 algs that solves the last F2L pair while solving EO but without disturbing corners or EP (41 F2L cases times 8 EO cases). So the alg would just swap the unsolved F2L pieces with the pieces in the LS and solve EO at the same time. Then ZBLL, which has 493 algs.
Because nothing on the LL is affected, you could recognize what ZBLL case you'll get before doing the alg. The recognition would be different, but learnable. Here's an example:

setup: B U2 B' U2 R2 F' U2 F2 R F' U2 R2 U2 R U R' U'
Recognition: I'm going to imagine that the RFU and FDR corners are swapped, and also that FR and UL are swapped. Also that UF and UB are oriented correctly. I'd also have to (in my mind) adjust the corner orientation since the F2L corner will be solved.
Based on this, I would get an Antisune #64
So, first I'd do the alg that switches the F2L pieces while flipping each edge to solve EO:
R2 L' B' R B' U B2 U' B2 R2 U' L F R' F' (I didn't try finding a good alg right now)
Then the ZBLL: U2 R2 U' R' U R U R' U2 R' U R2 U R2
And an AUF: U (this would make it 2-look technically but I don't count it.)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 30, 2018)

Aerma said:


> *1LLSLL with only 821 algs!*
> 
> Here's how it'd work: You'd do one of 328 algs that solves the last F2L pair while solving EO but without disturbing corners or EP (41 F2L cases times 8 EO cases). So the alg would just swap the unsolved F2L pieces with the pieces in the LS and solve EO at the same time. Then ZBLL, which has 493 algs.
> Because nothing on the LL is affected, you could recognize what ZBLL case you'll get before doing the alg. The recognition would be different, but learnable. Here's an example:
> ...


Really cool idea! I do feel like you'd run into problems with ergomony. Using it with ZZ would be even better; only about 20 F2L algs, if I'm not wrong, and better recognition, since you don't have to mentally flip edges.


----------



## Thom S. (Mar 30, 2018)

Aerma said:


> You'd do one of 328 algs that solves the last F2L pair while solving EO but without disturbing corners or EP



ZBLS has 302 algorithms, where do your 26 extra ones come?


----------



## Hazel (Mar 30, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> Really cool idea! I do feel like you'd run into problems with ergomony. Using it with ZZ would be even better; only about 20 F2L algs, if I'm not wrong, and better recognition, since you don't have to mentally flip edges.


Good point, I haven't thought of that! So that brings down the total alg count from 800+ to just ~534 including ZBLL!


Thom S. said:


> ZBLS has 302 algorithms, where do your 26 extra ones come?


I didn't take symmetry into account or anything like that, my 328 was more of a rough estimate.

I forgot to mention this, but you don't actually have to picture the F2L pieces being swapped with the ones in their slot to recognize the case, you can figure out the ZBLL case by just looking at the LL and ignoring the F2L pieces. It would just require a different recognition system.

EDIT: One of the last slot algs would literally just be z' y' (Jb perm including the U' post AUF) y z


----------



## Hazel (Mar 30, 2018)

I started a spreadsheet for my 1LLSLL step 1 algs here.
I'll work on finishing it up tomorrow if not today. If anyone has a better alg than one I have up then feel free to suggest it!


----------



## Tao Yu (Mar 31, 2018)

Aerma said:


> *1LLSLL with only 821 algs!*
> 
> Here's how it'd work: You'd do one of 328 algs that solves the last F2L pair while solving EO but without disturbing corners or EP (41 F2L cases times 8 EO cases). So the alg would just swap the unsolved F2L pieces with the pieces in the LS and solve EO at the same time. Then ZBLL, which has 493 algs.
> Because nothing on the LL is affected, you could recognize what ZBLL case you'll get before doing the alg. The recognition would be different, but learnable. Here's an example:
> ...



I use stuff like this every now and then for ZBLS. It's usually good when you can solve ZBLS with a 3-style alg because 3-style algs are very optimized.

For example, I use these in solves, and it helps me a bit with the ZBLL recognition.

R' D' R U R' D R

M' U R U' M U R' U'

L E' L' U' L E L'

r U' r' R U R' U r U' r' R U R'

D' R' D R U' R' D' R D

Unfortunately I don't think this would be great to use this all the time. I think it would only be worth using this if the alg is really good - at least comparably fast to the normal ZBLS alg. If you have to use an awkward alg for the last slot, I think that would negate the benefits of having a 1LLSLL.

I wouldn't mind having a list of cases for which good algs exist for this, but I imagine it'd be a pretty niche algset.

As well as that, your method could potentially add a lot of moves to ZB (since the speed optimized algs will most likely be longer), bringing the movecount closer to that of normal CFOP - where people already have such fast recognition and prediction skills that your method might not bring much of an advantage.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 31, 2018)

Tao Yu said:


> I use stuff like this every now and then for ZBLS. It's usually good when you can solve ZBLS with a 3-style alg because 3-style algs are very optimized.
> 
> For example, I use these in solves, and it helps me a bit with the ZBLL recognition.
> 
> ...


My method would be better as a ZZ variant, because then you wouldn't have to worry about EO so there would only be 20 algs, and I've generated them already and only 2 of them are really bad algs (as of now, I'm going to try and find better ones).


----------



## Gx Cuber (Apr 2, 2018)

Thanks!


----------



## Kevin S (Apr 3, 2018)

I think I have a 4x4 variant of the reduction method, which can make beginner cubers who are not ready for an advanced method get better times. The problem is, I don't know if this exists already and/or if it effects ones times. Is anybody willing to help? It is a more effective method of creating centers and, if in the wrong orientation, can fix that issue. I'm sorry if I'm to vague.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 5, 2018)

Kevin S said:


> I think I have a 4x4 variant of the reduction method, which can make beginner cubers who are not ready for an advanced method get better times. The problem is, I don't know if this exists already and/or if it effects ones times. Is anybody willing to help? It is a more effective method of creating centers and, if in the wrong orientation, can fix that issue. I'm sorry if I'm to vague.


I’m interested can you pm me


----------



## spacefromage (Apr 11, 2018)

I'm not sure if this has been done, but I've come up with a 2-Look OLL variant that might be good for beginners. 

The steps are:
1) Insert last F2L pair (this will be important later)
2) Orient corners of the last layer
3) Do OLL 28 or 57

I think that it is more efficient than the regular method because it's easier to look ahead into steps 2 and 3, as the orientation of the corners or edges does not change. It also requires fewer algorithms, because part of the method is looking ahead into your OLL while inserting the last F2L pair, to avoid getting the case where all of the corners are oriented, but none of the edges are.

In closing, I think it's better because there are fewer algorithms to learn, teaches you how recognise OLL cases and forces you to look ahead in solves. Let me know what you think!


----------



## thecubingwizard (Apr 11, 2018)

This has been thought of before, but the main issue I see with it is that if the person wants to continue with CFOP and learn 1-look OLL, they will be more unfamiliar with the cases. With the system of EO -> CO, the learner encounters a subset of 1-look OLL (all edges oriented). It further assists recognition of cases in the long run. Your idea can be executed faster, but it has a tradeoff.


----------



## spacefromage (Apr 11, 2018)

thecubingwizard said:


> This has been thought of before, but the main issue I see with it is that if the person wants to continue with CFOP and learn 1-look OLL, they will be more unfamiliar with the cases. With the system of EO -> CO, the learner encounters a subset of 1-look OLL (all edges oriented). It further assists recognition of cases in the long run. Your idea can be executed faster, but it has a tradeoff.


As I had said in my original post, I had quickly mentioned that I think that it might improve recognition of OLL cases as you have to look at the orientation of the corners, and then look ahead into the edge orientation. 

I know the standard 2-Look OLL, and now use both methods as an intermediate solver. However, thank you for showing me that it might not be the best for beginners


----------



## tnk351 (Apr 12, 2018)

I have a cfop substep:
1. 3/4 cross (finish 3 pieces of cross, the empty one must be a yellow piece)
2. F2L
3. LEOC (last edge of cross (put the last edge back))
4. OLL and PLL
Pros: Makes annoying cross combination easier
Cons: has to put the last piece back


----------



## Oatch (Apr 12, 2018)

tnk351 said:


> I have a cfop substep:
> 1. 3/4 cross (finish 3 pieces of cross, the empty one must be a yellow piece)
> 2. F2L
> 3. LEOC (last edge of cross (put the last edge back))
> ...



I think the cons heavily outweigh the pros here - I think you'll be much better off just solving cross correctly every time, and just embracing the 'annoying' cases as good practice for optimising your cross solutions.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 12, 2018)

tnk351 said:


> I have a cfop substep:
> 1. 3/4 cross (finish 3 pieces of cross, the empty one must be a yellow piece)
> 2. F2L
> 3. LEOC (last edge of cross (put the last edge back))
> ...


Check out 3CFCE.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 13, 2018)

tnk351 said:


> I have a cfop substep:
> 1. 3/4 cross (finish 3 pieces of cross, the empty one must be a yellow piece)
> 2. F2L
> 3. LEOC (last edge of cross (put the last edge back))
> ...


What's generally thought of as a better way of solving F2L-1 Cross is CLL->L5E. However, this is the same method as CFCE as Sue pointed out. Another potential way of doing it is using Hawaiian Kociemba. With this approach, you orient the remaining 10 pieces and then permute them (similar to ZZ-CT but using a cross edge. Other than these two approaches I don't think there's really better ways of solving this set.


----------



## Sion (Apr 18, 2018)

This is a concept I am positive already exists, but what if you optimised the first layer of 2x2 so you can also permute one or two LL corners, so you could reduce the amout of CLLs to speed recognititon?

Since I have stubby fingers which make it hard for me to turn with a high tps, I might start learning more efficient intuitive methods to accomodate.


----------



## TinyNerd (Apr 18, 2018)

Wow, awesome! I didn't know cubing can go this far!


----------



## Neuro (Apr 19, 2018)

Sion said:


> This is a concept I am positive already exists, but what if you optimised the first layer of 2x2 so you can also permute one or two LL corners, so you could reduce the amout of CLLs to speed recognititon?
> 
> Since I have stubby fingers which make it hard for me to turn with a high tps, I might start learning more efficient intuitive methods to accomodate.


Reducing CLL’s would be very easy to do intuitively but whether or not it’s worth it is debatable. It may hinder ability to one-look and increase movecount.

2x2 doesn’t really have a move efficient method unfortunately. All methods seem to bottom out at 14 move average.
3x3 most efficient is Roux and advanced Petrus/ZZ. Petrus can be more efficient than Roux but only with ZBLL imo. ZZ with COLL/EPLL is about the same as CFOP but an arguably better movegroup. Using it with ZBLL will probably get you close to Roux or even lower. Roux is the most efficient in its basic form though.
4x4+ doesn’t really matter what you use. Yau’s really fast but you could get good times using Meyer too. Redux on 6x6 and 7x7.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 24, 2018)

2LLS *2*x2 *LL* *S*kip method ( can’t think of a good name )
Scramble: *R2 F U B’ R2 F U*
Step 1. Bar on DL, sort D layer pieces, recognise CP case. All in inspection
*U’ F’ R*
2. Corner Permutation/ 2-gen reduction/ reduction to RU
This is probably the hardest step.
R2 F R F’ swaps two corners on UF. F RUR’U’ F’ swaps two opposite corners like a yperm.
There are two cases which are a skip. One is solved CP and the other is when the D corners are swapped and U has a diagonal swap.
*U2 R2 F R F’*

3. Place a oriented corner in D and orient all corners 2 gen (guimond algs), However algs for mirror cases will have to be generated. PM me if you want to help
*R’ U R’ U2 R*
4. Intuitive everything else
This step should be done with R2 and any U move to preserve corner orientation. Solve the bottom layer and then AUF the top layer.
*R2 U*
Pros:
Half the solve is 2-gen allowing TPS spam
High chance of LL skip (100%)
Uses inspection time well

Cons:
Lookahead, as there is little direct solving until the end
Hard for beginners

Example solve 2.
R U R2 F U F

R’ B’ U2 R2
U R2 F R F’
R U2 R U’ R
U2 R2 U’ R2
18 moves


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Apr 24, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> 2LLS *2*x2 *LL* *S*kip method ( can’t think of a good name )
> Scramble: *R2 F U B’ R2 F U*
> Step 1. Bar on DL, sort D layer pieces, recognise CP case. All in inspection
> *U’ F’ R*
> ...


Interesting.. Do you have an average movecount?


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 24, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Interesting.. Do you have an average movecount?


19 I think. Maybe 18 or even 17


----------



## Neuro (Apr 25, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> 2LLS *2*x2 *LL* *S*kip method
> Step 1. Bar on DL, sort D layer pieces, recognise CP case. All in inspection
> 2. Corner Permutation/ 2-gen reduction/ reduction to RU
> 3. Place a oriented corner in D and orient all corners 2 gen (guimond algs)
> 4. Intuitive everything else


While it's a cool idea, I unfortunately don't think it can compete with other methods. CP tracking is very difficult even on a 2x2 and the rest of the steps likely can't be one-looked as a result. Also, the movecount is slightly higher than other methods. I simply don't think the ending movegroup is enough to compensate for the many looks you'll end up using in comparison to CLL+ and even HD. Cool idea, not good for speed.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 25, 2018)

Neuro said:


> While it's a cool idea, I unfortunately don't think it can compete with other methods. CP tracking is very difficult even on a 2x2 and the rest of the steps likely can't be one-looked as a result. Also, the movecount is slightly higher than other methods. I simply don't think the ending movegroup is enough to compensate for the many looks you'll end up using in comparison to CLL+ and even HD. Cool idea, not good for speed.


It’s a 3-look method and is just purely experimental.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 25, 2018)

I've decided to revisit Ribbon somewhat, and I've come up with a few other variants people may choose to explore in the future @JTay

Alpha- Standard; TOLS, TTLL
Beta- Phasing+EO LC, ZZLL
Gamma- CP+EO LC, 2GLL
Delta- EOLC, ZBLL
Epsilon- OLC, PLL
Zeta- L5C (algs or comms), ELL
Eta- ELC, L4C
Theta- CP+O LC, EPLL
Iota- COLC, 1LLL w/ CO done
Kappa- CO+E LC, L4C (PLL)

I think usable variants are Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Zeta. Zeta's interesting because it's usable, intuitive, and can be a 1LLSLL if comms are used on corners. I'm not sure on the alg counts on these variants but I'm fairly certain they're all over 200 algs.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 26, 2018)

Please excuse my maths if I get it wrong. I'm not a group theory expert, but if I'm right, (5!^3)/3=576,000 including solved. That hasn't accounted for aufs and could be completely wrong, but at even an eighth of of that isn't worth it.


----------



## A Nonconformist (Apr 26, 2018)

I'm sure this has already been thought up and doesn't compare to cfop or roux, but I'd like to hear how exactly it compares to the two.
FB
SB
EODFDB
ZBLL
Or you could orient corners during the end of SB, EODFDB, PLL


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 26, 2018)

A Nonconformist said:


> I'm sure this has already been thought up and doesn't compare to cfop or roux, but I'd like to hear how exactly it compares to the two.
> FB
> SB
> EODFDB
> ...


This is ZBRoux/LLOB, which is pretty efficient and allows for looking ahead into LL during EODFDB, although you do need to know full ZBLL for it to actually be useful. Without ZBLL, it's more efficient to just do standard CMLL into LSE.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 27, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Please excuse my maths if I get it wrong. I'm not a group theory expert, but if I'm right, (5!^3)/3=576,000 including solved. That hasn't accounted for aufs and could be completely wrong, but at even an eighth of of that isn't worth it.


It would be (5!×3^4)/2=4860, which still isn't really worth it. However, it probably would be best to just use commutators.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 27, 2018)

Neuro said:


> I've decided to revisit Ribbon somewhat, and I've come up with a few other variants people may choose to explore in the future @JTay
> 
> Alpha- Standard; TOLS, TTLL
> Beta- Phasing+EO LC, ZZLL
> ...


Zeta can be completely intuitive with commutator corners and ELL can be done LSE style


----------



## Neuro (Apr 27, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Zeta can be completely intuitive with commutator corners and ELL can be done LSE style


I've changed my mind somewhat on Zeta. I no longer consider it viable for speed given how many looks it'd take to do corners. However, I still find it very interesting in that it is still a semi-feasible 1LLSLL. Let me take this opportunity to talk about the pros/cons of the first 4.

Alpha- Easy to recognize cases, but long algs and hard to predict TTLL
Beta- Nicely developed algs, but harder to recognize and still hard to predict
Gamma- Very fast/simple LL, but hard CP/LL recog and hard to predict LL
Delta- Nicely developed algs and decent prediction, but a lot of algs


Many of these variants are just awful, I basically made them to show how many ways there are to solve F2L-1C, although only a few could be viable for speed. Some may be incredible for FMC but awful for speed and vice-versa. Perhaps Zeta could be used as an FMC technique.

Also, I've ran upwards of 100 L10P scrambles and found that EODFDB/ZBLL and CMLL/LSE (EOLR & EOCMLL) were approximately the same movecount (~24) with the Roux approach actually being ~.3 moves more efficient (albeit that's negligible.)


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 27, 2018)

Neuro said:


> Also, I've ran upwards of 100 L10P scrambles and found that EODFDB/ZBLL and CMLL/LSE (EOLR & EOCMLL) were approximately the same movecount (~24) with the Roux approach actually being ~.3 moves more efficient (albeit that's negligible.)



That's really nice to know. I actually have more hopes in ZBroux as the EODFDB and ZBLL recognition is arguably better for a theoretical future time period


----------



## Arc (Apr 28, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> 2LLS *2*x2 *LL* *S*kip method ( can’t think of a good name )
> Scramble: *R2 F U B’ R2 F U*
> Step 1. Bar on DL, sort D layer pieces, recognise CP case. All in inspection
> *U’ F’ R*
> ...


I suppose I should post the idea I ripped off Teoidus and Shadowslice. 2x2GR and 22 had a child and I call it 22GR.

1. CPLine + TL5C setup (optimal under 5 moves, shouldn't be too hard to get close)
2. Conjugated TL5C (around 12 moves, 39 algs; could be all 2gen, but better not 2gen)

So basically you do CPLine as described in 2GR while also putting either (but not both) D corner into the wrong spot, regardless of orientation (so you could put DFR in DBR, or DBR in DFR, and in neither case does the corner need to be oriented any particular way). from there you simply recognize your TL5C case which is quite easy. You have six cases for the D corner and you should know this from inspection, I call them front (for DBR being in DFR) and back (for DFR being in DBR) and o for sticker oriented down, + for sticker oriented forward or backward, and - for sticker oriented to the right, making front +, front -, front o, back +, back -, and back o. And I reiterate that you don't need to look at this, you should know it from inspection. From here you simply look at the orientation of the four corners on U, and which one has the D sticker on it.

The algs themselves are simply TOCLLs which is a subset of TCLL which already exists, however some TCLLs twist the wrong D corner, which is important here, and also a lot are garbage. Here is the front- set that I put together and genned a little of myself. Should show the general idea of the recognition and also gives an idea of the algs. I don't have all the algs finished and I don't know if I'll finish them any time soon but if someone wants what I have I can get it together.

This is pretty close to an actual L6C method and I think it's far closer to "100% LL skip" than anything proposed before. Plus I think it's actually not even bad, with a fairly competitive move count for only 39 algs.

Edit: one thing I forgot to mention. I haven't played with forcing diag swap instead of solved CP. This would be very similar but none of the algs could be done 2gen. Though they could still end up being better.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 28, 2018)

What if you solved CP while making a V, then just do an alg to solve everything else?


----------



## Neuro (Apr 29, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> That's really nice to know. I actually have more hopes in ZBroux as the EODFDB and ZBLL recognition is arguably better for a theoretical future time period


I suppose it could be suited to big cubes and people that don't enjoy M slices much. Personally, I think that CMLL/LSE is better because there are less algs, recognition is easier, and with proper training MU spam is very fast. However, if you were to train intensely with EODFDB, you could eliminate ZBLL recog altogether. It would take a ridiculous amount of time because of the intricacies of the step, but in theory it could be excellent. Just not sure the effort is worth it in the long-run considering the L10P speed of top Roux solvers.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 29, 2018)

Aerma said:


> What if you solved CP while making a V, then just do an alg to solve everything else?


Or you could just make a v then use an algs to solve everything else


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 29, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> Or you could just make a v then use an algs to solve everything else


Bad recognition


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 29, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Bad recognition


No worse than CP. Plus that's why you predict. I find it comparable to ZBLL recog. Probably easier.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 30, 2018)

@shadowslice e
How do you solve CP on inspection?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 30, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> @shadowslice e
> How do you solve CP on inspection?


I still use commutators. It' probably better to use teoidus' method though


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 30, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> I still use commutators. It' probably better to use teoidus' method though


Link teodus’ method pls


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 30, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Link teodus’ method pls


Search for 2gr


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Apr 30, 2018)

Can someone make an example of a full in depth 2gr solve on youtube. Some of the concept are hard to understand but maybe an example solve would help. 
-Regards, some random noob on the internet


----------



## Neuro (May 1, 2018)

So I think I've found a way to make EODFDB pretty viable but I'd like opinions on it. 

It's very similar to EOLR but has a 2 key differences: you need to pay attention to U/D Centers and the DFDB edged end up on the U layer. Basically the first step is orienting all edges while pairing DF/DB with the D layer center. This line forms on the U layer. After that, you do an AUF and an M2; EODFDB is done!

EODFDB could be done similar to traditional LSE but I think it'd be much slower than this. I think this would be about 2x the "algs" of EOLR but it should be quite learn-able and comparable to the most efficient solutions for all cases. Hopefully the tracking is simple enough that you can predict your edge cycle in ZBLL.

Let me know your opinions. If there's enough demand I'll try and make algs for it.


----------



## Arc (May 3, 2018)

Aerma said:


> What if you solved CP while making a V, then just do an alg to solve everything else?


That's just 2x2GR and it's probably better. It's more algs though. 22GR was just a fun idea. But I realized it's actually decent for having so few algs.



shadowslice e said:


> Or you could just make a v then use an algs to solve everything else





1001010101001 said:


> Bad recognition


Definitely better but who has time for so many algs. Recog I think is quite interesting, it's CPLS + CLS. It should just be possible to learn the 6 CP cases per CLS case (minus symmetry) and use CxLL-style recog. Though it is a lot of cases.



1001010101001 said:


> @shadowslice e
> How do you solve CP on inspection?


http://teoidus.github.io/dump/2GR/CPLine/CPLine.html



SomeRandomZZUser said:


> Can someone make an example of a full in depth 2gr solve on youtube. Some of the concept are hard to understand but maybe an example solve would help.
> -Regards, some random noob on the internet


I think that Teoidus is probably the only one that actually _knows_ 2GR so far. I don't have the quadruples memorized. That said I definitely know enough to be able to fake it for one solve lol, but I'm waaay too lazy to make an example solve. Also if I did an example solve with CP it would definitely be Briggs which is still useful for CP recog/tracking.


----------



## 1001010101001 (May 4, 2018)

Arc said:


> That's just 2x2GR and it's probably better. It's more algs though. 22GR was just a fun idea. But I realized it's actually decent for having so few algs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cool


----------



## shadowslice e (May 4, 2018)

Arc said:


> Definitely better but who has time for so many algs. Recog I think is quite interesting, it's CPLS + CLS. It should just be possible to learn the 6 CP cases per CLS case (minus symmetry) and use CxLL-style recog. Though it is a lot of cases..


Depending on how much you control there would be either 42 or 128 algs


----------



## cuber314159 (May 4, 2018)

I have been thinking about a rotationless 4x4 method and came up with this idea:

1. Solve L and R centres
2. Solve RF, RD and RB edges
3. RFD and RBD corners
4. LF, LD and LB edges
5. LFD and LBD corners
6. Finish centres like Yau 
7. Solve two sets of three edges, this can sometimes be done by doing r, MU u perm, r', otherwise new algs would need to be developed and I have very little experience with that.
8. CMLL
9. LSE


----------



## shadowslice e (May 4, 2018)

cuber314159 said:


> I have been thinking about a rotationless 4x4 method and came up with this idea:
> 
> 1. Solve L and R centres
> 2. Solve RF, RD and RB edges
> ...


You may like to look up stadler.


----------



## 1001010101001 (May 5, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> You may like to look up stadler.


Mirrored stadler


----------



## YLK RUBIKS (May 14, 2018)

I am sorry if this has already been asked before but does anti eg-1 exist because theoretically it could I mean if you do the alg lets say for example an easy case like Pi-2 (R' F R2 U' R2 F R ) if you did y2 and did the same alg on Pi-1 + R2 F2 R2 it would solve the cube, would this work and be a viable technique?


----------



## 1001010101001 (May 14, 2018)

Or you could just do a U2.




My Orient First method(kinda sucks):
1.EO
2.Bottom face opposite colours except for 1 slot
3. Use slot to insert 3 E-slice edges
4. Assemble a corner edge pair and do a Winter Variation to orient corners.
5.Orient everything else using R2/L2/F2/B2 and U/D
6. Half turn everything else


----------



## Duncan Bannon (May 14, 2018)

YLK RUBIKS said:


> I am sorry if this has already been asked before but does anti eg-1 exist because theoretically it could I mean if you do the alg lets say for example an easy case like Pi-2 (R' F R2 U' R2 F R ) if you did y2 and did the same alg on Pi-1 + R2 F2 R2 it would solve the cube, would this work and be a viable technique?



I hope I am getting what you are saying. Sure it would work, but I don't think it would be useful. But any insertions that would leave bar in front requiring a y2 could just be inserted in the back. If a U R U' R' insertion left bar in front. Do a y2 then U L U' L'


----------



## macncheese (May 17, 2018)

Just a very rough idea of a method
1. Four 1x2s around the cube
2 Permutate M slice
3 Permutate S slice
4 Last four corners

Hey guys.
I got a draft for my new method! Here are the steps
1. 4 1x2s
2. Edge insertion
3. LL
The first step gives you the freedom to use the M slice. Thus for efficiency use roux pair making styles to do this step.
The second step is very simple. We will solve the D edges. First align a D edge so an F2 can solve it. Then do M' U2 M to solve it. Repeat to solve all edges. Is M slice to orient the edges.
The third step is LL. Use any LL variation to solve it

The first step is intuititve and the last step can use COLL


----------



## macncheese (May 17, 2018)

Hey guys.
I got a draft for my new method! Here are the steps
1. 4 1x2s on the D face standing upright ( basically the size a CE pair)
2. Edge insertion
3. LL
The first step gives you the freedom to use the M slice. Thus for efficiency use roux pair making styles to do this step.
The second step is very simple. We will solve the D edges. First align a D edge so an F2 can solve it. Then do M' U2 M to solve it. Repeat to solve all edges. Use the M slice to orient the edges.
The third step is LL. Use any LL variation to solve it


----------



## shadowslice e (May 17, 2018)

macncheese said:


> The first step is intuititve and the last step can use COLL


You can't use COLL for the last step. You' have to use L4C. This also looks basically like PCMS but in the wrong order (which handicaps it)


----------



## macncheese (May 17, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> You can't use COLL for the last step. You' have to use L4C. This also looks basically like PCMS but in the wrong order (which handicaps it)


Nvm I uploaded on a separate thread with great improvement Edit- apparently they merged it


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 17, 2018)

Yeah, this is basically PCMS but worse.


----------



## macncheese (May 18, 2018)

Didn't think about that. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## Sion (May 19, 2018)

I have this new redux/blockbuild/psuedoblock method for big (5x5+) cubes that I call "Blocs Nouveau." It is based on the principle that optimal edges are prie-fixed in pairs, for instance on 5x5 an optimal edge is 2/3 of the tredge, or on even bigger cubes, the n-edge with the most solved edges. This can't be applied to 3x3, since 3x3 is the final step of blocs nouveau. It can be applied to 4x4, but it wouldn't be "optimal" because optimality is either solved or unsolved; there isn't a partial n-edge on a 4x4; there are only two possibilities for an n-edge state.

Now, I will talk about the BN optimality rule: utilise this; only try to solve for 1/3 solved tredges if there are no 2/3 or 3/3 tredges. However, when I try the method in my free time, there is usually always a 2/3 tredge, and sometimes 3/3 tredges. You will save a lot of time and cuts on movecount. Nothing needs to be solved or matched into a "final state" until 3x3 step (such as fully solving a block), so don't worry about pre-permutations of 3x3 solved at any time during the solve. Also, corners mean nothing until the final step.

Steps (the sample here is if you were applying BN to a 5x5, which is the cube I derived the method from:

1: BNF1B
1a: inspect for a partially solved or fully solved tredge that is, if it is either 2/3 or 3/3 solved. If partial, match it up to solve for one tredge. If already 3/3, skip to 1b
1b: Solve any center next to your solved tredge (doesn't need to match any colors on your tredge), and form another tredge. Follow optimality rule. This solves a BN 1x2x2. Keep the BN 1x2x2 on LF.
1c: Solve any center; keep it on the D layer.
1d: Solve another center adjacent to the BN 1x2x2 on the F face. Simultaneously create a tredge adjacent to the new center and D face center. Follow optimality rule. This will create a BN 2x2x2.
1e: Solve another center on R(or B; this example follows on R), solve two new tredges following the optimality rule, slotting them into RD and RF. This creates a BN 2x2x3.

2:BNFNL
2a: rotate your cube so that your unsolved centers are on U and F. Solve two new tredges following optimality rule, place them on FR and FL.
2b: Solve your two remaining centers and a tredge on DF.

3:edge cycles, parity
3a: your remaining unsolved tredges should be on the U layer. Just do edge cycles to solve them. As you would on any big cube method.
3b; if you get parity, solve it Now, it will help you with the last step.if no parity, just skip to the final step.

4: 3x3. By now, your cube should be in a scrambled 3x3 state. Just solve it as you would a normal 3x3, and you are complete.

Pros:
Use of optimal edges can lower movecount.
Easy center pairing
Doesn't regard any final permutations until the final step

Cons
BN blocks look like scrambled 3x3 blocks, which may appear confusing.
Recognition would probably need to be higher because of BN optimality rule.
Potentially high amount of rotations, but that may just be me.


I am curious to see if someone more seasoned In 5x5 can give this method a go.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 19, 2018)

I don’t totally understand the BN rule, becausee surely all tredges are 1/3 solved instantly? Tell me if I’m misunderstanding this.

Secondly, for steps 2 and 3, wouldn’t it be better to solve L2C then the edges? It just seems more intuitive and better.


----------



## xyzzy (May 19, 2018)

Sion said:


> 2b: Solve your two remaining centers and a tredge on DF.


whoa hold up on those slice moves

I've tried doing a solve based on your method outline, and while it's not absurdly inefficient, I don't see it being any better than freeslice in _any_ sense. In terms of move count, it's worse. In terms of ergonomics, it _needs_ considerably more slice moves, and you need to solve centres all over the place, so it's a lot worse. (It's not strictly necessary to do rotations, but good luck keeping track of centres on U, R and F simultaneously without rotating at all.)

Unlike Yau/Yau5/Hoya5 which trade off a bit of move count efficiency for ergonomics, lookahead and an easier 3×3×3 stage, your method trades off move count efficiency for (seemingly) nothing useful.



Sion said:


> Pros:
> Use of optimal edges can lower movecount.
> Easy center pairing
> Doesn't regard any final permutations until the final step
> ...


I have no idea what these pros/cons are supposed to be relative to. The pros are all _not_ pros when compared to freeslice, and only the first and _sort of kind of_ the third are relevant to Yau5.


----------



## Sion (May 19, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> I don’t totally understand the BN rule, becausee surely all tredges are 1/3 solved instantly? Tell me if I’m misunderstanding this.
> 
> Secondly, for steps 2 and 3, wouldn’t it be better to solve L2C then the edges? It just seems more intuitive and better.



When solving for a new tredge, since tredges are made of three smaller edges, find a unit in which two of the three edges to form a tredge are solved.


----------



## Burnsy101 (May 20, 2018)

Has Anyone thought of influencing 3-2-3 edge pairing during L4C in Yau? By doing a few setup moves it might be possible to "skip" one or two edges, resulting in a quicker edge pairing. I think that this would be beneficial as the movecount during L4C would only have to increase by 10 or so to place 2 wings and match them up whilst doing L4C.


----------



## Hazel (May 21, 2018)

Abram Lookadoo said:


> the reason is that eo is already solved, compared to if its not.


Off topic (sorry!) but I just realized your profile picture is Star's wand from Star vs the Forces of Evil!! I love that show


----------



## 1001010101001 (May 21, 2018)

Burnsy101 said:


> Has Anyone thought of influencing 3-2-3 edge pairing during L4C in Yau? By doing a few setup moves it might be possible to "skip" one or two edges, resulting in a quicker edge pairing. I think that this would be beneficial as the movecount during L4C would only have to increase by 10 or so to place 2 wings and match them up whilst doing L4C.


Pair 3 solved edges and put them on DR, FR and BR if your UD centres are on LR and your 3cross edges are on LF, LD and LB. But then you will have to use slices for the centres. It looks great on paper but the reduced ergonomics mean it is not worth it


----------



## macncheese (May 26, 2018)

How do you find algorithms for your ideas? Sorry if this does not belong here


----------



## xyzzy (May 26, 2018)

macncheese said:


> How do you find algorithms for your ideas? Sorry if this does not belong here


Cube Explorer.


----------



## Rubiksdude4144 (May 28, 2018)

Has anyone ever thought to make VLS but you don’t have to have the pair made?


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 28, 2018)

There are about 500 ols algs (what you’re saying, but with eo). To add eo into there, you’re saying multiply it by 8, so ~4000 algs. Probably not worth it.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 28, 2018)

Rubiksdude4144 said:


> Has anyone ever thought to make VLS but you don’t have to have the pair made?


Thought? Yes. Too many algs.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (May 28, 2018)

Could CFOP-CT be a thing? You could do EO after F2L-1. Then TSLE then TTLL. That makes it the same steps as full CFOP though. EO+TSLE+TTLL vs Insert pair + OLL + PLL. How many algs would TSLE be if edges weren't orientated?


----------



## JTay (May 28, 2018)

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Ribbon_Method

CFOP-CT is bad. I created the Ribbon Method a while ago as a way to end a CFOP solve with TTLL. I've also found a ton of algs and spent plenty of time making them perfect.


----------



## Arc (May 28, 2018)

Rubiksdude4144 said:


> Has anyone ever thought to make VLS but you don’t have to have the pair made?





PapaSmurf said:


> There are about 500 ols algs (what you’re saying, but with eo). To add eo into there, you’re saying multiply it by 8, so ~4000 algs. Probably not worth it.


This is called OLS. There is a wiki page on it. According to that it has 17k algs though I'm not sure where that number comes from.


----------



## Thom S. (May 28, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Could CFOP-CT be a thing? You could do EO after F2L-1. Then TSLE then TTLL. That makes it the same steps as full CFOP though. EO+TSLE+TTLL vs Insert pair + OLL + PLL. How many algs would TSLE be if edges weren't orientated?



I think 840 for TSLE + EO. It could be a thing but ZZ-CT isn't as great of a method as you might think.It's one more Step as CFOP but as many steps as VH.
You basically have a 3LLS




Arc said:


> According to that it has 17k algs though I'm not sure where that number comes from.



Oriented OLS has 502 Cases * 8 by adding EO = 4016. This is only for the FR slot This means * 4 = 16064

If we add OLL and the complete OLS step I'm exactly 1590 cases away from their number


----------



## THERAGINGCYCLOPS (May 29, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Could CFOP-CT be a thing? You could do EO after F2L-1. Then TSLE then TTLL. That makes it the same steps as full CFOP though. EO+TSLE+TTLL vs Insert pair + OLL + PLL. How many algs would TSLE be if edges weren't orientated?


I do VHLS to do EO and COLL+EPLL
ZBLL would be slightly faster


----------



## Hazel (Jun 5, 2018)

Here's an idea: NMF2L (non-matching F2L)
Here's an example of what I mean:

setup: B2 L' R' B' D2 R B2 D B L' R F' R' D' F R' D z2

You can see that there is a 4-move white cross. But, look at the Right side: There's a 2x2x1 block. Let's go about the solve and pretend that the yellow/orange edge is solved, and the corner-edge pair with it is also solved. Now we have a 1-move X-cross! Here's how you would go about doing this (make sure you did the z2 in the setup!)

L // X-cross
y' R' U' R // F2L-2
R U' R' U R U R' // F2L-3
d R U R' U' R U R' // F2L-4
U S' L' U' L U L F' L' f // OLL (recognition is the same if you pretend white and yellow are the same)
Nb perm // PLL
Now just AUF and fix the F2L with an L2!


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Jun 8, 2018)

Aerma said:


> Here's an idea: NMF2L (non-matching F2L)
> Here's an example of what I mean:
> 
> setup: B2 L' R' B' D2 R B2 D B L' R F' R' D' F R' D z2
> ...


 Non-matching f2l (usually called Non-matching last layer/NMLL) has already been thought before but maybe developing non-matching last layer recognition system(s) could be useful.


----------



## _zoux (Jun 12, 2018)

Aerma said:


> Here's an idea: NMF2L (non-matching F2L)
> Here's an example of what I mean:
> 
> setup: B2 L' R' B' D2 R B2 D B L' R F' R' D' F R' D z2
> ...


That's NMB.


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 12, 2018)

_zoux said:


> That's NMB.



NMB is the term for about every method except CFOP


----------



## Neuro (Jun 13, 2018)

NMF2L may be good with an excellent recog system but it might be best to use it only when it’s off by a <RFBL>2. It still has decent recognition at this stage even on OLL/PLL. If it’s off by a single turn it’s usually quite hard to recognize cases


----------



## Hazel (Jun 13, 2018)

Random idea, not sure if this is any good or not:
1) Petrus block vertically in back-left along with solving FL and RB edges
2) Solve the rest of F2L (ignoring FR and FRD pieces) without breaking up the 2x2x1 on U
3a) Insert FR while solving EO, without breaking up the 2x2x1 – this is super easy and intuitive, 6 moves maximum for every case.
3b) L6P – shouldn't be _too_ many algorithms


----------



## _zoux (Jun 13, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> NMB is the term for about every method except CFOP


It's still same, no sence to make a new name for it.


Neuro said:


> NMF2L may be good with an excellent recog system but it might be best to use it only when it’s off by a <RFBL>2. It still has decent recognition at this stage even on OLL/PLL. If it’s off by a single turn it’s usually quite hard to recognize cases


Recognition is very easy, just like a CN cross.


----------



## @Ratas (Jun 14, 2018)

Thermex said:


> Great idea to cut down on the number of algs; in fact I'll probably use this while I'm learning full L7E, but it's not the most efficient. Been working on L7E really hard for the last couple of days so I'll present those algs this weekend. With rotational symmetry and AUFs there are exactly 125 unique cases, many of which are just one of the baseline cases with a couple of M or U moves tacked on to the end.
> 
> Sounds interesting; I have no idea how you're gonna do this but GL  btw I've actually been making the L7E algs on a seperate sheet that's much better organized than the one you had, so I'll show that to you tonight. Recently I've also come up with a BOPE L8E method and a mega-efficient squan method that's based off of HD, so I'll show you guys those tomorrow.


Do you still remember the steps of that squan method?


----------



## Thermex (Jun 23, 2018)

Hey everyone, sorry I've been gone for a while, I decided to take a long break from cubing. Anyone able to catch me up on what's happened in the last couple months?


@Ratas said:


> Do you still remember the steps of that squan method?


I'll try to find that for you, I saved it somewhere on my computer.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jul 1, 2018)

Would anyone be interested in a TTCLL for 2x2? Often times having a bar and then 2 corners facing against each other is really bad.

For example do this:

R2 F' U2 F' U F U2 F2 R2 L B2 L' X' Y'

looking at green, its really bad. If you know EG-1 you could do F' R2 U' R2 then rotate and do the EG-1. What if you did a F2 (from this position) then solved the rest in 1 alg. There are 2 cases. One is where the corners are twisted in place and 1 where when twisted it makes an Eg-1 face. I believe both would have 42 cases. Would anyone be interested in me generating some algs. I think they should be pretty nice.

Example solve:
R2 F' U2 F' U F U2 F2 R2

X' Y'
F U2 F- 3/3 - Setup (often this can be done for you, and setting up to this would most likely be worse than making a face, so this should be used like TCLL)
U' F' R' U' F L2 U' R2 F2 L F 11/14( could probably find better alg  just for demonstration)

Let me know if I should gen some algs.

Edit- This is only for when the corners face opposite directions.


----------



## Thermex (Jul 1, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Would anyone be interested in a TTCLL for 2x2? Often times having a bar and then 2 corners facing against each other is really bad.
> 
> For example do this:
> 
> ...


I've thought of this before, and it's not really worth it. Right now I'm genning Twisty EG algs which are both more ergonomic and more useful in the long run than this.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jul 1, 2018)

Oh yeah? Cool. Twisty EG-2 has been generated here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...MxiMX9a506JeAcLnUXZr8FgXAY/edit#gid=158518402 if you didn't know already. Is TEG-1 worth is though? You would have to have 3 sets of 42 algs and then that times 2 for corner permutation, so 252 algs (if I'm not mistaken) and that seem kinda nuts. But then again Will and Vilius are generating LS algs.... So are you doing TEG-1 or TEG-2 algs? I could help if you are looking for any.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jul 1, 2018)

Have you ever thought of non matching layers? In particular opposite colors layers. And even broken down even more a nonmatching layer like this F' R' U2 F U2 F' R2 F' U'

x' R F2 Where F2 solves the bar in relation to the bar in the back (hopefully that makes sense)

then sometimes you can do the CLL (looking at the yellow and white (in this case) like they are the same color) then U' R U2 R' U' R U R' U2 R' F R F' then F2 to solve. Kinda like anti CLL but not  a lot of these work out to be CLL cases and like anti cll. but some are impossible cases for CLL. No idea how many aren't. Neat idea. Hope this makes sense. If not, let me know and I should be able to explain.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 1, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Have you ever thought of non matching layers? In particular opposite colors layers. And even broken down even more a nonmatching layer like this F' R' U2 F U2 F' R2 F' U'
> 
> x' R F2 Where F2 solves the bar in relation to the bar in the back (hopefully that makes sense)
> 
> then sometimes you can do the CLL (looking at the yellow and white (in this case) like they are the same color) then U' R U2 R' U' R U R' U2 R' F R F' then F2 to solve. Kinda like anti CLL but not  a lot of these work out to be CLL cases and like anti cll. but some are impossible cases for CLL. No idea how many aren't. Neat idea. Hope this makes sense. If not, let me know and I should be able to explain.


I do this and BTR sometimes.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jul 1, 2018)

How do you do it if it isn't a CLL? And is BTR, 42 for 2x2?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 1, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> How do you do it if it isn't a CLL? And is BTR, 42 for 2x2?


BTR is reducing L5C using conjugates yes. What do you mean if it's not CLL? I more or less use NMLL.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jul 1, 2018)

I'm not very familiar with NMLL. How would that work for 2x2? Sorry for my lack of research into methods similar to that of my minds creations.


----------



## Thermex (Jul 1, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Oh yeah? Cool. Twisty EG-2 has been generated here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...MxiMX9a506JeAcLnUXZr8FgXAY/edit#gid=158518402 if you didn't know already. Is TEG-1 worth is though? You would have to have 3 sets of 42 algs and then that times 2 for corner permutation, so 252 algs (if I'm not mistaken) and that seem kinda nuts. But then again Will and Vilius are generating LS algs.... So are you doing TEG-1 or TEG-2 algs? I could help if you are looking for any.


I've been generating Twisty EG-1 algs for about a month now. There are actually 430 algs total (if you count TEG-2) and 8 sets of 43 algs each for TEG-1. I personally think it's worth it, but I'm not really looking back now now that I've already generated 3 out of the 8 sets... Also I've been using NMLL for a while now along with CLL... it messes up recog a bit but I've always assumed it was something that most 2x2 solvers figured out one way or another. It's sorta helpful sometimes when there are no good CLL faces, but I wouldn't really consider it a "new method".


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Jul 1, 2018)

Thermex said:


> I've been generating Twisty EG-1 algs for about a month now. There are actually 430 algs total (if you count TEG-2) and 8 sets of 43 algs each for TEG-1. I personally think it's worth it, but I'm not really looking back now now that I've already generated 3 out of the 8 sets...


Cool. What algs do you know? Where are you putting them? And I'd be in to help with the process.


----------



## Thermex (Jul 1, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Cool. What algs do you know? Where are you putting them? And I'd be in to help with the process.


So far I've generated the DFR- set (DFR and DFL corners are switched, DFR is twisted out to the right), the DFL- set (DFR and DFL are switched, DFL is twisted out to the left) and about half of the DBL- set (DFR and DFL are switched, DBL is facing out to the left). The algs are really nice, the average is around 8 moves per alg for DFR- and 8.5 moves per alg for DFL- (so far the DBL- set isn't quite as nice, the average alg is about 9 moves). About 15% of the algs are 2-gen and pretty much the rest are 3-gen. I haven't really talked about my progress with anyone yet, but I'd be maybe willing to split the remaining workload with you, it's starting to get really tedious  Oh and btw I put all of the algs in a really nicely organized spreadsheet using google docs.

EDIT: Tbh the TEG-2 algs you linked look pretty awful. I plan on re-generating most of them since most of them aren't ergonomic at all.


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 2, 2018)

I have been sitting on this concept for a while, and propose a new way of doing the LSE step of the Roux Method.
I am a method neutral solver, with respect for both CFOP and Roux , and secret deep respect for Waterman method.
And I have always thought as to why the LSE method has got the EOLR , Pinky Pie flavour and no flavour from the BLD algs domain.

After all, LSE is 6 edges (=2 3-style algs or even less), and newer ways of recognition can be brought up for LSE.
Till now, people have been struggling , to reduce LSE from 3-look to 2.5-look to 2-look(super pro) level.
But seeing it from a BLD perspective, the recognition will be much faster if you can identify the cycle cases.

I will be trying this out ,and spamming a ao1000 out of this new LSE scheme!


----------



## Spencer131 (Jul 3, 2018)

abunickabhi said:


> .
> After all, LSE is 6 edges (=2 3-style algs or even less), and newer ways of recognition can be brought up for LSE.


The problem is that it will often take 3 comms to solve lse, just try it for yourself and see. At this point you will probably be using more moves than a standard lse solution.


----------



## kubnintadni (Jul 6, 2018)

I don't know if this method has been thought of before, but I thought of a new method partially inspired by CFTOP called "Zzz".

1. Close your eyes and relax for the first 15 seconds of inspection.
2. When you get the +2 warning, start the timer and solve using any ZZ variant.


----------



## djpiper28 (Jul 7, 2018)

What do you think of the hybrid method that I created to use as a step up from basic method.

Guide PDF https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z6xOq0CmufiP_BjbfumPH-__9sRrQ5Ab/view?usp=sharing

Diagrams are copied from two great guides - credit to the owneers of them.


----------



## Thom S. (Jul 8, 2018)

djpiper28 said:


> What do you think of the hybrid method that I created to use as a step up from basic method.



One of the most common proposals and while it's maybe better than CFOP in terms of movecount it's inferior than Roux.
Think about it ULUR is about the same as DFDB but all 4c cases are better than all the Edge-only Perms


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jul 9, 2018)

ZZ-HIV lol

ZZ-HIV Type A

1. EO+1 edge solved
2. Pretty much Heise at this point

ZZ-HIV Type B

1. EO+2 cross edge adjacent to each other solved
2. 2x2 Block -> 2x2x3 Block
3. Another 2x2x1 Block on LL while insert F2L
4. ZZ-Tripod/L3C or ZBLL with 2x2 Block


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 10, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> The problem is that it will often take 3 comms to solve lse, just try it for yourself and see. At this point you will probably be using more moves than a standard lse solution.


Yeah I have tried it out ,and I have mixed bags results,
sometimes it is just 2 easy comms, and in other cases it is just better to do the LSE.

I think a middle method can be developed from both of them, for eg,
if there is an flipped edges in their spot , then doing LSE or good flipping alg will be good.
Otherwise if there is a solved piece, then an easy 2 comms of 3-style or even one 5-cycle alg.


----------



## Hazel (Jul 10, 2018)

abunickabhi said:


> for eg


This gave me a bit of an idea of another way to possibly do LSE:
Put the 2 D-layer edges into the D-layer while solving centers, not worrying about permutation, as long as they're both either oriented or not oriented. Then, do 1 alg to solve everything. This would have about 29*4= 116 cases, plus or minus, recognition wouldn't be any harder than ELL.


----------



## _zoux (Jul 12, 2018)

Another generic ZZ variant idea

ZZ-C#

eoline -> f2l-1 -> OLLS (OLS but you don't care for D corner orientation) -> TPLL

Pros

-Way fewer algs than C itself
-No problems with fixed slot, since there's so few OLLS cases, so you can learn mirrors, and then just ADF for TPLL
-OLLS is 2 gen
-OLLS algs are just good OLS algs
-Actually pretty effictent (mid 40s)
Cons

Recognition is eh (edit: it's ok)
A lot of algs (~200 total)
TPLL algs might be pretty bad, but i'm not sure


There were a idea of CPOLLS/TEPLL, but it seems like too many algs

here's dum solve
L' D B' U F L2 U F2 D2 R2 F2 D R' D2 B2 L U' B R F' // Scramble

x M' U D' F R D F2 // 7,7 // eoline

U R' U2 R U' R U R // 8,15 // first square

L' U2 L2 U2 L' U' L' // 7,22 // second square

U R U' L' U' M' x' // 6,28 // pair

R U2 R' U R U2 R' // 7,35 // OLLS

B U' F2 U B' R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 U F2 // 14,49 // TPLL

ok thanks bye


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jul 13, 2018)

Metallic Silver said:


> ZZ-HIV lol


ZZ- Human Immunodeficiency Virus


----------



## Sion (Jul 14, 2018)

I did this decent solve that I don't know exactly what method I did, but it seemed decently efficient.

https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=x2_y_R2..._L_B_R_D_B-_F2_D-_L_D-_F-
&title=This thing


Scramble: 
R2 D2 R2 D2 B2 D2 B' R2 B' F2 D2 L B R D B' F2 D' L D' F'

x2 y R2 F U R u' R2 u' //FB (7)
U' M' r U' r U2 R2 M // 2x2x2 DBR (8)
U' M' U' M U R M' U2 M// EO+DF (9)
U R' U R U' R' U R U R'// 1x2x2 U (10)
R U R' U' z' //Reduction to L3C (4)
L' U2 L' D' L U2 L' D L2// L3C (10)


----------



## Thom S. (Jul 14, 2018)

Sion said:


> I did this decent solve that I don't know exactly what method I did, but it seemed decently efficient.



LEOR


----------



## presley (Jul 26, 2018)

I create a new method.

The first step of this method is to do a 2x2x3 block as well as the Petrus method, but all the rest steps is not the same as the Petrus method and this method is a group reducing method, reduced to the R, U face rotations group and the group that does not destroy completed pairs, no F2L, no PLL, OLL, and some steps have their own ideas.

So I give it a new name, Reduce R, U face rotations group and retain Pairs, referred to as the RUP method.

Step 1, complete a 2x2x3 block
Step 2, Reducing to R, U face rotations group.
Step 3, complete 2 pairs
Step 4, complete the third pair
Step 5, complete the 4th pair
Step 6, expand into 3 pairs and 1 1x2x2 block

This method is a still developing method.

The detail I put it on the web site
https://presleygit.github.io/index_eng.html


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 26, 2018)

I think you might be on track to recreating somehing akin to NCPB 2.0 (albeit with a petrus as opposed to a roux block). I'd be interested to see where you end up though as I don't think anyone has yet come up with a really competitive method where CP on its own is done before L4C. You might like to have a look at 2GR, Briggs/B2, ZZ-porky and both NCPB and NCPB 2.0


----------



## presley (Jul 26, 2018)

Because this method is a pure reducing group method.
So I change the steps name of this method like below.

RUP method
Step 1, complete a 2x2x3 block
Step 2, Reducing to R, U face rotations group.
Step 3, Reducing to the group of retaining 2 pairs
Step 4, Reducing to the group of retaining 3 pairs
Step 5, Reducing to the group of retaining 4 pairs
Step 6, Reducing to the group of retaining 3 pairs and 1 1x2x2 block

https://presleygit.github.io/index_eng.html


----------



## meskelto (Aug 25, 2018)

Hey. I have searched around for this concept that I have thought of but I haven’t come across anything online or in the threads. The algorithms are not ready yet, so I decided to put my idea out there and to get your thoughts on it.

It is a LSLL method that is inspired by Fish and Chips (F&C) that is used for EO methods, most likely ZZ and Petrus. It should hopefully reduce the gap further between ZBLL (about 23 moves) and the SIMPLE version of F&C developed by @mDiPalma (about 25 moves) without resorting to using so many algs. Since the first step is to solve one edge piece, I have decided to call this LSLL method One Piece (which sounds familiar...). Anyway, the steps are outlined below:

1: Solve to F2L-1 with EO.
2: Solve the final F2L edge, ignoring the corner.
3: Solve all the edges of the LL and any _two_ corners within the LL and belonging to LL using Siamese Fish (SF) algs (a subset of the ZBLLs).
4: L3C.

The idea is to try to save moves by only inserting the final F2L edge and ignoring the corner. Usually the LS is solved in 7 moves (from the SIMPLE thread), and just the edge on its own is 2.6 moves, which reduces to 2 if we always try to cancel from solving the square. Therefore, this saves 5 moves overall.

The L3C should be solved in roughly the same number of moves as in F&C, possibly a little higher (about 9.5 moves). There should be potential AUFs before the SF algorithm and at the end of the solve, so: 0.75 + 0.75 = 1.5 moves. Between SF alg and L3C, any AUF is absorbed into the L3C move count.

Overall move count = 2 + [SF alg] + 9.5 + 1.5 = 13 + [SF alg]

So in order for this method to be worth doing (at least in terms of the move count) the SF algorithms need to be less than 12 moves on average, which seems entirely possible.

Also, since there is a corner trapped in the F2L, look ahead into the L3C step is relatively simple as you only need to track one corner (in fact, only the orientation) to predict the final step. This allows for a more pause-less solve than most 2-step systems, and people could even train themselves to see almost the entire LSLL in one-look in speedsolves.

Since I haven’t developed the SF algorithms yet, I am not 100% sure how many algorithms will be needed and what their average move count will be, but I will try to estimate them here. Any help with this estimate would be appreciated!

Note: If the F2L corner is accidentally solved then just do normal F&C.

Edit:
Also, I could just find algs that affect all five corners. This would reduce the alg count since more cases are covered per alg, and maybe the move count would be lower as well. However, the case recognition would be more difficult (more corners to look at), it is harder to look ahead to L3C and you may have to rotate or use mirrors to get the F2L corner slot in the correct position (less of a problem with L3C). As @Spencer131 said this would be just like Heise, but purely using algs. I guess doing this could be useful for FMC so maybe I'll produce an alg set for this one day, but the version I described above is better for speedsolving.



Spoiler: Details



*Alg Count:*


Spoiler: SF Alg Count



We begin with calculating the number of LL+C cases. There are only 3 edge cases: adjacent swap, opposite swap and solved. There are 5! permutations and 3^5 orientations, divided by 2 since only even swaps are allowed overall and divided by 3 since for every clockwise twist there is an anti-clockwise one.

The number of corner cases per edge case = 5! X 3^5 / (2 X 3) = 4860

Note that by rotating corner _cases_ (not the corners themselves) about edge cases in LL, we find identical cases. For example, rotating an A perm corner case about the solved edge case. This means we divide the number of corner cases by 4 for the solved edge case and 2 for the opposite swap case. (Remember, you can AUF when considering F2L corner).

I think that if the corner cases themselves have rotational symmetry then this doesn’t add as much to the cases we can eliminate. So the final number of cases is a bit of an under-estimate, but due to the fifth corner there shouldn’t be too many of these cases.

Therefore, the total number of unique LL+C cases = 4860 + 4860/2 + 4860/4 = 8505

Since we deal with the solved F2L corner case with F&C, we do not need to consider 1/15 of the LL+C cases. So the number of LL+C cases we need to consider is *7938. *

Now to calculate roughly how many cases each SF alg covers. Suppose we solve all the edges and any two corners in LL. Then we are left with 3 corners to solve, and the total number of cases for these corners is:

L3C cases = 3! X 3^3 / (2 X 3) = 27;

but take away 3 to get 24 (from solved F2L corner cases since these never come up so cannot be covered).

Since each SF alg accounts for 6 corner pair cases (well, most of them; I'm looking at you H perm) for a given edge case:

LL+C cases covered per SF alg = 6 X 24 = 144

This is an over-estimate actually, since multiple corner pair cases can appear from the same alg in one LL+C case; I think this happens for 16 LL+C cases. So the actual number is *128*.

Lastly, we ignore SF skips; a SF alg which does nothing covers two corner cases, so: 2 X 24 - 2 (not 16 due to symmetry) = 46 cases of SF skip.

Hence, the minimum number of SF algs required for full coverage is: (7938 - 46) / 128 = 61.7

So *62 SF algs* is the estimated minimum amount for full coverage.



So I estimate that the minimum number of SF algorithms needed is about 62. It is likely that more algs would be used for the SF set which optimises move count, possibly bringing the total up to about *80-100*. I think for most people, learning this number of algs is very doable.



Spoiler: L3C Alg Count



Have the corner in F2L always on DFR/DFL, helped by using d/d’ moves when you AUF. There are 2 cases when looking at LL; either the two corners are adjacent or diagonally opposite. AUF to have both corners in front or one corner above the corner in F2L. Then there are 52 cases, but this can be reduced by 1/2 if we use inverses to get *26 L3C algs*.

This could be reduced to 13 if we use L/R moves to set up a diagonal case from an adjacent one (or vice versa), but this obviously increases move count.



So the minimum number of L3C algorithms is *26*. Of course knowledge of commutators would reduce the L3C alg set to zero, but I think this way can be useful in finding more ergonomic solutions.

*Move Count:*

The average move count for full ergonomic ZBLL is about 14.5 moves (again taken from SIMPLE thread), so I would say 10-12 moves is a realistic target considering we are selecting less than 100/500 algs.

*More about L3C prediction: *


Spoiler: Look Ahead



One system for predicting L3C is given. I hope this is easier to do in practice than it is to explain!

1: Find SF alg and know (after correct AUF) the two positions of the two unsolved corners in LL. Pick a corner belonging to LL to track.

2: Note corner trapped in F2L; if it is correctly permuted (at home) then so will the corner we are tracking after the SF alg, and vice versa. If the trapped corner is not at home then it tells you where the other corner goes, since the corner we are tracking must go to where the trapped corner wants to go. The final corner must go to the last available position, and so the permutation is deduced purely from looking at the trapped corner.

3: So we only need to know the orientation of the corner we are tracking, since the trapped corners’ orientation is fixed and the orientation of the other corner is deduced from the other two. This makes it easy to look ahead and if one knew the orientation effect of the SF alg then both SF alg and L3C can be found in one look.

Alternatively, you might know the alg you are using well enough that you can just predict the state of the corner you track easily. But the system above might be useful if you recognise the SF alg as half a ZBLL.






So hopefully I’ll finish the alg set soon, and I think I’ll start a new thread about One Piece LSLL if anything comes of it. Let me know about any questions or remarks that you have.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 25, 2018)

meskelto said:


> Hey. I have searched around for this concept that I have thought of but I haven’t come across anything online or in the threads. The algorithms are not ready yet, so I decided to put my idea out there and to get your thoughts on it.
> 
> It is a LSLL method that is inspired by Fish and Chips (F&C) that is used for EO methods, most likely ZZ and Petrus. It should hopefully reduce the gap further between ZBLL (about 23 moves) and the SIMPLE version of F&C developed by @mDiPalma (about 25 moves) without resorting to using so many algs. Since the first step is to solve one edge piece, I have decided to call this LSLL method One Piece (which sounds familiar...). Anyway, the steps are outlined below:
> 
> ...


This isn't exactly the same method as what you were describing, but it looks pretty similar. I'd suggest you take a look. 
CR2


----------



## meskelto (Aug 25, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> This isn't exactly the same method as what you were describing, but it looks pretty similar. I'd suggest you take a look.
> CR2


Indeed this is similar to CR+, but I think the move count of One Piece could be lower than CR+ (26 moves) and CR+ also doesn't have the same look ahead advantage.


----------



## Spencer131 (Aug 27, 2018)

meskelto said:


> 3: Solve all the edges of the LL and any _two_ corners using Siamese Fish (SF) algs.
> 4: L3C.


This lsll method is literally heise


----------



## Arc (Aug 27, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> This lsll method is literally heise


Technically it's CR but with a tradeoff for no pair on U in exchange for more algs.


----------



## meskelto (Aug 27, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> This lsll method is literally heise


Ah right. Sorry, I meant any two corners_ also in the LL_. The F2L corner is completely left alone. I'll edit that.


----------



## meskelto (Aug 28, 2018)

Arc said:


> Technically it's CR but with a tradeoff for no pair on U in exchange for more algs.


Kind of. The alg count shouldn't be too different, based on the estimate in my original post. Well, after I produce the SF alg set we will know for sure! 

I think some things that One Piece has over CR is that you don't have to worry about getting the F2L corner slot into the front face (in L3C it is easy to x' if needed) and look ahead into L3C is easier. However, I think case recognition for CR2 is easier than recognising which SF alg to use.


----------



## Arc (Aug 29, 2018)

meskelto said:


> Kind of. The alg count shouldn't be too different, based on the estimate in my original post. Well, after I produce the SF alg set we will know for sure!
> 
> I think some things that One Piece has over CR is that you don't have to worry about getting the F2L corner slot into the front face (in L3C it is easy to x' if needed) and look ahead into L3C is easier. However, I think case recognition for CR2 is easier than recognising which SF alg to use.


It's not kind of. It literally is Cardan Reduction, but without making the U pair first. It might even technically be fewer algs to solve than CR (because you now have the option of using any two of the four corners) but recognition sounds like a nightmare.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 29, 2018)

So here's a squan method I saw proposed and have discussed somewhat. Wanted to see if there were any other opinions

1: CSP
2: FB
3: SB-Corner
4: DFDB (L2E algset)
5: TTLL

Steps 1-3 are really efficient and the last 2 steps are pure algs. It's more algs than Lin w/PLL+1 bc of L2E, but I'd argue that TTLL is easier to recognize than PLL+1 and the L2E cases would be really easy to learn. idk if it's better than advanced Lin, but I think it's at least comparable. Might be good for people unsatisfied with PLL+1 recog or who find SB+DB difficult


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 30, 2018)

Neuro said:


> I'd argue that TTLL is easier to recognize than PLL+1


I would think that PLL+1 (if you're talking about +1 edge, like I think you are) would be more easy to recognise. With TTLL, you can only tell the top layer's CP case from one of the possible AUFs, but with PLL+1, you can tell your CP case instantly, not to mention that it's virtually going to be the exact same as 2 sided PLL recognition.


----------



## meskelto (Aug 30, 2018)

Arc said:


> It's not kind of. It literally is Cardan Reduction, but without making the U pair first. It might even technically be fewer algs to solve than CR (because you now have the option of using any two of the four corners) but recognition sounds like a nightmare.


Sorry, when I was saying "kind of" I was referring to your point about the alg count. 

Recognition may not be as bad as it seems. Usually, there will only be three LL corners in LL, meaning only three possible corner pairs to consider (since SF algs are LL algs). Compare this to four single corner cases in Fish and Chips and then it doesn't seem so bad. Definitely something for me to consider though, so thanks for saying.


----------



## Neuro (Aug 31, 2018)

Neuro said:


> So here's a squan method I saw proposed and have discussed somewhat. Wanted to see if there were any other opinions
> 
> 1: CSP
> 2: FB
> ...


After some testing, I found that FB, Sb-C, L2E is significantly less efficient than FB, SB, insert DB in the majority of cases. Since PLL+DF and TTLL have the same amount of algs and have arguably the same quality of recognition, I recommend staying with Lin using PLL+DF (or Vandenbergh)


----------



## WoowyBaby (Sep 22, 2018)

So this is the forum for experimental methods? I have a method I have been thinking about for a while on the 2x2. Not sure what to name it, maybe Double Block Layer (DBL).
This method is similar to CLL, but better. Here’s what’s better:
- Fewer move count
- Ridiculously simple to predict AUF (hard not to predict it’s so obvious)
- First step requires few moves and has many options each solve
- Many algs can essentially just be CLL

Method Steps:
Make a layer that has two soved blocks in it then a CLL-like alg then AUF.
Easiest way to show the block layer is an example: Scr- U’ F’ R2 U R U2 R F U2 Block Layer- z’ y’ F’ R U2 R
It needs to be oriented, so the face would be opposite colors (red and orange in this case) but the colors in front don’t have to match (in this example it is white-yellow). The blocks should be on right and left.
Making the block layer always requires same or fewer moves than a normal layer. This is unarguably better than making a normal layer.
In fact, you can predict the final move of the solve, AUF, at the start. If the front colors ar me opposite, like in the example, you’ll have no AUF. If same, you’ll have U2. If FR matches left bar color you’ll have U’, and FL matches right bar color you’ll have U.
You might be thinking that you’ll have problems with separation that is the R2 move before AUF, you won’t, because it would always just be part of the alg (btw it would never increase the length of the alg) and as long as you hold the blocks on left and right you wont have a problem.
I will put some algs with pictures on a google doc here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/122Q01aB-0oyghyvRY5zfCWTBOyKIZAwz1w0Kr97-V2c/edit?usp=sharing

This method isn’t complicated. Make two blocks in layer then CLL-like alg. That’s it. Here’s a kind of reverse solve that I just made up Scr: U R’ U R’ U R U2 R U R’
You can see you can make yellow-white block layer R U’ R2 and you can predict your final move/ AUF will be U’ (FR matches left bar) and you’ll have that specific antisune alg and it the preAUF is right so you can just go into the alg:
R U’ R2 // block layer
R U2 R’ U’ R U’ R // CLL-like alg
U’ // AUF
Now that I think, there could also be variations of this method, simplified so you orient and permute in two algs (like LBL) and a more advanced method where the left block is permuted but the right isn’t so it requires tons more algs and it EG-like.

I don’t see downsides of this method, although I might get uninterested like the HD method, but DBL is similar to CLL so I don’t think I will.
If you have any questions just PM me.

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 22, 2018)

WoowyBaby said:


> So this is the forum for experimental methods? I have a method I have been thinking about for a while on the 2x2. Not sure what to name it, maybe Double Block Layer (DBL).
> This method is similar to CLL, but better. Here’s what’s better:
> - Fewer move count
> - Ridiculously simple to predict AUF (hard not to predict it’s so obvious)
> ...


Is this not just non-matching blocks?

I use it in solves sometimes and though it's useful if you can one-look it, I really wouldn't consider it a new method


----------



## Gappo (Oct 1, 2018)

Recently, I found that 2x2 L5C methods are always two looks. There's no 1-look method for L5C? Beacuse it'll have lots of algs?


----------



## Gappo (Oct 1, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Could CFOP-CT be a thing? You could do EO after F2L-1. Then TSLE then TTLL. That makes it the same steps as full CFOP though. EO+TSLE+TTLL vs Insert pair + OLL + PLL. How many algs would TSLE be if edges weren't orientated?


There's a similar method called "Ribbon method"


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 1, 2018)

Gappo said:


> Recently, I found that 2x2 L5C methods are always two looks. There's no 1-look method for L5C? Beacuse it'll have lots of algs?


If you had one alg for each case then yes there are loads.

You could, however, use 22 (42- on 2x2) which has a relatively small number of algs though it does have a reasonable number of cases.


----------



## Gappo (Oct 2, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> If you had one alg for each case then yes there are loads.
> 
> You could, however, use 22 (42- on 2x2) which has a relatively small number of algs though it does have a reasonable number of cases.


I thought that full L5C will have 486 algs


----------



## Gappo (Oct 2, 2018)

(My English is poor,sorry about that
L5C:
Step 1. Build a V
Step 2. Finish rest of it by 1 alg

Step 2-1.Recognize the OLL
Step 2-2.Recognize where the bottom piece goes,it'll be at BR,FR,BL,or FL
Step 2-3.Recognize the CLL (Ignore the bottom piece)

Pros:
Easier 1LLL
Building a V has less move count than building a whole first layer

Cons:
Higher alg count (486 algs)
Harder to recognize


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 2, 2018)

Gappo said:


> I thought that full L5C will have 486 algs



It's actually 4860 

From what I know there are multiple 2x2ers who are currently in the process of generating and learning L5C cases(I think UnderwaterCuber mentioned it somewhere in this thread some time ago)



Gappo said:


> Pros:
> Easier 1LLL



easier than what


----------



## Gappo (Oct 2, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> It's actually 4860
> 
> From what I know there are multiple 2x2ers who are currently in the process of generating and learning L5C cases(I think UnderwaterCuber mentioned it somewhere in this thread some time ago)
> 
> ...


I think easier than most of the 2x2 alg sets


----------



## Gappo (Oct 2, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> It's actually 4860
> 
> From what I know there are multiple 2x2ers who are currently in the process of generating and learning L5C cases(I think UnderwaterCuber mentioned it somewhere in this thread some time ago)
> 
> ...


6(OLL Cases)x6(CLL Cases)x4(bottom piece)x3(orientations of FRD piece)+4(H case)x4x3+6(OLL Finished Cases)=486


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 2, 2018)

Gappo said:


> 6(OLL Cases)x6(CLL Cases)x4(bottom piece)x3(orientations of FRD piece)+4(H case)x4x3+6(OLL Finished Cases)=486



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/number-of-permutations-for-l5c.55527/
Or do I think about something different



tseitsei said:


> Without auf-ing it is easy to figure out that it is:
> 
> 5*4*3 = 5!/2 For permutations because 1st corner can be in any of the 5 spots 2nd in any of the remaining 4 and 3rd in the remaining 3 spots. The order of last to pieces is already known here because all edges are solved. So it becomes 5*4*3*1*1 actually.
> 
> ...


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 2, 2018)

Gappo said:


> I thought that full L5C will have 486 algs


Yes, exactly that many. 
486 is about as much as ZBLL though, which only a few has fully learned, so learning L5C / 1LLS (one look last slot) probably
has too many algs to be useful.


----------



## Gappo (Oct 2, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/number-of-permutations-for-l5c.55527/
> Or do I think about something different


I thought the number 486 is because I didn’t count TCLL in


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 3, 2018)

Does anybody know if the L5C algs are going to be good?


----------



## Gappo (Oct 3, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Does anybody know if the L5C algs are going to be good?


for example R U R' U2 R' F R F' it's for one of the pi case

it will,just need some optimize


----------



## Gappo (Oct 3, 2018)

Some L5C example solves:

1. R2 F' U' F2 U2 R U2 F' U'
x R' U B2 // V
y R U2 R2 U' F R' F' U R // L5C

12 HTM

2. R F2 R' F R' F' R F2 U
U' R' //V
y U2 F2 U F R' F R U2//L5C

10 HTM

3. U' F' R2 F' U2 F' U F2 U'
x' z U R2 // V
R U' R' U F' U' F U2//L5C

10 HTM

4. F' R2 U F2 U' R' F2 U R
R F' R //V
y U R U' F R U' F R F2 R' // L5C

13 HTM

5. F' R2 U' R U' R' U R2 U2
U F' // V
U' R2 U' F R2 F' U' R // L5C

10 HTM

Avg 11 HTM vs. CLL 14 HTM
Avg of V:2.4 moves

still need some optimize


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 3, 2018)

Of course the movecount is nuts. One looking is crazy and 1/5 the algs are already made. (TCLL). Might learn this... Half joking half not.


----------



## M1306 (Oct 3, 2018)

WoowyBaby said:


> Yes, exactly that many.
> 486 is about as much as ZBLL though, which only a few has fully learned, so learning L5C / 1LLS (one look last slot) probably
> has too many algs to be useful.


Except that you can one-look solves, so recognition isn't a problem.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 3, 2018)

M1306 said:


> Except that you can one-look solves, so recognition isn't a problem.


And the algs for this are going to be close to 8? moves less than ZBLL


----------



## Hazel (Oct 3, 2018)

CriticalCubing proposed LLOB (aka ZBRoux) for those who like Roux blockbuilding but dislike LSE, but what's the best method for those who dislike blockbuilding but want to do LSE? PCMS is the only thing I can think of.


----------



## Neuro (Oct 4, 2018)

I guess you could do 1/2 cross (DLDR or UFUB) and make sure the other 2 cross slots aren't filled with F2L pieces (alternatively place ULUR or even UFUB edges in those slots) You can do this with either solved centers or M2 I suppose. Then you can do standard F2L and then OLLCP or CMLL, ending in LSE. Not sure why you'd want to do this though, seems very awkward

OLLCP Variant
CMLL Variant


----------



## Spencer131 (Oct 4, 2018)

Aerma said:


> CriticalCubing proposed LLOB (aka ZBRoux) for those who like Roux blockbuilding but dislike LSE, but what's the best method for those who dislike blockbuilding but want to do LSE? PCMS is the only thing I can think of.


If I were you I would at least consider LMCF, even if it sounds silly. I tried it for a couple weeks and really enjoyed it.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 5, 2018)

Gappo said:


> Some L5C example solves:
> 
> 1. R2 F' U' F2 U2 R U2 F' U'
> x R' U B2 // V
> ...


Just did an Ao100 with making a V. Average of 100 was 2.2 moves. Also, does the 486 algs contain CLL or TCLL? Also, do you have an average of the movecount of the algs?


----------



## Gappo (Oct 5, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Just did an Ao100 with making a V. Average of 100 was 2.2 moves. Also, does the 486 algs contain CLL or TCLL? Also, do you have an average of the movecount of the algs?


Algs are still generating , but I guess it'll be around 10 moves
CLL and TCLL are not included


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Oct 5, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> If I were you I would at least consider LMCF, even if it sounds silly. I tried it for a couple weeks and really enjoyed it.


Lmcf with l5c algs would probably be very fast when mastered.


----------



## Gappo (Oct 5, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> Just did an Ao100 with making a V. Average of 100 was 2.2 moves. Also, does the 486 algs contain CLL or TCLL? Also, do you have an average of the movecount of the algs?


I generated lots of algs recently, keep uploading
*https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-SH47hU3Kqr0zHY0QbnlLMp3jLmAC4N29m1Grb41zIQ/edit?usp=sharing*


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 5, 2018)

Gappo said:


> I generated lots of algs recently, keep uploading
> *https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-SH47hU3Kqr0zHY0QbnlLMp3jLmAC4N29m1Grb41zIQ/edit?usp=sharing*


No Cll or Tcll included.... ouch. Algs are looking pretty good. Glad I got my name in there with the V movecount


----------



## Gappo (Oct 5, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> No Cll or Tcll included.... ouch. Algs are looking pretty good. Glad I got my name in there with the V movecount


Yeah... but I think you should learn CLL and TCLL before you learn this


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 5, 2018)

Gappo said:


> Yeah... but I think you should learn CLL and TCLL before you learn this


I know CLL now. And am finishing up Eg1. Just thought I might try a go at this. Going to finish up Eg and TCLL first I suppose  

@WoowyBaby did HD algs. That should cover like 42 if the algs. They are nice algs. It will be when the V has all the corners orientated.


----------



## Gappo (Oct 5, 2018)

Duncan Bannon said:


> I know CLL now. And am finishing up Eg1. Just thought I might try a go at this. Going to finish up Eg and TCLL first I suppose
> 
> @WoowyBaby did HD algs. That should cover like 42 if the algs. They are nice algs. It will be when the V has all the corners orientated.


I might take his algs as a reference (・∀・)


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 5, 2018)

Gappo said:


> I might take his algs as a reference (・∀・)



I'm glad people are recognizing my stuff! I will work some more on the algs because they can always be better.

But my algs would only cover 6 of the algs (the Stollery-0 set) because the rest of the HD algs have non permuted bottoms, and L5C / 1LLS is permuted bottom V. Soo you can't just take my algs because they aren't very useful for L5C :/

I could help genning some L5C algs if you want, because 486 (or 358) algs is a lot. I want to help out with anything!


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Oct 5, 2018)

WoowyBaby said:


> I'm glad people are recognizing my stuff! I will work some more on the algs because they can always be better.
> 
> But my algs would only cover 6 of the algs (the Stollery-0 set) because the rest of the HD algs have non permuted bottoms, and L5C / 1LLS is permuted bottom V. Soo you can't just take my algs because they aren't very useful for L5C :/
> 
> I could help genning some L5C algs if you want, because 486 (or 358) algs is a lot. I want to help out with anything!


I forgot about the non permuted bottom layer. I suppose 6 algs is okay... Should "we" make a thread for L5C like they did for HD? 

I might also be able to help do algs some.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 5, 2018)

Here's the thread for L5C: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/2x2-l5c-method.71231/

Don't post in this thread anymore as it's kinda cluttering it up.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 8, 2018)

So, I want to make a low movecount Skewb method, but first I want to see how low I can get with with Sarah’s real quick:

//WoowyBaby's Skewb Lowmovecount First Idea:
So I noticed people usually take a lot of moves
to solve a skewb by preforming lots of sledgehammers,
and so I want to make a lowmovecount method, but for
now I'm just optimizing Sarah's Intermediate.
Now I know that sledges are very quick so a low movecount method
probably won't be popular for speedsolves, and Sarah’s Int. and Advanced will probs always be the fastest way to go.

Here's my results for reducing Sarah's Intermediate:
AVERAGE: 18.500 MOVES.
Under 20 already.
God’s number for skewb is 11,
and average movecount for optimal solves is 8.3636 (according to Jaap’s page)
Probs could get under 16 or something.

I'm pretty sure I factored in probabilty correctly,
but I need more data on moves it takes for the first layer/side.

Probs ao100 would be good.

////////////////////////////////////
1) Make layer/side - avgMoves= 4.400?
2) Orient/solve other side - avgMoves= 6.600 (15 cases, 11 algs)
3) Permute final centers - avgMoves= 7.500 (12 cases, 3 algs)

Making first layer: (NOT optimal)
I just looked at ten random scrambles
and this is what I got:
1- 5moves 6- 6
2- 2 7- 4
3- 5 8- 3
4- 2 9- 6
5- 6 10- 5
AVERAGE MOVES- 4.400?
As I said before I would need like 100 solves for this number to be accurate.

For the algs I just used Grubiks skewb solver which was pretty slow.
Orienting(optimal algs, I think)
(Its same as sarahs interm. step 2)
(all the “Solved, C [side]” cases are the same but I repeated it so all the cases would be equal probability)
Solved, C Top- 0 (done)
Solved, C Front- 8
Solved, C Left- 8
Solved, C Back- 8
Solved, C Left- 8
Pi, C Top- 8
Pi, C Front- 4
Pi, C Left- 8
Pi, C Back- 4
Pi, C Right- 8
L, C Top- 8
L, C Front- 8
L, C Left- 7
L, C Back- 8
L, C Right- 8
AVERAGE MOVES- 6.600 MOVES

Permuting Last Centers:
(all the u perms are the same but I repeated it so all the cases would be equal probabilty)
U-perm#1- 8 U-perm#5- 8
U-perm#2- 8 U-perm#6- 8
U-perm#3- 8 U-perm#7- 8
U-perm#4- 8 U-perm#8- 8
Z-perm#1- 9 Z-perm#2- 9
H-perm- 8 Solved- 0
AVERAGE MOVES- 7.500 MOVES
///////////////////////////////////

I just want to put this out there before I develop a method to get the movecount even lower.
Also I need to figure out ksolve+ if I want to make low movecount method but I’m no programmer but it doesn’t look *too* complicated so I could igure it out

Tell me if there’s already a low movecount/FMC method for Skewb, beause the wiki doesn’t mention any.


----------



## Neuro (Oct 9, 2018)

This'd only be worth it if the algs proved significantly faster than what people already do for those cases. I don't know of nay low movecount skewb methods, might be cool to see one though. I guess you might look into improving Sarah's advanced with advanced 2x2 techniques (face, solve the rest with EG 1/2, TCLL variants, etc.)


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 9, 2018)

Neuro said:


> This'd only be worth it if the algs proved significantly faster than what people already do for those cases. I don't know of nay low movecount skewb methods, might be cool to see one though. I guess you might look into improving Sarah's advanced with advanced 2x2 techniques (face, solve the rest with EG 1/2, TCLL variants, etc.)



Yeah, I know that anything I make has almost zero chance of surpassing normal Sarah’s Advanced because it’s so good, so I’m just doing this for fun basically.

I’ll be so surprised if people actually use whatever I come up with.


----------



## M1306 (Oct 9, 2018)

I was wondering about genning algs for last 3 edges on 5x5 . How many algs would there be, and is it worth learning them?


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 12, 2018)

M1306 said:


> I was wondering about genning algs for last 3 edges on 5x5 . How many algs would there be, and is it worth learning them?


Try generating some of the algs and I think you'll find the answer to both of those questions very quickly.


Spoiler



There should be 600+ cases not counting L2E (300+ without parity, 300+ with), although a lot of them are one-move setups into each other. The parity algs will be mostly 12+ moves long, possibly significantly longer if you're looking for speed-optimised algs.


----------



## kacper15 (Oct 14, 2018)

A new (?) Heise method variant:
1. 2x2x3 block (done by expanding 2x2x2 or 1x2x3 block)
2. Edges Orientation (the same as in the Petrus method)
3. 2x2x1 block + Edges Permutation. Can be done intuitively or with TPELL algorithms (something like LPELL, but solving 3rd slot instead of 4th, 24 cases)
4. Last 5 corners orientation - 22 cases
5. Last 5 corners permutation - 16 algorithms.

Similar to Petrus, Heise, Y-Move, and FLFL. Average movecount should be around 50 HTM, less, than in FLFL method (with less, easier to recognize cases).


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 14, 2018)

So, earlier this week I said I was developing a low movecount Skewb method.
Well, here's the next thing I've done- Half A Skewb. No this isn't a meme, its a real method that not many people know of and made by Cube Roll here! This is a unique method that interested me.

Basically, you solve Half of a skewb minus one corner, then solve the rest in one alg.

This has a average movecount of just *14.044*. Crazy low. Beating optimized Sarah's Int. by four whole moves.
Calculation is 4.800 for Half-1, 0.666 for AUF, and 8.578 for Second Half algs.

This sheet made by me has like all the info you really need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12fa5s96lzPunGiZEVrRBX3sk-zrWO6hAfVcPG5xx-8Y/edit?usp=sharing

I don't know if I can make up anything that's lower than 14, without getting super complicated or involving 100s of algs. Maybe I can.

Is this useful? I don't know. Some people might struggle with making the first Half-1 and the algs aren't made to be fingertricky.
What do you guys think?


----------



## Đỗ Viên Rouxer (Oct 14, 2018)

I want to introduce to everyone about my new method. It was created within 30 minutes.
I named it DoubleV because of step 2 and 3 I described below.


Spoiler: Overview



*Step 1: EO+DB (EODB)*
The same as ZZ but you don't need to solve DF edge.
Move: 6-8 moves
Algs: intuitive
*Step 2: Make a V-block. (V-block) *
Solve FB in DL and insert corner-edge at BR.
Move: 10-15
Alg: intuitive
*Step 3: Make V-shape on U. (V-shape) 
a) Create 1x2x2 block on UBL. *
Move: 5-9
Alg: intuitive.
*b*) *Solve FR edge. *
Move: 0-4
Alg: intuitive
*c)* *UBR and DFL corners.*
You can do this step with commutator or conjugate.
Move: 8-16
Alg: intuitive
*Step 4: Solve the last 4 edges and 2 corners. (L4C2E)*
Move: 6-15
Alg: about 72 cases ( i will add them later)
Some of these cases can be done with the commutator. (Edges permutation or corners orientation only)





Spoiler: Conclusion



Movecount: 52-63
Number of algs: 72 or less. 

*Pros: *
-Ergonomics - <R, L, U, r, M> for S2 and S3a+b
-All are easy intuitive steps except for some cases in step 4.
*
Cons:*
-Lookahead is so hard.
-Some cases are difficult to recognize quickly.
-Sometimes you have to do commutator two times to solve UBR + UFL corners. This's why it has up to 16 moves. (I will try to improve this)





Spoiler: Example Solve



It's so late so I made this with Harcs from S1-S3.

Scramble: D' L U' R2 U' L B2 R' L F' R2 U2 D' F2 R2 F2 B2 D B2 L2 B2
x2 y // inspect
L U2 F L2 D' B' // EODB (6/6)
B2 U F2 R' U2 R U' R' D' B2 // V- block (10/16)
U R' U' R U' R2 U2 R // UBL (8/24)
U' R U R' // FR (4/28)
R2 B L' B' R2 B L B' // UBR + UFL (8/36)
U2 R' U2 R' U2 R2 U R' U R' U' R U R // L4E2C (14/50)


What do you guys think about this? 
Sorry if my English was bad.


----------



## Neuro (Oct 14, 2018)

I don't much care for this method. It has a lot of steps to get to the L4EC state with little lookahead. Also, L4EC seems like it has really terrible recognition. Even though you only have to look at 2 faces, twisted corners makes things quite difficult to recognize. However, if you want to continue developing this, you might consider this method instead:

1)FB on L
2)Block in DBR or DFR (DBR, DB, RB or DFR equivalent) w/ centers
3a)Square in UBL (you may need to rotate so empty slot is in FR)
3b)EO+FR
3c)UFL+UBR
4)L4E+L2C


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 22, 2018)

This is a method idea that I think has potential. I've genned a few of the algs, and they're looking pretty good. here are the steps:
2x2x3 (13, according to one of the best Petrus solvers)
Corners (13, 2 parts, set up, alg, like in waterroux)
FR+BR (9, mode of all the algs I've genned (about 90%). Also, S slice fingertricks need to be on point)
L5E (10, a combination of ELL and L5EP. Probably quite good, as all algs MU).

Advantages:
-Lots of alg steps means good tps.
-Efficient (45 moves)
-only one rotation, and it's planned and you can use it to recog.

Disadvantages:
-more alg steps means less lookahead.
-lots of algs
-2x2x3 is awkward, as are S slice fingertricks.



Spoiler: Example solve



B' D2 R2 B2 D' L2 U B2 L2 D R2 D B F' L' R' U F' R' U2 R2
x2//Inspection
U R' D' L D' F2 D//2x2x2, 7/7
y R D R D' R2//2x2x3, 5/12
y' U2 R2 U'//corner setp up, 3/15
R U R' U R U2 R'//corners, 7/22
U' R2 U2 S R' S' R' U2 R2//FR+BR, 9/31
y U M' U2 M' U2 M U M2 U M' U'//L5E, 11/42


----------



## dt1124 (Oct 23, 2018)

Hi. I'm Dalton Thomas. I may or may not have discovered a method that improves upon the beginner method by using less algorithms. It uses the same algorithms but only uses 5 of them. The algorithms that is uses are
F U R Ui Ri Fi
U R Ui Ri Ui Fi U F
R U Ri U R 2U Ri
U R Ui Li U Ri Ui L
R Bi Ri Ui Bi U F Ui B U R B Ri Fi

If you think that this may have an opportunity at being a new advancement. I would be glad to hear it.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Oct 23, 2018)

Using less algs is not an improvement. Ok, it may be less BUT algs you solution will be longer.

More algs => More improvement. And you can solve the entire cube using only one alg and setups


----------



## Neuro (Oct 24, 2018)

Please write in standard notation it makes it so much easier

<RLFBUD> and <MES>
R' instead of Ri (R Prime, not R Inverted)
U2 instead of 2U (2U is sometimes notation for slice moves, usually big cubes)

I'd need to see what each alg actually does in context of a solve to see if it'd be worth it over beginner LBL


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 6, 2018)

Hey guys,

I wanted to make a suggestion for 4x4x4. My last contribution to this community was probably about 10 years ago when I developed the BH method with Chris Hardwick for solving the Rubik's cube and particularly the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 blindfolded.

I can solve the 3x3 with Roux in about 18 seconds when I practice heavily.

I'm testing some things on 4x4 now.

My proposed method is getting fine tuned now:

1. Solve L/R Centers
2. Solve Left 1x3x4 block.
3. Solve Right 1x3x4 block.
4. Solve Last 4 Centers
5. CMLL
6. LSE (Orient, Permute L/R wings, Permute M Slice)
7. Direct Solve remaining edges.
7a. Fix Parity if Needed

What most interests me about the method or approach is that I get to mix Roux and commutators. 

Next, the LSE step can permute 5 wings on average. Leaving you with 3 commutators at the end. The parity fix is faster using (r U2) (r U2 F2) (r F2) (l' U2 l U2) as opposed to an OLL parity fix.

Take a look at the LSE of Roux. If you look define the wings as we do in BH, there are 12 wings that need permutation. 4 on the l slice. 4 on the r slice. 2 on the f slice and 2 more on the b slice.
URb, UBl, ULf, UFr
DFl, DBr, FDr, BDl
FUl, RUf, BUr, and LUb

By always solving and permuting 2 L/R wings and using another one as your buffer. There are 72 possible permutations. 56 of them involve 2 l/r slice wings. So you can use commutators like x' U'RU r2 U'RU r2.

Anyway, I'll post more soon.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 8, 2018)

dbeyer said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I wanted to make a suggestion for 4x4x4. My last contribution to this community was probably about 10 years ago when I developed the BH method with Chris Hardwick for solving the Rubik's cube and particularly the 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 blindfolded.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to lie, this looks an awful lot like stadler. If you can find a mostly intuitive approach to LSE I'll be pretty interested though.


----------



## Toothcraver55 (Nov 9, 2018)

Ok, so this method is terrible, but I have an idea for corners first. Solve the corners with a 2x2 method such as Ortega or CLL, solve the centres with slice moves, then fill-in 3 first layer edges with M and U moves, then remember which edge is unsolved. Then, using keyhole-like techniques, fill in all the last layer edges except the one that matches the colour of the missing edge from the first layer. Finally, you would rotate to have the unsolved edges on top and do LSE like you would with Roux.


----------



## Cubewerkz (Nov 15, 2018)

Here is a concept and idea that makes CFOP easier. I called it CEFOP(Cross - Edge Control-F2L-OLL and PLL). Basically it is to introduce edge control after cross. The idea is as follows.

Basically a cube has 12 edges and a scrambled cube has an even number of good and bad edges. If you use ZZ, you need to be proficient to inspect 12 edges and turn them good using F,F' for 4 bad edges in F face and using B or B' move for 4 bad edges in B face.
If 2 bad edges, you can use FUF', FU'F', F'UF,F'U'F' , FU2'F' to turn bad edges in equator from bad to good and similar for back face by replace the F turns with B turns.

But once you done that the whole solve is 2 gen with just R,L, U and D moves. But the EO line is the quite difficult for people who are used to making cross optimally by using all moves including F and B without restriction. What if a CFOP user wants to make a solve 2 gen? It is harder to be color neutral on ZZ and sometimes it feels restrictive

My suggestion for CFOP cubers who are optimal with cross solving, color neutral and extended cross solvers is to do edge control after cross.
This can turn your whole F2L into rotation less solving and get only OLL cross cases. The reason it is easier to focus on finding and fixing bad edges if the cross which is already solved are all good edges. You end up just focussing on 8 edges. You can have zero or even number of bad edges such as 2,4,6 or 8 bad edges.

You can do edge control for just the 4 middles layer edges or all 8 edges to make a F2L solve more seamless. The result is all the difficult F2L case with flipped edges are avoided and dot OLL can be avoided.

Basically after doing the cross, if you have bad edges in UF and FR position, a sledgehammer will change them to good. A reverse sledge hammer will turn UF and UR edges to good.

Changing bad edges to good
1) Use *R'FRF' *to change *UF* and *RF* bad edges to good edges and
*LF' L'F* for bad edges in *UF* and *LF* position
2) Use *rUR' URU2r'* to change *UF* and *UR* bad edges to good edges
or *R' (R'FRF') R* to change *UF* and UR bad edges to good
or F (U'RUR')F'
or double sledghammer ( R'FRF') x 2
3) Use rU2R'U'RU'r' to change UF and UL bad edges to good edges
or L (LF'L'F)L' to change UF and UL bad edges to good
4) Use F( RUR'U')F' to change UF and UB bad edges to good edge
5) Use RU2R' (Sledghammer) U2(sledgehammer) to change UF, UR, UL and UB to good edge
6) Use FBUF'B' for bad edges in UF and UL and FL and BR postions etc.

I like to focus on 1-5 above on fixing bad edges and how to be fast in fixing bad edges with quick look ahead and inspection.

After solving cross, you should focus on the 3 edge pieces (FU,FR and FL) facing you. You should also track any good edge with the top color on the U face(eg. Yellow) , If they are good edges of the top color in the equator make a quick decision to do a Y or Y' turn so you have most Yellow edges that are good in equator. Track the good Yellow edges on top as well. If both edges in equator is good, do a quick d2 turn.

The aim is to quickly have 2 edges in the back of equator to be good. You can quickly use 3 move insert(such R'UR') to put a yellow edge into equator if possible. Use 1-4 method to correct remaining bad edges. Once there are no more edges to fix, the rest of the solve is simply rotationless F2L and OLL. You can either focus on just fixing middle layer edges or both.

If we are fixing only middle layer bad edges, it is important to look at just the middle layer edges on the top layer. Imagine if all the top middle layer edges is on the U layer. Assuming yellow is the top color, you will usually have blue ,green red and orange. If blue and green is dominant color, either blue or green should be the front face to have less rotation. If orange and red is the dominant color, that should be the front face. You need at most one rotation and one sledge hammer to have a rotation less F2l subsequently.

In fact all F2L can be solved with at most one rotation and no F moves to fix bad edges. if we solved by those pairs having F and B colors first and bring bad edges to the U face and rotate 90 degrees about Y axis and solve all remaining pairs. All difficult F2L cases can be avoided. The trade off is solving selected pair rather than solving any pairs you see in usual F2L which may slow you down initially.

Some explanation of the step is in the video below






Middle layer edge control






Here is variant of edge control after cross that I is useful for OH solving since it use double layer moves and avoid F and B' wherever possible.


After solving cross, inspect middle layer layer edges front and back and remember where the bad edges are. Do a u or u' rotation, this is the important setup move to fix bad edges similar to keyhole method

Note that the bad edges in equator becomes a good edge after a u or u' move. So replace it with a bad edge on the U layer via 3 moves inserts (R U'R', RU2'R', RUR' FR Slots, R' R, R'U2'R, R'U' BR Slots and similarly for the left side slots. Note all 4 slots can be use to fix bad edges. After fixing the edges undo the setup move with the opposite u' or u move. the replaced bad edges will turn good. This method is especially good to fix bad edges at BR and BL slots which is notoriously hard to solve during F2L and makes the whole solve easy.






Fixing bad edges at back slots







Do take note of special situation,

1) All middle layer edges are good, use earlier methods to fix bad edges on U layers.
2) 4 bad middle layer edges in equator, take out 2 of them before fixing
3) 2 bad edges in diagonal corner. take out one bad edge before u move or use sledgehammer to change it.
Basically you can't have more bad edges in equator than U layer before using u moves to fix it. Otherwise use earlier methods such as sledgehammer to fix u and equator bad edges simultaneously


A very useful triggger

The highlight of this method is a trigger that converts 4 bad edges to good. 
It is basically 
RuR'u'R' converts 4 bad edges in BR, BL UR and UB position to good
R'u'RuR converts FR, FU, UR and UF edges from bad to good.
Lu'L'u'L' coverts FR, FL, UL and UF
L'uLu'L converts BR, BL, UL and UB


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 15, 2018)

Or you could just use zz with eocross. Better ergonomics, more efficient, and better than what you described. You can sledge in CFOP to help with edge control, but anything else isn't very good, including what you've described. It's too much thinking mid solve.


----------



## Cubewerkz (Nov 15, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Or you could just use zz with eocross. Better ergonomics, more efficient, and better than what you described. You can sledge in CFOP to help with edge control, but anything else isn't very good, including what you've described. It's too much thinking mid solve.



I did mentioned ZZ is hard for people who are used to doing efficient cross and 12 edges is harder to inspect and even harder to achieve full color neutrality. This method is a suggestion as a mid step for intermediate CFOP users. You can do some slow solve based on what is described above especially the last part.

"If we are fixing only middle layer bad edges, it is important to look at just the middle layer edges on the top layer. Imagine if all the top middle layer edges is on the U layer. Assuming yellow is the top color, you will usually have blue ,green red and orange. If blue and green is dominant color, either blue or green should be the front face to have less rotation. If orange and red is the dominant color, that should be the front face. You need at most one rotation and one sledge hammer to have a rotation less F2l subsequently."


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 18, 2018)

Supa sexy method

Cross
F2L-1
ELS (https://cube.garron.us/MGLS/)
EPLL
Last 5 corners with commutators


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 18, 2018)

You might as well do conjugated ollcp and L5E, which is kinda zipper, and faster, and it's the inverse of what you said btw. So F2L-1, corners, edges instead of edges, corners.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 18, 2018)

Cubewerkz said:


> I did mentioned ZZ is hard for people who are used to doing efficient cross and 12 edges is harder to inspect and even harder to achieve full color neutrality. This method is a suggestion as a mid step for intermediate CFOP users. You can do some slow solve based on what is described above especially the last part.
> 
> "If we are fixing only middle layer bad edges, it is important to look at just the middle layer edges on the top layer. Imagine if all the top middle layer edges is on the U layer. Assuming yellow is the top color, you will usually have blue ,green red and orange. If blue and green is dominant color, either blue or green should be the front face to have less rotation. If orange and red is the dominant color, that should be the front face. You need at most one rotation and one sledge hammer to have a rotation less F2l subsequently."


Interesting, but it loses too much in efficiency and having to check EO in the middle of a solve. It seems like most of the time you'll spend three or more moves to fix only two bad edges, whereas the EO step in beginner's ZZ fixes up to four bad edges in _one_ move. I did ten solves each with EO-then-cross (x2 neutral) and cross-then-EO (full CN) to compare the move count, and the former is a clear winner (9.9 moves versus 12.5 moves). I'm not particularly efficient at the cross, so the difference might be smaller for better CFOPers. However, determining EO during inspection takes just a bit of practice, and I actually think that planning EO (as in, EO by itself, not EOline) is a lot easier than planning cross.

I think the best "advanced" CFOP variant is to influence edge orientation throughout F2L by using alternative inserts (sledgehammer, F R U/U' R' F'). Doing EO by itself is definitely a waste of moves; doing EO while solving F2L is fine.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 18, 2018)

THERAGINGCYCLOPS said:


> (insert promotion for VHLS here even though nobody else likes it)


VHLS is fine if you then do a ZBLL, just most people who use it don't know full ZBLL.


xyzzy said:


> Interesting, but it loses too much in efficiency and having to check EO in the middle of a solve. It seems like most of the time you'll spend three or more moves to fix only two bad edges, whereas the EO step in beginner's ZZ fixes up to four bad edges in _one_ move. I did ten solves each with EO-then-cross (x2 neutral) and cross-then-EO (full CN) to compare the move count, and the former is a clear winner (9.9 moves versus 12.5 moves). I'm not particularly efficient at the cross, so the difference might be smaller for better CFOPers. However, determining EO during inspection takes just a bit of practice, and I actually think that planning EO (as in, EO by itself, not EOline) is a lot easier than planning cross.
> 
> I think the best "advanced" CFOP variant is to influence edge orientation throughout F2L by using alternative inserts (sledgehammer, F R U/U' R' F'). Doing EO by itself is definitely a waste of moves; doing EO while solving F2L is fine.


Could you send the scrambles so I could try eocross (not eo+cross). Probably should save 1/2 a move. Also, an advantage that doing this over normal cfop is that you can end with zbll, saving ~7 moves on last layer, while keeping ergonomics. Yeah, eo is slightly annoying, but it's not hard to practice and get kinda good.


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 18, 2018)

PapaSmurf said:


> Could you send the scrambles so I could try eocross (not eo+cross). Probably should save 1/2 a move.


I didn't save the scrambles, sorry. There wasn't anything particularly lucky or unlucky about those scrambles though.


----------



## Cubewerkz (Nov 22, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> Interesting, but it loses too much in efficiency and having to check EO in the middle of a solve. It seems like most of the time you'll spend three or more moves to fix only two bad edges, whereas the EO step in beginner's ZZ fixes up to four bad edges in _one_ move. I did ten solves each with EO-then-cross (x2 neutral) and cross-then-EO (full CN) to compare the move count, and the former is a clear winner (9.9 moves versus 12.5 moves). I'm not particularly efficient at the cross, so the difference might be smaller for better CFOPers. However, determining EO during inspection takes just a bit of practice, and I actually think that planning EO (as in, EO by itself, not EOline) is a lot easier than planning cross.
> 
> I think the best "advanced" CFOP variant is to influence edge orientation throughout F2L by using alternative inserts (sledgehammer, F R U/U' R' F'). Doing EO by itself is definitely a waste of moves; doing EO while solving F2L is fine.



The motivation behind proposing the above is not towards move count efficiency but finger friendly triggers that change 2 edges quickly, It more meant for CFOP users , new CFOP users or just learning for fun. I added another recommendation in regards to solving solving without fixing edges but by doing just one rotation.

In fact all F2L can be solved with at most one rotation. if we solved by those pairs having F and B colors first and bring bad edges to the U face and rotate 90 degrees after solving the F/B color pairs about Y axis and then solve all remaining pairs. All difficult F2L cases can be avoided. The trade off is solving selected pair rather than solving any pairs you see in usual F2L which may slow you down initially.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 25, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm not going to lie, this looks an awful lot like stadler. If you can find a mostly intuitive approach to LSE I'll be pretty interested though.




Hey man, so I actually did.

I have come to a few situations and I noticed a few things.

I want this to be a thorough post such that it is plausible, looks good on paper, and is applicable so that others can implement and test this approach.

I will share different iterations of the method. For the simple fact that I realized certain behaviors and recurring themes as I was implementing the approach.

My initial thought was to

1. Solve L/R Centers 
2. L 1x3x4 Block
3. R 1x3x4 Block
4. Last 4 Centers.
5. LSE (Solving 5 wings is considered an optimal case)
6. Commutators to permute the unsolved wings.
7. Parity Fix.

I usually reduced the cube to a parity where I swapped the UBl and FUl with rU2 rU2F2 rF2 (l'U2lU2) r2. Once you reduced down to parity, you'll do either a quick setup or cube rotation. (You may use the mirror as well).

I then noticed that my approach to Commutators prevented even (PLL) parity. Because each piece was being solved directly. So, therein I found a benefit to utilizing the method. 

Ultimately every method has pros and cons. Some methods correlate better to others. I felt that Commutators would carry over from my BLD experience and blend nicely with my Roux solving.

So, you avoid PLL parity however cannot predict odd (OLL) parity mid solve. It was my hope that you could deduce this sooner looking at the "LSE" state of the cube pre-commuators. And I found a simple case that debunked that misconception. Apply this Commutator and you'll see what looks like a "flipped" edge. b' R'uR U2 R'u'R U2 b.

So, next I realized that a 5 cycle could be solved by two 3-cycles. Such that the original (A -> B -> C -> D -> E) could be solved as (A -> B -> C) + (A -> D -> E).

Normally 7 wings are unsolved in the LSE reduction. So, it is a 7 cycle. So, it would take three 3-cycle Commutators to solve that case (in general). So, what if you did a 3 cycle and then a 5 cycle. In blindfolded solving we proposed that the 3 cycle system was plausible because of the congruency with letter pair systems and also it was applicable across centers, wings, corners, and edges. There were a total of 23 x 22 possible cases for wing 3-cycle Commutators for blindfolded solving.

You get 23x22 by taking the number of possible permutations of the first piece. Followed by the possible number permutations of that following piece. If you were to apply 5-cycles to blindfolded solving to create a comprehensive list you would have 23x22x21x20 possible algorothims. It at first seemed daunting.

Remember, we create rules to define subset cases (like PLL, OLL, CMLL, LSE)

So, I proposed then to be able to permute the last 8 wings rather than the last 12. All of them would be on the layer. There were a finite number of cases.

At this point, I am considering an illustrious ZBLL of 4x4 Last wings. I found some cases that were fast.

As I was playing with some 5 cycles, I noticed more patterns. So, I played with doing the 5 cycle once, then twice, inverting it once, and inverting twice as well. I realized that 5 had one solved stae and 4 unsolved states.

And it was interesting because there were nice cancellations and conjugations as well that came into play.

I also noticed that if I was able to "track and permute" a few pieces, I was getting certain patterns as a resultant. Basically a 2 look OLL. With the limited algorithm subset, I realized that simplicity was going to trump complexity.

So, I abandoned a 1-look wing solution. Another side effect to mention was that the algorithm subset actually was not centers safe. Some of the cases would disturb the U/F centers. They would actually only disrupt the Fur and Fdr. My hope was that I would find center safe solutions as I tested further to create the comprehensive list.

So then I played with a few algorithms.

I'll share these with you now.

rUr'U2rUr'
rUr'UrU2r'
(Rw)UR'URU2(Rw)'

And now I am looking at the opportunity to rather than permute the last 12 wings, you now pair the last 12 wings.

I liked the fix of the centers post 3x3 reduction.

Basically, the Roux reduction had a recurring pattern of First 2 blocks, centers. Pair wings in the DB slot. Then Pair wings in the DF slot. Then there were some "shapes" that popped up on the U Layer.

I called them D, L, H, and Z. This is important, because a lot of the post this far has been iterations that led to this development.

D -- 1 single edge pair is paired, the other 3 are scrambled.
L -- 2 adjacent edge pairs are paired, the other 2 are scrambled.
H -- 2 opposite edge pairs are paired, the other 2 are scrambled.
Z -- All 4 edge pairs are scrambled.

Basically look at the D, L, or H case and apply and algorithm and all 4 edge pairs are paired.

For now, apply a favorable algorithm to the Z case and transform it into a D, L, or H, case.

I liked this case nomenclature because you would notice that there are only 2 possible L cases, 2 possible H cases, 4 possible D cases. This case reduction is very similar to a 2 look OLL reduction method.

Next it is interesting because there good cases and bad cases (and by bad, meaning I haven't found a good solution in this infant development stage of the method.)

So, we want to remember the good cases. I shared them earlier.

Here is an H case solution. (Rw)UR'U R'FRF' RU2(Rw)'

So, I am working through the steps and look at how pairing at DF affects the U Layer. Basically, I ask myself do I insert with rUr', rU'r', or rU2r'.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. Apply this algorithm to a solved cube and notice what happens.

rU2r'

...

And I'll follow up later with the rest.


----------



## squidgecubing (Nov 25, 2018)

This is an experimental method which combines the efficiency of roux block building with CFOPs last LL to create a low move count CFOP variant. Do you think this method is viable/could be improved? (After BB you insert the last 2 bottom layer edges - algorithms could be devised for this and this step used to influence LL EO). If any new developments are made I will post them here


----------



## Hazel (Nov 25, 2018)

Solving LL EO while solving the bottom edges is definitely the best way to go, so that you end up with ZBLL. This method is already a thing, called ZBRoux, and although it has potential it probably isn't faster than regular Roux.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

I like it. But, isn’t using Roux just easier? Or would you insert the two bottom edges while completing the last layer? I’m sure algs could be developed for that.



Also it should be called Rouxop. Or like Rouxep (edges pll)


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Nov 25, 2018)

There is also LEOR which is FB, EO + DF DB, SB, LL.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

I’m thinking if you did the two roux blocks, then did a inserting edge oll then finished up with pll that could be very fast.


----------



## squidgecubing (Nov 25, 2018)

Matt— said:


> I’m thinking if you did the two roux blocks, then did an inserting edge oll then finished up with pll that could be very fast.


That is a good suggestion as it could be modeled to incorporate into OLL and as I said could possibly help in reducing dot cases on LL resulting in a better OLL as well as developing a OLL subset that also deals with these last two edges. When compared to CFOP f2l, even with separate edge insertions, it is almost always more efficient


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

Example solve:

Scramble R D L2 R2 B' U2 L2 U2 B2 U2 F' R2 F' R' F' R' D' R D R

Inspection x2

First block: D L2 D' R2 B2 U' B

Second block: U M2 U2 M U2 R2 U' R' U' f R' f'

Edge insertion oll: R U R D R' U' R D' R2 U' M

Pll: U2 R perm

That’s 43 moves excluding AUF




Also my blockbuilding sucks, and my alg for edge insertion oll is just an oll alg then inserting the edge, so it can be improved a lot.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 25, 2018)

So it is really interesting that rU2r' actually maintains the UL and UR pairs. The UF pair is flipped (but still in tact).

The UBl went to the FDr. Now we could use this algorithm to finish the DF pair and continue with those D, H, L, and Z, cases.

So notice that l'U2l has the same effect except that it brings the BUr to the DFl and flips the UF pair. So you can intiutively pair the DB and DF slots. (D2) setup to pair the DB slot.

So, I played with some M'UM setups which helped transform bad cases into good cases. I could make a bad L case into a good H case, for example.

I realized then that sometimes I would do rU2r' to pair at the DF only to immediately do M'UM to transform a bad case to a good one. I didn't have a complete algorithm set, so I was wasting moves and taking extra steps. As such, this method leans towards a more forward nature.

Intuitively pair the DB slot.
Intuitively pair any U slot.

This leaves you with 4 unpaired slots.

So, the next interesting concept.

Look at the FDr and DFl. Find it's match on the U. And line it up at the BUr or UBl respectively. There is a 50 percent chance that you can do a U turn only setup to do this for each pair. 

If you line up the DFl and UBl, then do l'U2l.

If you line up the FDr and BUr, then do rU2r.

You've now solved 3 edge pairs.
Do this again, you've now paired 4 edge pairs.

Now the last 2 edge pairs can either line up at (DF and UB) or (DF and UF).

If it lines up at DF and UB, then simply apply rU2r' and proceed to fix the U/F centers and then finish Roux.

If the pairs line up at DF and UF, there are a couple algorithms.

One case is M'UMU', this transforms it into that H case that I had mentioned earlier. (Rw)UR'U R'FRF' RU2(Rw)'.

And to clarify, this is just a get it done algorithm. So, let's dive deeper.

I have been solving non matching first two blocks for years, Roux F2B. I also can regonize non matching CmLL. I am reworking my alg set for 4x4 (and also looking forward to speedcubing after I open my Christmas presents, haha).

So this leads to even more development of the method.

I played with a couple things along the way. I was solving the cube in this order. It may seem mundane to point this out, but it does bear some significance.

L/R Centers.
1x3x4 L block
1x3x4 R block
Centers (using half centers)
3x3 Reduction
Finish Roux
Fix Parity.

So, I tried limiting my moves to R, r, and U to preserve the Ful and Fdl centers. So that I only had to fix at most two F centers. But, as I further developed the method into what is described above, I realized that I was limiting myself.

A speedsolve has several components. Such that the inspection is a big part of the solve. So planning is key, so what if you are planning the wrong thing? It would be silly to plan the cross for Roux or plan the first block for CFOP.

I propose to plan the first (L) 1x3x4 block during inspection. Ignore the R Centers until you have complete the L block. Solve the R Centers as a sub-step of the second block.

Next, solve any 2 adjacent centers. It doesn't matter which center you solve first (it could be U, F, D, B) then solve an adjacent centers. I'll use colors, because I want to illustrate the versatility to this.

I solve white and yellow as my L/R blocks. So, if I was to solve a White first block with an Orange D. U would be red, F would be Green, D would be Orange, and B would be Blue. Let's say that I solved Red first, I could then either select Blue or Green Next. If I choose Red and Green, then the Red Center would be stored on the D Face. And Green would be stored on the B Face. I would leave Blue and Orange scrambled and transition into the last six edges pairing, then center fix, next CMLL, and finally LSE + Parity.

Let's say that I solved a yellow first block. I do my F2B. Then transition into solving the Blue Center. Then I solve the Orange Center. But the Blue Center would be stored on the D Face, and the Orange Center would be stored on the B Face. Now, if I had chosen (Blue then Red) or (Red then Blue) then you would store Red on the D Face and Blue on the B Face.

So the Last Six Edge Wing reduction really has 3 sub steps like Roux LSE. A free style section where you start pairing edge pairs freely and intuitively. rU*r' and l'U*like moves are allowed in this stage. The Toss Up phase where you limit yourself to rU2r' and l'U2l moves. Then you make a break and Sprint into any special cases. There are several cases that I'll illustrate later.

Certain special cases can actually finish the pairing process very quickly.

Fix U/F centers, CMLL, LSE, Fix Parity.

So the steps:
1. First Block
2. Second Block
3. +2 Centers
4. Last Six Edge Wing Reduction
5. +2 Center
6. CMLL
7. LSE + Parity Fix


----------



## squidgecubing (Nov 25, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Example solve:
> 
> Scramble R D L2 R2 B' U2 L2 U2 B2 U2 F' R2 F' R' F' R' D' R D R
> 
> ...


So how are you rating it;'s effieceny and whtat sort of times could you get with it? My block building sucks even more and recognition and block building is also bad so I'd be interested to see the times others could get


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

squidgecubing said:


> So how are you rating it;'s effieceny and whtat sort of times could you get with it? My block building sucks even more and recognition and block building is also bad so I'd be interested to see the times others could get


Well, I by no means am a professional Cuber, or am even good. However, if a really good rouxer were to do this, and someone created the edge insertion pll, then it could have a mid 30 to mid 40 move count. So, just depends on the Cuber. If someone made a edge insertion oll subset, I would totally learn this method.


----------



## squidgecubing (Nov 25, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Well, I by no means am a professional Cuber, or am even good. However, if a really good rouxer were to do this, and someone created the edge insertion pll, then it could have a mid 30 to mid 40 move count. So, just depends on the Cuber. If someone made a edge insertion oll subset, I would totally learn this method.


As an alternative to the edge insertion oll subset, you could use it affect your oll by dong a few moves extra to insert the two last edges? This is only theorectical so far, but I'm looking into affecting your oll. Another advantage of the method is that it is effectivly rotationless while still encorporating OLL PLL and other possible advanced LL alg sets


----------



## Matt— (Nov 25, 2018)

squidgecubing said:


> As an alternative to the edge insertion oll subset, you could use it affect your oll by dong a few moves extra to insert the two last edges? This is only theorectical so far, but I'm looking into affecting your oll. Another advantage of the method is that it is effectivly rotationless while still encorporating OLL PLL and other possible advanced LL alg sets


Well, the blockbuilding May have rotations if you are inexperienced (like me). But yes, almost rotationless. I believe that it should use some sort of subset to insert the edges, or it is just the same as CFOP. However, how that is used I don’t know.


----------



## squidgecubing (Nov 25, 2018)

Well I just got a 31.13 ao5 but considering I don't know full OLL or PLL and my block building is incredabad its meh


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 25, 2018)

Some further interesting cases to note.

This will pair UFr with FDr and also pair DFl with FUl.
(l'U2l) (r [U2l'U2l] U2r')

Also a nice set of algs to throw in during the pairing phase include r'F2rF2, lF2l'F2 and their inverses. Very similar to the rU2r' core algorithms to the pairing Last Six Edge Wing stage.

If you come to a good D case, then you can use either wide sunes or wide anti-sunes to pair the wings on the final 3 edge pairs.
examples are 
(Rw)UR'URU2(Rw)'
(Lw)U2L'U'LU'(Lw)'

Also a cool alternate algorithm to these D cases play off of the FRUR'U'F'. The UB pair is preserved on this algorithm. (Fw)RUR'U'(Fw)'

rUr'U2rUr' solves the L Case where the First pair is located at URb and BUr, while the second pair is located at UBl and RUf.

F2r'F2r Solves the H case where the first pair is at UBl and UFr, while the other pair is at BUr and FUl.


----------



## Hazel (Nov 26, 2018)

The problem with solving the two D-layer edges while solving OLL is 1) too many algorithms and 2) most of those algorithms are going to be bad. I stand by my earlier point.


----------



## Matt— (Nov 26, 2018)

Aerma said:


> The problem with solving the two D-layer edges while solving OLL is 1) too many algorithms and 2) most of those algorithms are going to be bad. I stand by my earlier point.


Well, I tried. Oh well


----------



## Hazel (Nov 26, 2018)

Matt— said:


> Well, I tried. Oh well


The algorithm you showed wasn't too bad, but that was quite a lucky case :3


----------



## Matt— (Nov 26, 2018)

Aerma said:


> The algorithm you showed wasn't too bad, but that was quite a lucky case :3


Yep


----------



## TanakaKImito (Nov 28, 2018)

I thought about a new beginner method
OLL 's memorization and memorization of PLL It is all together with only two
It is unlikely to finish with eyes, not memorization, so I will forget it.

I would like you to teach if there is already this alignment method.
If not, I would like to name it
*CEO1P1 (Yukata Method) *Yukata is the clothes I wear in the summer of Japan.
Or
OP2 Method


C cross
E Second stage
OLL (same procedure as the second row)
D bottom four
PLL (corner only)


The characteristic of this alignment is that you do not remember the edge of OLL.
Do not use 

The color to be used F on the place to use
The color on UF is for F

Use R U 'R'
Use y L 'U L
The orientation of the OLL edge is aligned with these two

*In the idea of parity, there is no case that only one edge direction is aligned, that is, the last direction of the second row is aligned when crossing is possible.*

ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー ー

I will put the cloth on the U side after lifting it up, I think that it will be easy to start the D plane crossing by doing so

-----
Align E and align D
Procedure for aligning E columns
I will put it in 
The place where I am now is *UF*
The color of F is in U.

*R U 'R'*

When the color of F is in F
*y U' L 'U L*


-----
I will make an OLL cross when arranging the fourth one
The color to be used F on the place to use
The color on UF is for F

Use* R U 'R'*
Use* y L 'U L*
The orientation of the OLL edge is aligned with these two
-----

Next, align the D side, if it rotates U R L it will not crumble, it's okay.
Use U 'R U' R 'U 2 R U' R '

Use y U L 'U L U 2 L' U L


Not used R U R 'U' R U R 'U' R U R 'U'

Because U' R U' R' U2 R U 'R' *changes the direction of UFL UBL, so do not learn it if you use this, it's okay.*

-----
OLL memorization R U R 'U R U 2 R'
Mirror L 'U' L U 'L' U 2 L
The other five patterns will be either of these two if you insert the procedure on the right once
Please think. If you make an *OLL cross, you can reduce it from 52 to 7, I reduced it to 2 by doing it again*

-----
*Edge of PLL reuses OLL
R U R 'U R U2 R' to turn y L' U' L U' L' U2 L y '*

Aa-permishes memorize, if directly taught
After aligning the edges of OLL. I think that 'x' R U R 'D R U' R 'D' is good
It does not collapse when you align OLL, because it only affects edges.

Aa-perm
x R 'U R' D 2 R U 'R' D 2 R 2

-----
It is the end
Thank you for reading.
I am using the application of keyhole, I can not say it is a complete original but I would like to name it
Please let me know if there is a better way.

I made a commentary movie but it is not in English, it is in Japanese.
First of all I think that it is important to be aligned, because I do not settle down, I made memorization as much as possible in order to remember when arranging only once a year.

If you think this method is good please tell someone,* I will be delighted without seeing it*. I will be more pleased if I call your name


Please enjoy teaching.


Because it is a new alignment way, even a frustrated person can complete it! Please do not rate it if you can not do it!
High Rating 3 Low Rating 0 Views 103 Viewer Retention 27% Video Length 24 Minutes






There are also ways to align on my site.
http://dogcube.html.xdomain.jp/




Finally I am interested in Rubik's Cube so far because of this video, I want to write it though it is Japanese.





And when I started Rubik 's Cube I was laughed around, I could not arrange to have it,
Even so, when I talked to me from that time and when I got to be able to arrange a new twisted puzzle, I am thankful to my friends for saying that I'm going to arrange them by myself. Without it I will not be present, this method is also my memory. That's why I turned on Yukata.


----------



## dbeyer (Nov 30, 2018)

I took some time to break down the steps and tricks. Here is a quick visual breakdown of the solve progression for my proposed 4x4 method.

First 1x3x4 block.


Next, 2nd 1x3x4 block.



Then solve 2 Adjacent Centers, leaving the other two (F and U, relatively speaking) scrambled (fix quickly later).


Above shows the state post "+2 Centers"

Added the Permuted Corners just as an orientation reference.

Then pair a wing pair at DB with a D2 setup.


Then start pairing the wings at the DF with their matches using rU2r' or l'U2l.



Line the two wings up either on the r slice or the l slice, teal and purple respectively.

These finger tricks preserve the UL and UR pair. It flips the UF pair in place.

And even if your last 2 centers are completely swapped post reduction, you have a fast algorithm to fix it like rU2r'l'U2l. Mind you this also goes to show that you can influence but not focus on the last 2 centers during the Last Six Edge Wings pairing step.

You can also simultaneously solve the last 3 wing pairs under certain cases (and I am looking for more solutions to the cases I haven't found yet.

Here is a nice one.
You have Permuted 3 of the Last Six Edge Wing Pairs. So you have 3 left.

Essentially there are Sune and T-OLL shapes that can happen in these "D" cases. 

Two of the cases are solveable by (Rw)UR'URU2(Rw)' or (Lw)'U2LUL'UL.

Once you pair all the edge pairs. Do CmLL and Last 2 Centers, then Last 6 edge and fix parities as needed.


----------



## SM cubing (Dec 1, 2018)

I just thought of a pretty cool redux Submethod for 4x4, and I hope you like it

Step one: solve all of the centers

Step two: pair the cross edges and two edges for f2l (place them as you make them) also, try to make the solved f2l pairs next to each other 

Step 3: use the last two f2l slots to pair the rest of the edges

Solve as a 3x3 after that


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 1, 2018)

SM cubing said:


> I just thought of a pretty cool redux Submethod for 4x4, and I hope you like it
> 
> Step one: solve all of the centers
> 
> ...



If you don't pair up one edge at a time it's gonna be really hard and time consuming to control exactly which edges need to be paired in which step. Also, L6E will need at least 6 slices(4 if you are lucky) and that is inefficient compared to Redux for example


----------



## SM cubing (Dec 1, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> If you don't pair up one edge at a time it's gonna be really hard and time consuming to control exactly which edges need to be paired in which step. Also, L6E will need at least 6 slices(4 if you are lucky) and that is inefficient compared to Redux for example


I suppose it needs.some work, maybe pair it with yau method


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 1, 2018)

SM cubing said:


> I just thought of a pretty cool redux Submethod for 4x4, and I hope you like it
> 
> Step one: solve all of the centers
> 
> ...


Like what Thom S. said, you can't control the edges you pair if you want to pair them efficiently. Variations of this idea have been proposed before, e.g. pair white edges first, solve cross, then do the rest of edge pairing like in Yau; and they're all bad because they're wasting moves for no good reason. (Slightly different story on bigger cubes if you use freeslice edge pairing, but that's off-topic.)

You might want to look into the OBLBL method, which does 3/4 cross like in Yau, and solves two F2L pairs together with the centres. Using only two free slots for pairing the last six dedges is indeed slightly less move-efficient than using all four slots, but emphasis goes on _slightly_. It's not a big difference—probably less than 2 moves on average.


----------



## SM cubing (Dec 1, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> Like what Thom S. said, you can't control the edges you pair if you want to pair them efficiently. Variations of this idea have been proposed before, e.g. pair white edges first, solve cross, then do the rest of edge pairing like in Yau; and they're all bad because they're wasting moves for no good reason. (Slightly different story on bigger cubes if you use freeslice edge pairing, but that's off-topic.)
> 
> You might want to look into the OBLBL method, which does 3/4 cross like in Yau, and solves two F2L pairs together with the centres. Using only two free slots for pairing the last six dedges is indeed slightly less move-efficient than using all four slots, but emphasis goes on _slightly_. It's not a big difference—probably less than 2 moves on average.




Ok. Looks like I'll scratch it


----------



## JohnSkyz (Dec 4, 2018)

Cubewerkz said:


> Here is a concept and idea that makes CFOP easier. I called it CEFOP(Cross - Edge Control-F2L-OLL and PLL). Basically it is to introduce edge control after cross. The idea is as follows.
> 
> Basically a cube has 12 edges and a scrambled cube has an even number of good and bad edges. If you use ZZ, you need to be proficient to inspect 12 edges and turn them good using F,F' for 4 bad edges in F face and using B or B' move for 4 bad edges in B face.
> If 2 bad edges, you can use FUF', FU'F', F'UF,F'U'F' , FU2'F' to turn bad edges in equator from bad to good and similar for back face by replace the F turns with B turns.
> ...


I have tried this method and tried to understand it, to be honest it is a good and unique method, it can save alot of time and it can be helpful to maybe intermediate solvers, maybe if you try it, you could like the method, i tried the method and got my first sub 30 seconds.


----------



## AtlasTheGarbage (Dec 9, 2018)

I posted a thread on Reddit a while back about a method variation I developed based on ZB Roux where EODFDB is solved using an algorithm from any move set instead of just limited to MU, and is allowed to destroy CxLL.

I called this derivative of EODFDB "ZBLSE" (deriving from "ZBLS" of ZB method).

I was quick to coin the term "MV" for the method variation as a whole (short for "McWilliams Variation") even though I'm still not sure if anyone ended up learning it.

The steps go as follows:
1.) F2B of Roux
2.) ZBLSE
3.) ZBLL


----------



## Hazel (Dec 9, 2018)

AtlasTheGarbage said:


> I posted a thread on Reddit a while back about a method variation I developed based on ZB Roux where EODFDB is solved using an algorithm from any move set instead of just limited to MU, and is allowed to destroy CxLL.
> 
> I called this derivative of EODFDB "ZBLSE" (deriving from "ZBLS" of ZB method).
> 
> ...


How are the algorithms for ZBLSE? The M/U ones are already very good.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 9, 2018)

The main problem I have with zblse is that it ruins recog. If you got insane with zbll and could recog zbll by tracking 2 edges, and you already knew the coll case, you have 0 pause into zbll recog. With zblse, this is ruined as the coll case isn't preserved.


----------



## AtlasTheGarbage (Dec 9, 2018)

Aerma said:


> How are the algorithms for ZBLSE? The M/U ones are already very good.



There are a few that are actually surprisingly not that bad. I've seen a few that got genned which resemble fat sunes or fat antisunes with setup moves (namely M/M'/M2 as setups) and I've also seen a few that got genned which resemble ELL algs with setup moves. There are a few that are best done MU though, but my idea was that ZBLSE is to EODFDB as CMLL is to 3x3 CLL; a good few choice cases would definitely benefit from messing up those extra pieces, but a lot of them are best done with the standard solution.

I have the entire set genned *here*. There are a few cases which genuinely suck (namely the RUMD algs because I tried to gen RUDr but then HARCS tried to cheat with R r' etc.) but there a few tabs on the bottom which show earlier revisions of the sheet with some possibly better solutions for those cases which accidentally got filtered out when I fed it all back into HARCS to get it to "curate" its own solutions (namely RUMr which is usually good)


----------



## CubingDoggo (Dec 16, 2018)

I have thought of a kinda new method with my friend, also we don’t have a name yet. You would start by straight up solving the four F2L pairs normally. Then, use COLL to solve the top, or use some alg set( like maybe a 2 look version). Finally, you would use M moves and S moves, or turn and just do a M to solve all the other edges. I don’t have the algs since I don’t have computer(sorry). Do you think this method is good? And also, try to think of a name.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Dec 16, 2018)

This already exists, it's called columns first.
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Columns_First_Methods


----------



## CubingDoggo (Dec 16, 2018)

Ah, okay. Thanks.

What about we solve all edges( top cross and bottom cross, or maybe alg subset of M, E, and S moves) Then, we could solve with some a perms or something . Also, if you have some, post your own methods.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 16, 2018)

CubingDoggo said:


> Ah, okay. Thanks.
> 
> What about we solve all edges( top cross and bottom cross, or maybe alg subset of M, E, and S moves) Then, we could solve with some a perms or something . Also, if you have some, post your own methods.


This is just called Edges First, and is generally considered to be really bad because solving the corners when all the edges are solves is very inefficient...


----------



## Skewbed (Dec 18, 2018)

CubingDoggo said:


> Ah, okay. Thanks.
> 
> What about we solve all edges( top cross and bottom cross, or maybe alg subset of M, E, and S moves) Then, we could solve with some a perms or something . Also, if you have some, post your own methods.



You cannot solve edges with just <M, E, S>, beause the four edges in the M slice will stay in the M slice. The same is true for the E and S slices.

Edges first is considered worse than corners first, because in corners first, solving just edges is easier since slice moves don't mess up the corners.


----------



## u Cube (Dec 23, 2018)

New 3x3 Method: SpeedSliver

Hello everyone! Recently I developed a new speedsolving method that I think may have some potential.

Step 1: FS(First Sliver)
This step is like roux first block

Step 2: SS(Second Sliver)
This is a bit different, here you solve the df and db edges while orienting all of the edges

Step 3: TS(Third Sliver)
Here you solve a 1x2x2 sliver unlike the other 1x3x3 slivers

Step 4: WVCP(Winter Variation Corner Permutation)
Here you do winter variation on the last slot WHILE also permuting the corners at the same time. Currently algs are not generated for this.

Step 5: EPLL
Pretty self explanatory

Please leave thoughts below

Walkthrough solve: https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U_R_F2_L_B_F_D-_B-_R2_U_L_B_D2_R2_L_&alg=x-_D-_U-_R2_U-_M_r-_F_r2_U_M2_U2_r_B- M_U_M2_R_U-_r_R2_U-_r-_U-_M2_U_M_U2_M-_U_M R2_U-_R2_U-_R2_ U-__R-_U-_R_U-_R-_U-_R_U-_R2-_U2_R_U2_R-_F_R_U_R-_U-_R-_F-_R2 U_M2_U_M2__U_M-_U2_M2_U2_M-_U-


----------



## CraZZ CFOP (Dec 23, 2018)

How would you orient the edges quickly in step 2?


----------



## willtri4 (Dec 23, 2018)

So it's LEOR with CLS, not really a whole new method. LEOR's alright, but ZBLL is probably faster than CLS.


----------



## u Cube (Dec 23, 2018)

CraZZ CFOP said:


> How would you orient the edges quickly in step 2?


Here is an example solve https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=U_R_F...-_U-_R-_F-_R2
U_M2_U_M2__U_M-_U2_M2_U2_M-_U-

now mind that im dont know wcll and im not super efficient at anything but it can give you the idea


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 23, 2018)

u Cube said:


> Step 4: WCLL(Winter CLL)
> Here you do winter variation on the last slot WHILE also permuting the corners at the same time. Currently algs are not generated for this.



What you think about already has a name.
WVCP
Winter Variation Corner Permutation
This is the Spreadsheet

I believe there is no known cuber who learnt it all(can someone back me up or prove me wrong on this?)

+This belongs in the new Method thread


----------



## u Cube (Dec 23, 2018)

I purposely didnt put it in that thread


----------



## Ronxu (Dec 23, 2018)

u Cube said:


> I purposely didnt put it in that thread


why


----------



## Hazel (Dec 28, 2018)

This may not belong in this thread, but I don't think people give Hexagonal Francisco enough credit.

1) Solve 'hexagon' – first layer minus one edge and one adjacent corner
2) Expand the hexagon – complete F2L minus those same two pieces
3/4) Last edge + edge orientation
3/4) CLS
5) PLL

This method seems okay from these steps, but the first two steps are just meh. The hexagon could be fast, but I can see how the expansion would be slow. And so, I'll make some revisions:

1) EH – Expanded Hexagon. Basically, the first 2 layers aside from either the DB edge or the DF edge, as well as any D-layer corner.
2) CSO – don't know what this stands for, found it on the wiki page for Triangular Francisco. It's basically inserting the last D-layer corner while orienting the other 4 corners without regard to U-layer edge orientation. You would do one D-layer setup move (D, D', or D2) to bring the unsolved corner to DFR, excecute the algorithm, then undo the setup move.
3) EODF/EODB – inserting either DF or DB, whichever is unsolved, while orienting the U-layer edges. This is 2-gen <M, U>, and extremely easy to learn.
4) PLL

There are a lot of options for the EH which makes it very accommodating to any scramble. These options include:
- Roux blocks + DF or DB, minus one corner
- First Roux block, solve 2x2x2 in back, insert last E-layer edge
- Cross minus DF or DB, F2L minus one corner
- Petrus block + one F2L pair + last E-layer edge (my personal favorite)
- Just plain blockbuilding
- etc.

I don't know how good CSO algs would be, but I've seen CLS algs and they are very very good, so CSO would either be that good or better.
EODF/DB is very very quick. The best case that isn't a skip is 3 moves (STM), and the worse is 12. Since they're all <M, U>, they're all regripless. Recognition is also pretty much instant. My average time for this step (minus recognition) is 1 second, and I have pretty bad TPS in any method.
PLL, of course, has already proven to be super quick.

When playing around with this method (Advanced Hexagonal Francisco maybe?) I average around 17 seconds. Keep in mind that I have very little experience with this method, and since I don't know CLS or CSO I'm just inserting the corner and doing OCLL, which is most definitely considerably slower. I'm also horrible at blockbuilding, so I was restricting myself in terms of the EH step, so that could too be improved upon a bunch.

Anyway, I just wanted to state my opinion about Hexagonal Francisco and show some evidence that this method may actually be very viable and shouldn't be tossed aside like so many other methods in this thread.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 28, 2018)

Aerma said:


> stuff


M-CELL proposal
M-CELL wiki page


----------



## Hazel (Dec 28, 2018)

shadowslice e said:


> M-CELL proposal
> M-CELL wiki page


Right, I keep forgetting about that  what times are you able to achieve using the T-CELL variant?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 28, 2018)

Aerma said:


> Right, I keep forgetting about that  what times are you able to achieve using the T-CELL variant?


I've not tried B-CELL (or that much M-CELL for that matter) recently but I was able to get about 13-14ish at one point or another. I also have a few sub-15s on cam too.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 28, 2018)

Also on the matter of methods that few use, I think more people should experiment with PCMS 
Not only is it super fun imo but it's not a bad method – I just got a 15.4 Ao12 with it on my first try today, and I'm being very inefficient at the 4-pairs step. I also definitely think there's a good way of doing L8E, I just haven't found one yet. Right now I'm just solving 3 of the D-layer edges and using EODF/DB on the last one and finishing with EPLL, but that's probably a pretty bad way of doing it.
Some may argue that PCMS is just a worse Roux, but PCMS doesn't use blockbuilding which many beginners would see as a big plus


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 1, 2019)

A way to do 1llsll for ZZ/Petrus/any method that has eo solved. This is just a concept, but it's almost certainly less algs than 1lll. It should be high 2000, instead of ~3900 for 1lll. Normal F2L, then in right block you solve the FR square. You then conjugate with an orientated corner, just like in 42. Then you recognise the corner case like in 42, and the ep case that goes with it, do an alg, undo the conjugation, AUF then solved. Even though the recog is certainly worse than 1lll, you have 1000 less algs to learn and therefore more time to perfect it. This is only a concept though, but is definitely a good answer to 1lll with CFOP. Doing it should achieve sub 45 movecount a if done right. 20 for eoline and left block, then 7 for the sqaure. You now have 18 moves to conjugate, alg, undo conjugate and auf, with cancellations if you're good. I know this might never be used, but it's a possibility for anyone willing to take it on.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 1, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> A way to do 1llsll for ZZ/Petrus/any method that has eo solved. This is just a concept, but it's almost certainly less algs than 1lll. It should be high 2000, instead of ~3900 for 1lll. Normal F2L, then in right block you solve the FR square. You then conjugate with an orientated corner, just like in 42. Then you recognise the corner case like in 42, and the ep case that goes with it, do an alg, undo the conjugation, AUF then solved. Even though the recog is certainly worse than 1lll, you have 1000 less algs to learn and therefore more time to perfect it. This is only a concept though, but is definitely a good answer to 1lll with CFOP. Doing it should achieve sub 45 movecount a if done right. 20 for eoline and left block, then 7 for the sqaure. You now have 18 moves to conjugate, alg, undo conjugate and auf, with cancellations if you're good. I know this might never be used, but it's a possibility for anyone willing to take it on.



So is it conjugated ZBLL instead of CxLL like 42?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 1, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> A way to do 1llsll for ZZ/Petrus/any method that has eo solved. This is just a concept, but it's almost certainly less algs than 1lll. It should be high 2000, instead of ~3900 for 1lll. Normal F2L, then in right block you solve the FR square. You then conjugate with an orientated corner, just like in 42. Then you recognise the corner case like in 42, and the ep case that goes with it, do an alg, undo the conjugation, AUF then solved. Even though the recog is certainly worse than 1lll, you have 1000 less algs to learn and therefore more time to perfect it. This is only a concept though, but is definitely a good answer to 1lll with CFOP. Doing it should achieve sub 45 movecount a if done right. 20 for eoline and left block, then 7 for the sqaure. You now have 18 moves to conjugate, alg, undo conjugate and auf, with cancellations if you're good. I know this might never be used, but it's a possibility for anyone willing to take it on.


I believe you've just recreated CTLS


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 1, 2019)

I almost recreated CTLS. I created something better though. It permutes 5 edges and 4 corners relative to a conjugated one, not 4 edges relative to a conjugated one and 4 corners related to a conjugated one


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jan 8, 2019)

EDIT- I HAVE BASICALLY CONFIRMED THIS IDEA IS GARBAGE.

Alright so I have been thinking of an intermediate LS+LL method that solves the last 10 pieces of your solve in 4 steps: CO, CP, EO, EP.
I will call this ILSLL (Isom Last Slot and Last Layer) what else would I call it lol. I have done some exploring and I believe that this is the best order of steps for a 4 step method. For example, EO-CO-CP-EP or ELS-CO-CP-EPLL is definitely not as good as these method steps.
There are 44 algorithms, 29 excluding CO. CO by far the shortest step, because some are just 3 move inserts.

Anyway, why is this better than the normal way? Well, compared to solving F2L + 2-look OLL + PLL, it has less algorithms and *more moves. (38.3 vs. around 34-36) and recognition is equal on the last step. (So maybe it’s not better lol.)
I want to make an intermediate method that doesn't have a crazy number of cases like VLS, ZBLL, MGLS, etc.

Also, EP algs are totally 2-gen so they are really nice algs. Most CO's are 2-gen aswell.

Here is the sheet I've been working on with all of the algorithms: https://thisIsTheLinkToTheSheet.com (lelz)
These algorithms are not the best they can be yet so I will keep imrpoving them! (sidenote: ergonomics more important than movecount)

I have looked at the wiki and forums and made sure nothing like this has been posted, although this kind of has a similar idea to MGLS or ZZ-CT, but definitely different.

Idk what else to say honestly so here's some examples I guess:
LS+LL scr: U2 B L U L' D2 B' U B2 R2 B' U2 F D2 B' L2 F'
U R U' R2 F R F' // CO (Blob)
l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 x' // CP (Normal Adj.)
U M' U M U2 M' U M // EO (2 Adj. Flip)
U2 R' U' R' U' R' U R U R U2 // EP (Adj. Parity #1)
LS+LL scr: U F2 D U2 R2 D' F2 R2 B U B' U2 F2 U R2
U R U' R' // CO (Gun)
R U' R' U2 F R' F2 r U' r' F2 R // CP (Bar Left)
U r R U R' U' M U R U' R2 // EO (1 slot + 1 top)
U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U' R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R // EP (Wd Perm)

Once I learn all the cases with good algs I will put a speed comparison of ILSLL vs. F2L->2lookOLL>PLL, and if ILSLL is measurably worse, I’ll ditch the idea but for now I’m not sure (right now when I get easy ILSLL cases I am faster than normal but of course slower when I don’t know that W perm or whatever)

If there is something obviously horrible about this then tell me below!

*AGAIN, THIS IS TRASH*


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 8, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Alright so I have been thinking of an intermediate LS+LL method that solves the last 10 pieces of your solve in 4 steps: CO, CP, EO, EP.
> I will call this ILSLL (Isom Last Slot and Last Layer). I have done some exploring and I believe that this is the best order of steps for a 4 step method. For example, EO-CO-CP-EP or ELS-CO-CP-EPLL is definitely not as good.
> There are 44 algorithms, 29 excluding EO. EO is by far the shortest step, because some are just 3 move inserts.
> 
> ...


I was going to mention you'd need twice the algs for L5E (for either FL slot or BR slot) but I thought about it more and realised I was wrong, because you can just do EO in the FR slot orientation.

Seems like a reasonable method overall for 4-look LSLL, but there's no good progression to a 3-look method. Combining CP and EO seems to take 100+ algs if I'm counting it right.

Also, if your move counts are right, that adds up to 38.3 moves for LSLL; I just did a bunch of LSLL solves with basic edge control and 3LLL (with the usual algs I use, not move-optimal ones) and that came out to ~34 moves.


----------



## ssakgul (Jan 9, 2019)

CraZZ CFOP said:


> How would you orient the edges quickly in step 2?


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 9, 2019)

I saw a video with a comparison between ZZ and Roux that I thought could be applied to other methods.

Basically, although the methods may seem very different, ZZ could be thought of as a worse version of Roux.



Roux

ZZ

First Block

Left Block

Second Block

Right Block

CMLL + L6E

EOline + ZBLL


If you compare how they solve certain groups of pieces, F2B seems a little harder than ZZF2L, but CMLL and L6E is way better than EOline and ZBLL.

I was wondering if there are any other good 3x3 methods that this could be applied to like this?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 9, 2019)

That isn't a new method, and there's gonna be a video comparing zz to CFOP/Roux, and why it's better and/or equal to them soon.


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Jan 10, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> That isn't a new method, and there's gonna be a video comparing zz to CFOP/Roux, and why it's better and/or equal to them soon.


Why do you think so? (that there's gonna be a video about zz and why it's better and/or equal to CFOP/Roux)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 10, 2019)

Because I've written a script for one and I just need to film it.


----------



## ssakgul (Jan 19, 2019)

WHICH IS EASY?

I am studying about a new aproach to solve the cube. Maybe somebody has used and named it before me, I don't know and I don't care.

1. EOLine
2. F2L - 1 Slot (LB is my choice)
3. LS + CP without O at the same time
4. CO + EP at the same time (Finishing the Cube)

For the 4th stage, there are two recognition alternatives.

1. Look the colors for URF corner and find the edges in the same colors.
2. Look the UF and UR edges, and determine the right position of them using the URF corner colors.

Both have pros and cons. You can try and notice them yourself. I want to ask you which was easier. Not logicaly but in practice.
The images have the same algorithm but different recognition techniques.

R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R'

Thanx for your interest...


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 19, 2019)

ssakgul said:


> I am studying about a new aproach to solve the cube. Maybe somebody has used and named it before me, I don't know and I don't care.


You might not care, but for reference, this is basically full CPLS + 2GLL.



ssakgul said:


> For the 4th stage, there are two recognition alternatives.
> 
> 1. Look the colors for URF corner and find the edges in the same colors.
> 2. Look the UF and UR edges, and determine the right position of them using the URF corner colors.
> ...


#2 is absolutely, 100% the faster option if you can put time into practising it. It's essentially two-sided recognition, whereas the other one (finding two edges) is three-sided/four-sided.

However, if you're asking for "_easier_", looking for bars and other obvious patterns is the easiest, imo. The case you have in your pictures is easily identified by the lack of bars, as well as the H-perm-like pattern around the oriented corner.


----------



## ssakgul (Jan 20, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> You might not care, but for reference, this is basically full CPLS + 2GLL.



CPLS+2GLL The aim is same, but all actions are different. I don't use RF slot as LS. I use LB. And "CPLS setup" is also different. I stack them in a different way an location. And my starting position needs 15 algs, not 26  (CORRECTION: NOT 15! NEAR 90! GO BACK AGAIN TO THE CLASSICAL POSITION. OR SOLVE THE FL SLOT, GET THE LBD CORNER TO UFL AND MAKE AN L MOVE TO HIDE IT. THIS IS THE CPLS SETUP. AGAIN 26 ALGS. EXCUSE ME.) 2GLL is same but maybe some algorithms are different.

ZZ-Orbit solves the pair but does a kind of EPLL without inserting it. And hide them to the back before recognition. Not a benefit. Insert it and use COLL. Much easier.



xyzzy said:


> The case you have in your pictures is easily identified by the lack of bars, as well as the H-perm-like pattern around the oriented corner.



Can you expand the explanation?

Edit 1: (WRONG! NO NEED TO READ IT.) Inspect my CPLS recognition position. R U' L U R' U L2 U2 L U' L2 U L U' L U' L U L. That needs 15 algs, because the corner is always at the ULB corner in 3 different positions and the edge can be only in 5 different positions. One of the algorithms is only L'. The solving alg of this scramble is R' U2 R U' L' U R' U2 R. Too easy. And the recognition code is LD. Because 1st sticker of the URF piece is Orange, and the other corner includes Orange is on the L side. Other Blue corner "is not" at B, So it must be Down. We look for only two corners. One is Front Left, second is Back Right, always. No need to look to Down...

Edit 2: And you can prepare a Special Case Algorithms Set. (SCAS, good name If these 3 corners (all U except BL) oriented correctly, we can use one of these algs to Skip the CO stage. That needs again only 15 algs, 30 in total. There is only easy EP. I can do all EP cases with AUF before, not after.

Edit 3: There is a different Special Case in which all the corners are at the right positions. In such a case, again a skip of CO is possible. But this requires 135 different algs.


----------



## ssakgul (Jan 22, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> However, if you're asking for "_easier_", looking for bars and other obvious patterns is the easiest, imo. The case you have in your pictures is easily identified by the lack of bars, as well as the H-perm-like pattern around the oriented corner.



Oh, yes. I understood. Weakness of my English... First I'd tried this but thought this one was more difficult. Because you must look for 3 edges again. It is the result of my second technique. So then I found these two. And yes, I've chosen #2 already. I'm memorizing the Sune cases now. First 6 is OK...


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 23, 2019)

ssakgul said:


> Can you expand the explanation?


If you look at the case solved by R' U' R U R U R' U' R' U R U R U' R', it has two bars: one on the front face and one on the back face. The case solved by R U R' U R U2 R' has three bars. This case has no bars, but the edges around the oriented corner are adjacent colours rather than opposite colours.

You can make a flowchart to determine which case you have, based on matching/adjacent/opposite colour patterns and the number of bars you can see. It's not the fastest method of recognising 2GLL cases (or ZBLL in general), however.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 23, 2019)

Maybe this is dumb and not new but what about:

First layer, CLL, L8E (3style last 8 edges or: 2e, 2e, ELL)

can be fun, maybe a viable alternative to L2L4 and mostly intuitive method


----------



## Hazel (Jan 23, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Maybe this is dumb and not new but what about:
> 
> First layer, CLL, L8E (3style last 8 edges or: 2e, 2e, ELL)
> 
> can be fun, maybe a viable alternative to L2L4 and mostly intuitive method


This is known as the Waterman method


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 23, 2019)

As we’re talking about LBL methods, here’s one which genuinely could be good:
1) layer (10)
2) edge (6)
3) 2 edges (10)
4) CFRLL - CLL but ignoring FR (not my original idea) (10.75)
5) L5E (12.5)

In total 49.25 moves. An improvement would be solve layer- corner then do L5C L5E.

That would make it more like this: 
layer-corner (9)
Edge (6)
2 edges (8)
L5C (12)
L5E (12.5)
Which is 47.5. it saves 2 moves, and could make the third step less algorithmic. 

Advantages: it's mostly algorithmic, as the first 2 steps are intuitive, then alg spam, so high tps. More efficient than cfop by a large amount. 

Disadvantages: lots of algs (approx 370), and if you switch to the (probably) better L5C variant, it's around 951 algs. Which is a lot, although some of them are short (eg R U' R').


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 23, 2019)

Aerma said:


> This is known as the Waterman method



oh.


----------



## ssakgul (Jan 23, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> If you look at the case solved by R' U' R U R U R' U' R' U R U R U' R', it has two bars: one on the front face and one on the back face. The case solved by R U R' U R U2 R' has three bars. This case has no bars, but the edges around the oriented corner are adjacent colours rather than opposite colours.
> 
> You can make a flowchart to determine which case you have, based on matching/adjacent/opposite colour patterns and the number of bars you can see. It's not the fastest method of recognising 2GLL cases (or ZBLL in general), however.



I did understand wrong. I understood as PLL positions in OLL, like Sune+Z or BowTie+E, etc. I'd used your explanation for PLL only. Yes, it is easier than others. But it requires a "head/cube circle" all the times, like my first recognition technique. In fact, my #1 rec. tec. need only -at most- 3 edges to look, not all four. Because if it is not in the first 3, then it must be at 4th. But you must count 2 or 3 bars. Maybe the 3rd is on the forth. So, you must look to all 4.

Despite everything, I'll try it before being too late...

Edit: Your long example algorithm is my Sune-LB alg for 2 techs both. Or Sune+Z for my wrong understanding  Is it 2-Bar-Sune for your tech?


----------



## ssakgul (Jan 23, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> R' U' R U R U R' U' R' U R U R U' R



It is 2-opposite-bar-sune.

R' U2 R . U R U' R' . U R U . R U R' U' . R U R is 2-neighbor-bar-sune. For me only Sune-FR for both techs. Naming your technique is difficult. But I think, it is easier for eyes without words...

Edit: And not only the number of bars, but the position of them is important for your rec. tec. I've found more than one 1-bar-sune.


----------



## Hazel (Jan 23, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> As we’re talking about LBL methods, here’s one which genuinely could be good:
> 1) layer (10)
> 2) edge (6)
> 3) 2 edges (10)
> ...


Isn't this 'improved' version just Keyhole followed by L5C/L5E? Solving the last F2L pair normally and following it with last layer is probably better, or maybe MGLS.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 23, 2019)

Another silly idea: using EOLS during f2l to orient other f2l edges so you can do rotationless f2l.


----------



## ssakgul (Jan 24, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> EOLS during f2l to orient other f2l edges


Edge Orientation Last Slot? I'd heard about Phasing, but not remember. Maybe it is what you mean.
Phasing EOLS


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 24, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Another silly idea: using EOLS during f2l to orient other f2l edges so you can do rotationless f2l.


Maybe not using EOLS properly, but influencing F2L pairs is already a very common trick. Using full Eols wouldn't be very useful most of the time as inserting the pair and dealing with the next one would be better than rotationless


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 24, 2019)

Aerma said:


> Isn't this 'improved' version just Keyhole followed by L5C/L5E? Solving the last F2L pair normally and following it with last layer is probably better, or maybe MGLS.


It is just improved keyhole. It is definitely better to do L5C->L5E, as one less look and less moves by a long way. Also, L5E algs are out there and are good.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 24, 2019)

shadowslice e said:


> Maybe not using EOLS properly, but influencing F2L pairs is already a very common trick. Using full Eols wouldn't be very useful most of the time as inserting the pair and dealing with the next one would be better than rotationless


indeed


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 29, 2019)

How about this for LSLL:

Conjugated OLL
TTLL / Conjugated PLL

For those who don't know: Conjugated pretty much means using set up moves (in this case R).


----------



## Hazel (Jan 30, 2019)

Skewbed said:


> How about this for LSLL:
> 
> Conjugated OLL
> TTLL / Conjugated PLL
> ...


I don't think Conjugated OLL would be a bad idea, but it would always require a corner and an edge directly to its right being oriented – this is super common though so not a big deal.
Same with conjugated PLL – you would always need an edge directly to the right of a corner to be solved, but again I don't think this is uncommon.
Of course if you mirror algs so that neither of these are issues.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 30, 2019)

Yeah, I realized how some cases don't work, so mirroring the slot to get other blocks is a good idea, but the whole method might not work frequently enough.


----------



## cubezrawesome (Jan 30, 2019)

Skewbed said:


> Yeah, I realized how some cases don't work, so mirroring the slot to get other blocks is a good idea, but the whole method might not work frequently enough.


yep


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 30, 2019)

You could do conjugated oll relatively frequently, then you could do conjugated ttll relative to an edge. If you can recog it. Or one look orientated last slot. It's less algs than zbll.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 30, 2019)

Why would the TTLL need to be conjugated?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 30, 2019)

Because you don't have a solved edge. TTLL is the subset of orientated LS pernute (or whatever) that has the edge solved.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 31, 2019)

Thanks, I get it now.

I propose the name ACE (Attempting to Conjugate Everything).

This method is looking pretty good. It's probably worse than OLL/PLL in terms of averages, but can probably get better singles.

Sometimes it is not possible to conjugate, so you have to do a sledgehammer or something, but when it is possible recognition isn't too bad for orientation (I have been practicing). I don't know TTLL, so I can't say anything about that.

This is pretty much my first good method/subset idea, but I have been reading this thread for a while. I am excited to work on this idea and learn the algs for this method.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 31, 2019)

An alternative to conjugating OLL could be placing an oriented corner in the slot, and recognizing the case just like a non-conjugated normal OLL. The orientation of the edge in the slot doesn't matter because you can rotate. This doesn't work if the slot edge is in place but twisted, but this is a rare case.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 1, 2019)

This seems pretty interesting to me!
Recently I’ve been thinking about nothing but LSLL ideas, and I posted in this thread about one idea called ILSLL but realized it was garbage, due to having a bad EO step and having high movecount for such non-ergonomic steps (I have thought of better LS ideas since).

I think the idea in your most recent post should only be used if the corner in the slot is already oriented and slot edge isn’t in slot, and this happens 4 in 15 solved. 27% is high enough that this is worth it, but a different method should be used if the corner in the slot is not oriented.
For the orienting algorithm, there would be 57 cases just like normal OLL, correct? These orienting algorithms could be faster than normal OLL because F2L doesn’t have to be preserved. Just a simple example that comes to my mind is headlights / U can be solved with R U R’ U’ R U R’ U’ R U R’ which is faster than the 9 move RUD algs most people use. If you want to develop this then you could make better OLL algs, (only 57 so wouldn’t take too long) but really only if you want to.

You were suggesting conjugated TTLL and I don’t think that would work, because for any conjugate to work the pieces that are hidden would have to be a solved block because they aren’t affected by the algorithm. Example- In R2 [ Ga perm ] R2, the UR prices have to be solved relative to each other because they won’t be affected, and I’m simply not seeing how you will have at least 2 pieces solved relative to each other after you do the orienting phase (whatever you call it) done for you all the time.

*If I am completely misunderstanding something, please tell me *so then I’m not dumb anymore xd

An approach for the permuting phase that’s is _probably not worth it_ is to use a total of 24 algorithms to permute in two steps, CP and EP.
CP would have 8 cases, 2 PLL and 6 TTLL, and EP would have 16 cases, 4 EPLL and 12 “L5EP” algs. Edge Permutation can be done entirely 2-gen which is cool I guess lol.

Just some random fact- orienting w/ out conjugates, rotations, setup moves, etc. would be ~350 algs (a ton) and permution would be ~450 (a ton).

Hopefully you can find good stuff from exploring this kind of last slot method!


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 8, 2019)

New Idea: ZZ-Belt-Guimond-WhoKnows-IdkWhatToCallIt - It's called 'Woowy's Method' for now
3x3 Method Steps-

*EO-quator: *Solves Edge Orientation just like ZZ. But instead of solving DF + DB like in ZZ, you put E layer edges in the equator, but they *DO NOT have to be solved*. (not a belt) I would assume this step has a very similar movecount to EO-line.
*CO: *Orients the 8 corners on the cube. This is best if you do this in two steps, perhaps: Orient D layer corners, 23 algorithms. Not 7 because you'll have "twisty" oll's like in TCLL. Then you orient the U layer corners, using 7 of the 23 algs.
*Seperation: *Intuitively sorts U/D colors. For example, if you solve white bottom, then after this step you will have a full white side and yellow side. This is intuitive, although simple cases can help you with your efficiency. If you just have to sort one corner, then you can apply R2 U R2 U' R2 to solve Seperation. If you only have to sort one edge, then you can use R2 F2 R2 or M' U2 M.
*CP: *Permutes all the corners. This is just like PBL on 2x2. There are 5-6 algorithms for this. Example: Double Adjacent swap algorithm is R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2.
*EP Parity: *This is kind of a substep of just EP, you make U and D free of parity, so that you could complete each side with normal EPLL's, no W perms or O perms. There are four cases: Solved, Double parity (M2 U2 M2), Top Parity (R2 U2 R2 U2 R2), and Bottom Parity (R2 D2 R2 D2 R2). This is a very simple step, basically just to reduce # of EP cases.
*Finish EP: *You can now solve top and bottom EPLL in one algorithm. There are 24 cases. (5*5-1, U and D are independent)
Example algorithm- Double H Perm can be R2 F2 M2 Fw2 R2 or R2 F2 R2 L2 F2 L2
*Finish Equator: *This step is identical of Roux LSE 4C step. You simply solve the middle layer, and since all of the edges are oriented, it can be done with just [M,U2] moveset and usually only requires around 4.5 moves. 

Stats: // Algorithms- up to 56 | Learnability- about as EZ as ZZ | Average moves- around 42-48 moves
-Planning EO-quator isn't difficult, easier than Roux FB
-Seperation is probably the worst step, maybe there's a better way
-There may be a better way to permute 12 edges at the end (permute D layer, permute equator + U layer?)
-Low # of algs, 56 at max.

Alg Sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fx-f46cDR0hblOyCgXwZGO7jN2tJrRcxAp0X6mBx6h0/edit?usp=sharing
Found some really neat algs, like r’ R’ F2 r R. I'll be updating it.

What do you guys think about this method?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 8, 2019)

It's quite similar to SSC, and I don't see the ergonomics being as good or the movecount being as good. It's a pretty cool concept though.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 8, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> It's quite similar to SSC, and I don't see the ergonomics being as good or the movecount being as good. It's a pretty cool concept though.


This is not really like SSC, it’s like comparing Roux and Waterman, they’re not the same.
I looked at some methods and found the first 2 steps of this is the same Human Thistlewaite method, solve EO + place E layer without solving it, then CO in some way.
So this is similar to HTA.

Edit- PapaSmurf I feel like my posts have been sort of mean to you, I'm sorry


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 8, 2019)

Well, however similar or otherwise it is to SSC, you could use the OL5C step from SSC, because the way it reaches coeo belt is pretty good.

So something like this:
1: non matching eoedge (7)
2: OL5C (12)
3: CP (10?)
4: EP (inc. belt, 2 sub steps). That gives 20 moves for EP for it to be a sub 50 move method. But again, my biggest concern is with the ergonomics.


----------



## Infraredlizards (Feb 21, 2019)

Hi guys, I am new to the speedsolving forums, but I have made up a method for 3x3 that works similarly like roux.
*Step 1: make 2 opposite first layer edge pieces.*

This is easy, just put in 2 OPPOSITE white edges which must be permuted and oriented.
* Step 2: Finish making 2 2x2x3 blocks. *

As I said, this is very similar to roux. You can do this a variety of ways, i like to use f2l to insert them, but if you have an edge in the empty white edge slots you can use M moves to bring them up into the top layer.
*Step 3: Corner orientation.*
Once you've finished the blocks, you want to orient the corners. You can do this by just looking at the corners and using the cross OLL's to orient the corners.

*Step 4: White edge inserting.*
Once you're finished corner orientation, you want to put in the last 2 white edges. To do this i have 3 algorithms for this
1. if the white on the edge is facing *UP*, you want to do; *M U2 M'*
2. if the white on the edge is facing *TOWARDS YOU*, you want to do; *U' M U M' *
3. If the edge is in the slot but *FLIPPED*, you want to do;* (M U M') U (M U2 M')
Step 5: Finishing OLL.*
Once the last 2 whites are inserted, you will have 1 of 3 OLLs.
1.




2.



3.






1.
(r U R' U') M2 (U R U' R') U' M'
2.
(R U R' U') r R' (U R U' r')
3.
(r U R' U') r' R (U R U' R')

*Step 6: PLL*
This is what it says. You will get one of the 21 PLLs. I will not put them all here as there are other sites. I will instead put the CubeSkills PDF file for PLL; https://www.cubeskills.com/uploads/pdf/tutorials/pll-algorithms.pdf

That's it!!
I have tried to speedsolve it, i am sub-20 with CFOP, and with this method i am sub-25 with a 17.65 pb.
I hope you guys enjoy!

As of now, I have no name for it. maybe you guys could help come up with a name for it?


----------



## GenTheThief (Feb 21, 2019)

No no no no. I'm sorry that you have to be told this, but it's a bad method and plenty of people have proposed this previously.

The whole point of doing roux blocks is for efficiency, and the whole point of leaving the M slice open is because l6e is fast. By inserting the DF/DB edges, you defeat the point of leaving the M slice open. You just end up with F2L solved, which would be faster if you just used cross/F2L. Sure some CxLL algs are better than the COLL algs, but not by much and it's certainly not worth sacrificing everything that would need to be sacrificed to use this method.

If you read through the New method/substep/concept idea thread, you'll probably find this mentioned mentioned in some form several times.
It's not good.

Anyway, it's good that you're trying to help out the community by coming up with new methods! However, most ideas have been thought of before and, in general, methods are better in their pure form. If you have any more ideas, try searching the wiki for it or posting in that thread so that other people can critique it first.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 23, 2019)

I FEEL LIKE A GENIUS AAAA!!! I have a new idea, and its similar to a method I posted in this thread a couple weeks ago, ZZ-Guimond-Woowy-whatever. Basically I found a method that's infinitely better than that.

I've done a bit of looking around, and this is similar in some way to Human Thistlewaite, SSC, Kociemba, and Orient First.

I’ll call this _Isom’s Kociemba_. You can pick a name if you want. Here's the steps:
-------------------------
*-Edge Orientation (Edit: EO DL is better)-*
Just like ZZ EOline, except without the line. Very easy to plan during inspection, about 5 moves average.
The reason this step comes first is because if you solve CO -> EO, than the EO becomes much harder, but if you do EO -> CO, then Corner Orientation is barely affected.
*-Corner Orientation (2-gen if you do EO DL)-*
Just like 2x2 Guimond, except EO must be preserved, so instead of moveset [R,L,U,D,F,B,] you will have [R,L,U,D,F2,B2]. _Not much difference._
For 2x2, average optimal movecount for CO is 3.779 moves, so I will give a realistic number for this step, 5 moves average.
The reason you would want to do CO before E-slice placing is because CO gets actually terrible when the E-slice is solved.
Look at SSC or the method I propose a couple weeks ago on this thread. CO is bad. In this, CO is good.
Resource: Lucas Garron Sortega
*-Chuck E-layer peices in E-layer-*
R E2 R'. Enough said 
*-Seperate Corners-*
Very intuitive and simple step. There's like only 6 distinct cases, so you will get used to them very quickly. This could be combined with the next step to make a more efficient solve, but its a bad idea as there would be 100s of cases and recognition would be poor so it wouldn't be any faster. "God's number" for this step is 5 moves.
I just did a quick ao12 and average time was 0.96 and average movecount was 3.75.
*-Permute Corners-*
Just like 2x2 Ortega PBL, except on 3x3. There are 5 algs minimum, 8 algorithms recommended (to prevent x2 rotations and stuff)
_Diag Top- _F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' _Diag Bottom- _R D' R2 U2 R' U R U2 R U2 R D R'
_Adj. Top- _l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 _Adj. Bottom- _R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2*
_Double Adjacent- _R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2* _Double Diagonal- _R2 F2 R2*
_Adj. Top / Diag Bottom- _R U' R F2 R' U R'* _Diag Top / Adj. Bottom- _R' D R' F2 R D' R*
*same as 2x2 algs.

This is how move calculations are done, probabilty and preAUF's and all- (0*1/36)+(17*1/36)+(13*1/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((9+0.75)*4/36)+((7+1.5****)*16/36)+(3*1/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36)+((7+0.75)*4/36) *= 9.027
***Both U and D have to be AUF'ed for double bars case. Also, solved and diag cases doesn't require preAUF.

The reason I permute in this way is because it is crystal clear that CP then EP is so much better than PLL then PLL. Everyone would agree.
*-UL/UR + DL/DR-*
Basically L/R from Roux LSE, except its double. Pretty easy to see what you're doing, and you don't need to know any difficult concepts whatsoever. Most of the time I would solve DL/DR then UL/UR, but you can think of this step however you want.
If you've ever tried Roux, then this step is pretty straight foward.
By the way, you can use non-matching L/R trick to enhance efficiency. For example, you solve DL/DR red/orange, but UL/UR green/blue.
This might make 4c recog slightly worse, but this is usually worth it.

The reason that L/R -> 4c is better than Seperation -> EPLL is the same reason that vanilla Roux doesn't do Solve D edges -> EPLL.
Its simply less efficient with no ergonomic tradeoff, so L/R -> 4c is better.
*- 4c + 4c -*
The edges have been simplified so much that now M layer is just like Roux 4c and E layer is just like 4c. M and E are independent, besides the fact that you can have "parity", for example, the M layer couldn't be solved with just [M,U2] moveset. You can use R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 to fix this "parity". You tell me the movecount and ergonomics for this step 
--------------------------

*EXAMPLE SOLVE:*
Scramble: U R2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 L2 R2 B2 F' D' F' D' L B' F' U' F2
y2 // inspection
R2 L2 B' // EO
R' U2 R U' R U2 R' // CO
U' R E2 R u2 U R E2 R' // E-layer placement. There's probably a more efficient way.
U' R2 U R2 // Corner Seperation
D' R' D R' F2 R D' R // Corner Permutation
M2 u2 M2 D' U2 M U2 M U // L/R
M U2 M R2 E2 R2 u2 // 4c
48 STM


Spoiler: More example solves-



Scramble: D L' F2 U F L D' F2 R2 B U2 D2 L2 F' D2 B D2 F' U2 R'
y z2 // inspection
U L D' F // EO
R D' R' U R' // CO
F2 D U L E2 L' // E-layer
D' R2 // Corner Seperation
y R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 // Corner Permutation
D' M' U2 M' U M U2 M' // L/R
z2 U' F' U2 M2 U2 F U2 // 4c
39 STM

Scramble: B2 R D2 B2 R2 B2 L2 D' U' L2 U' B' L' R' F2 D F2 U' R
B L2 U L B // EO
L' R' U R' U2 // CO
E2 R L2 B2 E' F E2 F // E-layer
U2 L2 // Corner Seperation
D R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2 // Corner Permutation
y M2 U M' U2 M' u2 M2 D M2 U2 M2 // L/R
L2 D2 L2 D2 L2 U M U2 M' U // 4c
51 STM

Scramble: L D R2 B2 L2 F2 D R2 D' B2 D2 R U2 B D L B2 F' D2
y // inspection
R U L' F // EO
R U2 R U' R D2 L // CO
D2 U' R E2 R' // E-layer
U D R2 y' R2 D R2 D' R2 // CS+CP
U' S U2 S' U' M' U2 M' // L/R
U M2 U2 M' U2 M u' R2 D2 R2 D2 R2 D' // 4c
45 STM



Average movecount under 50. Nearly no algorithms to memorize, only 8 CP algs. There also aren’t many dificult concepts. CO and CP are very ergonomic.
It's just a lot of intuitive parts that has tons of room for improvement because you will get more efficient and faster once you learn better algs to do certain cases and get used to these intuitive cases, especially CO and E-layer. (soon, I will try to make a resource that basically includes all possible cases for Edge Orientation, Corner Orientation, E-layer placement, and 4c + 4c, to help with ergonomics and efficiency)
This means you won’t be instantly fast with this method, so I guess you would say there is a learning curve to this?
I honestly think this is like the best thing ever. Okay, not best method, I know CFOP and Roux are the best, but this is the best method I have come up with. Everything makes sense and there isn't one step that is horribly inefficent. Everything is just so nice.

What suggestions do you have for this method to improve it?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 23, 2019)

Nice idea, not new new, but nice. It's (as you said) similar to SSC for a worse belt but better co. Also, for CP it's just squan algs. And ZZ is also the best! (Better than CFOP, but that's another discussion).

The main problem I see with this method is the L/R step. I'd rather solve DL/DR then L6EP (96 algs), but it's a load more algs.
I'm going to write a HARCS file to compare this and SSC. I'll come back with results soon-ish.

EDIT
I'm either bad at HARCS, or HARCS doesn't like me, but from what I can gather, 5+5+8+9.5+5+10=42.5 should be about right, which is quite good. The question then becomes one about ergonomics more than movecount.


----------



## sqAree (Feb 23, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I FEEL LIKE A GENIUS TODAY AAAA!!! I have a new idea, and its similar to a method I posted in this thread a couple weeks ago, ZZ-Guimond-Woowy-whatever. Basically I found a method that's infinitely better than that.
> 
> I've done a bit of looking around, and this is similar in some way to Human Thistlewaite, SSC, Kociemba, and Orient First.
> 
> ...


Umm, co how it is done for ssc is pretty great, and as far as I can see you didn't come up with a solution to the steps after belt + co (which is the main disadvantage of ssc).


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 23, 2019)

sqAree said:


> Umm, co how it is done for ssc is pretty great, and as far as I can see you didn't come up with a solution to the steps after belt + co (which is the main disadvantage of ssc).


Yes, I did.
At no point in the solve is the belt ever solved, except at the very last move. (did you even look at he example solve?) This makes the corner steps significantly easier.
- In this, you could just do R2 to separate corners. In SSC, you would have to do U2 R2 U2 R2 for the same case.
- In this, most of the CP algorithms are identical to 2x2. SSC it’s not. Just tell me which is better- R2 F2 R2 or R2 (U D’) R2 (U’ D) R2.


----------



## sqAree (Feb 23, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Yes, I did.
> At no point in the solve is the belt ever solved, except at the very last move. (did you even look at he example solve?) This makes the corner steps significantly easier.
> - In this, you could just do R2 to separate corners. In SSC, you would have to do U2 R2 U2 R2 for the same case.
> - In this, most of the CP algorithms are identical to 2x2. SSC it’s not. Just tell me which is better- R2 F2 R2 or R2 (U D’) R2 (U’ D) R2.


Sounds cool, I will have another look at it after the weekend.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Feb 26, 2019)

What about this?

Belt minus one edge
Solve bottom layer using keyhole
Insert last edge while orienting all the last layer edges
Last layer

Example solve:

*SCRAMBLE:* R U2 R' U2 R2 U2 B2 R' B2 R U2 F' R2 D' L2 R' B D L F

*SOLVE:*
U D L U R2 // BELT MINUS 1
r U' r' // BOTTOM BLOCK 1
D M' U2 M R U R' // BOTTOM BLOCK 2
D U r U2 r' U' R U R' // BOTTOM BLOCK 3
D U M' U2 M F' L' U2 L F D // BOTTOM BLOCK 4
y U2 L' U L d R U' R' // LAST EDGE
U R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R // PLL

(66h, 73q, 62s, 63e)

It need improvements but seems like a fun and unique method


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 27, 2019)

I'm just going to focus on the early steps since the last few are more or less the same as SSC and I have made quite a few posts on the issues I have with them.


Spoiler: Preliminary notes



As a preliminary note in your reply to @sqAree, you mention that this has a better last phase that SSC as the E-slice remains wholly unpermuted until the last step. There is actually a variant of SSC where I and a few others have played around with this idea called SSC-domino which I know I have mentioned in the wiki page though admittedly I can't remember if I described it. If I haven't then my bad; I'll have to add it in.

Although it is a more efficient, I personally discarded it for speedsolving as it can lead to uncomfortable move sequences involving thing like F2s or B2s etc (which I note you don't have in your example solves?) the way around this would be to be what you seem to be doing in those solves which is to separate the e-slice to R/L during CP (but this would add more algs as well as mean you would have to look at 3 layers to recog the case)

You would also have to deal with the parity you describe which can be folded into the last step but again recog is annoying

So overall, I'd conclude that only R2/r2/M2 off is really beneficial





Spoiler: Long analysis stuff






WoowyBaby said:


> *-Edge Orientation-*
> Just like ZZ EOline, except without the line. Very easy to plan during inspection, about 5 moves average.
> The reason this step comes first is because if you solve CO -> EO, than the EO becomes much harder, but if you do EO -> CO, then Corner Orientation is barely affected.


Cool, makes sense. My issue is that it seems to not be using inspection fully unless you can predict the next step (which is probably possible though would likely require a reasonable amount of investment similar to one-looking 2x2). Still not a bad step though.


> *-Corner Orientation-*
> Just like 2x2 Guimond, except EO must be preserved, so instead of moveset [R,L,U,D,F,B,] you will have [R,L,U,D,F2,B2]. _Not much difference._
> For 2x2, average optimal movecount for CO is 3.779 moves, so I will give a realistic number for this step, 5 moves average.
> _The reason you would want to do CO before E-slice placing is because CO gets actually terrible when the E-slice is solved.
> ...


See my above comment: this is potentially good but recog wouldn't be fun so the only real way to make it viable would be prediction.

Re: italics; wait so are you saying here that SSC does CO after e-slice? That's just wrong; SSC does corners with belt rather than separately and that's arguably one of the best aspects of it.



> *-Chuck E-layer peices in E-layer-*
> R E2 R'. Enough said


This step reminds me of salvia. Like that method, I'm going to guess that this step is easy to lookahead but also has some horrible ergonomics and it not terribly efficient which negates the efficiency of the previous steps.

As I said above, the next few steps are the same as in SSC and so have the same issues I've complained about on numerous occasions





> What suggestions do you have for this method to improve it?


The last few step need some improvement (just as they do with SSC) as well as putting the e-slice edges into the e-layer. It's a reasonable method overall though.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 28, 2019)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm just going to focus on the early steps since the last few are more or less the same as SSC and I have made quite a few posts on the issues I have with them.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Preliminary notes
> ...



OK.
If I ever said SSC solves belt then CO, I am wrong. It solves 3/4 belt, then CO, which is a big difference.

—You mention that just doing EO is easy in inspection so you could do more, but entirety of CO may be too much. A better way to do it is EO + orient LD corners, then do CO completely 2-gen. This takes advantage of your inspection time, and makes lookahead much easier.
2-gen CO is also very quick to execute, and so much easier to figure out what to do vs. no corners oriented. There are 72 total cases, basically semi-intuitive, and its really easy to memorize all of them.
Lucas Garron’s Sortega page includes all cases.
Movecount would increase by like 1.5 moves but it is faster so who cares xd

EO+LD -> 2-gen CO > EO -> CO

—E-slice placement is a pretty bad step but I don’t think there’s much to do about it.
—You and sqAcree are telling me that the later steps of Isom’s Kociemba (bad name lol) and SSC needs improvement, and I don’t really have a solution to this, but a unique approach.
Build 2x2x2, Expand to F2L-1, then TTLL (zz-ct)
This would eliminate slice moves and inmprove ergonomics (R2 U’ F2 > M2 D M2), but might make movecount and lookahead worse because of blockbuilding. This is just an idea,


Spoiler: Second Phase Method Comparison



Scr: D R2 D R2 D2 R2 U F2 U2 R2 B2

U L2 U L2 // CS
U R2 U’ B2 U2 R2 U’ R2 // CP
M U2 M’ U M’ U2 M // L/R
U’ y M u2 M’ E M2 E // 4c
26 STM, current method

R2 U2 F2 L2 D2 // 2x2x2
F2 U’ F2 U’ R2 // Expand to F2L-1
D2 y z D2 U R U’ R’ D2 R U R’ U’ R r2 // TTLL
23 HTM, blockbuilding method. Pretty lucky (may not be 100% representive)





Spoiler: Example Solve with new ideas / Six-step Kociemba



Scramble: U2 R’ B2 D2 F2 R’ D2 U2 R2 B2 D B2 R’ D2 U B U’ F’ L2 F’
x2 L D F D’ // EO LD
R’ U R2 U2 R’ U2 R // 2-gen CO
U’ R E2 R’ F2 L E2 L’ // E-layer
R2 D F2 L2 U’ L2 U L2 // 2x2x3
y R2 U R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 // F2L-1
u M2 U’ M U2 M’ U’ M2 U2 // TTLL (PLL)
45 STM



I will name a method with these steps _Six-Step Kociemba_: EO DL, 2-gen CO, E-layer placement, 2x2x2 or 2x2x3 block, expand to F2L-1, and TTLL.
First 3 steps = Kociemba Phase 1, Last 3 Steps = Kociemba Phase 2.

Ending like normal may still be better, which would be Isom’s Kociemba. EO->CO will be called Old Isom’s Kociemba.

Thanks for supporting this and telling me I’ve made a reasonable method


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 28, 2019)

Small correction: SSC does eoedge, then CO+belt, and that is done with OL5C, where you place a triplet at DL and a pair in UL. It means that orientation+belt is done in less than 20 moves on average. And while we're talking about orientation methods, what about eoedge, CO3/4Belt while making sure that the FR edge isn't a D layer edge, D layer minus corner, permute L10P. Can also be done in a ZZ approach, with ZZF2L-1, Orientate everything, pernute everything. So an extension to ZZ-CT.


----------



## American-Cuber (Mar 1, 2019)

Hey guys, I think I discovered a pretty good method. I like to call it SH2-WV. This stands for Speed Heise 2- Winter Variation. I'll explain the steps, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

1.Make a first block as you would in roux
2. Make a 2x2x2 block right next to it.
3. Either EO first or fill in the last edge first.
4. Winter Variation!
5. Permute top face edges
6. Use a commutator or alg for the corners.
I think this is a pretty cool method and ive gotten a couple sub 15 solves with it. You should try it out!


----------



## willtri4 (Mar 1, 2019)

I feel like there are better ways to get to EOF2L-1 and better ways to go from EOF2L-1. The blockbuilding step is interesting, but seems kind of awkward, but then for LSLL, if you insist on using WV you should be doing PLL, but even then there are better options (insert+ZBLL).


----------



## American-Cuber (Mar 1, 2019)

willtri4 said:


> I feel like there are better ways to get to EOF2L-1 and better ways to go from EOF2L-1. The blockbuilding step is interesting, but seems kind of awkward, but then for LSLL, if you insist on using WV you should be doing PLL, but even then there are better options (insert+ZBLL).


I like your ideas, I'll see what I can do. Because I don't even know full winter variation.

And about the block building stage, it's more about few moves and being efficient than ergonomics.


----------



## Awesomesaucer (Mar 3, 2019)

I do cfop with vhls
Is this new or unoriginal
I have a Pb with this method of 9.286s


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 3, 2019)

Awesomesaucer said:


> I do cfop with vhls
> Is this new or unoriginal
> I have a Pb with this method of 9.286s


VHLS was designed specifically for use with CFOP


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 4, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> What about this?


The method just doesn't seem very viable at all. Making a 3/4 belt for the first step leaves step two, the brunt of the solve, with low visibility, not-so-good ergonomics, and unimpressive efficiency. The current algs for step three are not very good at all, although they might be improvable. Basically, it just doesn't seem like an idea that could really go anywhere.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 4, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> What about this?


It's much better to solve the bottom block and then the E-layer, and, personally more fun. Hexagonal Francisco is one of my favorite methods to solve with, and I get times extremely similar to my CFOP times.
Doing Middle layer -> bottom layer instead is simply worse, it makes movecount spike and lookahead drop significantly, making this method slow.
(maybe that post was ignored for a reason)


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 9, 2019)

*Intuitive 4x4 method and tutorial*

I have updated the method here: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/intuitive-4x4-method-with-parity-avoidance.73049/

The old version is in the spoiler below.



Spoiler: Old version of the method



I'm an intuitive solver, and I haven't been able to find any good resources for intuitive 4x4 solving, so I made this method and tutorial for others like myself. My hope is that it will be useful for folks who are looking for a completely intuitive 4x4 method that doesn't use any written or memorized algorithms. I think it should eventually be in the "How-tos and Guides" subforum, but I wanted to get your opinions on the method here first. It's based on the Sandwich method.

The most interesting parts are step 4, which is similar to parts of OBLBL, step 5, which I have not found anywhere else so far, and step 6, which I think employs a technique used by advanced Sandwich solvers, but which I haven't seen described anywhere in detail yet. I also like the fact that step 4 sets up good cases for very efficient 4-move center commutators in the last step.

I'm definitely not a speedcuber, so this method is not designed for speed - my major goals are elegance and efficiency. It's somewhat inspired by the Heise method, which I use to solve 3x3 cubes.

As far as move efficiency goes, I think this method has good potential. I have only been cubing for about a month, so I am not very good, but I can get to around 120 moves regularly. I think this will get lower once I get better and more familiar with the method. My personal best is 105 moves, and that includes many sub-optimal cases, so sub-100 is definitely possible. My worst solve full of horrible cases and poor decisions was 137 moves. The average of my last 9 solves is 122, and the average of my last 5 solves is 112 so I'm getting better. Even if this isn't amazingly efficient, at least it isn't terribly inefficient.

Here's the tutorial:

*Solving the 4x4 and Avoiding Parity Problems Intuitively*

This is the method that I use to solve the 4x4 intuitively without using any memorized algorithms, and to easily avoid parity problems. It is based on the Sandwich method.

I assume a good knowledge of blockbuilding and commutators. For a good video on commutators in general and 4x4 commutators in particular, I suggest this video: 




I use these 7 steps:

*1. *Solve two opposite centers.​​*2. *Solve a 1x3x3 block and a 1x3x4 block (similar to Roux) on the opposite face.​​*3a.* Solve two more corners such that the last 3 corners are out of place, then solve the last 3 corners using a commutator.​​*3b.* Solve the last edge pair of the 1x3x3 block to extend it to a 1x3x4 block.​​*4.* Extend one of the 1x3x4 blocks into a 2x3x4 block by solving one middle slice excluding the top layer.​​*5.* Use the unsolved slice to solve exactly 7 of the remaining 10 edge pieces.​​*6.* Solve the remaining 3 edge pieces and some center pieces with a commutator.​​*7.* Solve the remaining center pieces with 2 or 3 commutators.​
Here is a photo album which includes a brief description of each step:


https://imgur.com/a/rAmnHoe


That's it! You should be able to do these steps intuitively without any more instruction (except maybe the parity explanation in step 3a). The remainder of the guide is just clarification and some tips for better efficiency.

My goals in making this method were the following:

1. Completely intuitive - no memorized or written algorithms.​2. Ability to solve parity problems at their source, elegantly and intuitively.​3. Move efficiency.​4. Fun, which includes a varied set of problems and solving techniques during the course of the solve.​
*Step 1: Opposite centers* (~10 moves)

This is fairly straightforward. You can sometimes solve edges while solving centers if the edges are already attached to their matching center pieces. But, solving edges is very efficient in the next step so it doesn't make sense to spend more than 3 extra moves to solve an edge pair during this first step.

*Step 2: Blockbuilding* (~25-30 moves)

This step is also straightforward. The goal is to end up with one 1x3x4 block around one of your solved centers, and a 1x3x3 block around the other. I like to solve two 1x3x3 blocks first, then solve the last corner/edge pair to make a 1x3x4 block last. This gives me some more freedom compared to solving a 1x3x4 block first.

The two blocks don't actually have to have matching colors, but subsequent steps are a lot easier if they do. If you really want to save moves, try making unmatched blocks for an extra challenge.



https://imgur.com/Q3VPWcn




https://imgur.com/vLEPqvc


*Step 3: Corners* (~12-17 moves)

First the short version: solve 2 of the 5 unsolved corners such that the last 3 unsolved corners are all incorrectly permuted (i.e. they are out of place, not just twisted in place), then solve these last 3 corners with a commutator. If only 2 corners are incorrectly permuted, they cannot be solved with a commutator because they have odd parity. In this situation, you can just make a quarter turn of the unsolved face to change the parity from odd to even, then solve with commutators.

Okay, now the long version.



Spoiler: Long parity explanation



This is where we have our first brush with parity problems. If you know the Heise method for the 3x3, you will know that it forces the last 3 corners to have even parity by solving all edges first. This makes it possible to solve the last 3 corners with a single commutator. With the 4x4, this technique does not work because corner parity and edge parity are independent. If we wait to solve the corners until the end of the solve, we can end up with odd corner parity, which is commonly known as a form of PLL parity. Fixing this at the end of the solve can be done intuitively, but it requires discarding and re-solving large portions of the puzzle. So, we are instead going to solve corners now when it is easy to fix parity problems.

First, since we are solving intuitively, we have to understand what parity is. In group theory, parity refers to the number of swaps that it takes to sort a particular permutation. If you can sort a permutation using an odd number of swaps, the permutation has odd parity, and if you can sort a permutation using an even number of swaps, the permutation has even parity. For some really interesting discussions of parity, I recommend the following resources:

Ryan Heise's parity explanation for the 3x3 https://www.ryanheise.com/cube/parity.html

The Parity of Permutations and the Futurama Theorem





A long parity essay about the 4x4
https://hlavolam.maweb.eu/parity-problem

Commutators are the secret weapon of the intuitive solver, but they cannot solve odd parity permutations, because they must always do an even number of swaps. So, we have to make sure that our last three corners have even parity before we can solve them with a commutator. Every quarter-turn of any face cycles corners between odd and even parity, so it is actually very easy to transition between odd and even parity.

The easy way to solve corners using commutators is to keep spamming commutators, and if you end up with 2 or 3 unsolved corners that can't be solved by commutators and conjugates, do a quarter turn of the unsolved face and then keep spamming commutators. However, this is neither elegant nor efficient. In order to be efficient, we need to know whether parity is odd or even before we start to solve the corners. We can do this by counting the number of swaps it will take to permute all of the corners. If you do blind solving, you already know how to do this. For our purposes here, we can use a simplified version. After a bit of practice, this can be done in a few seconds.

First, pick any incorrectly permuted corner (i.e. corners that are in the wrong place - corners twisted in place count as "solved" because we are only considering permutation, not orientation). Find its solved position; this is one swap. Now take note of the corner that is currently in this position and find its solved position; this is a second swap. Continue doing this until you come back to the original piece; this is one cycle. When counting swaps, don't count the starting piece itself, either at the beginning or the end of a cycle.

All of the corners may be in the same cycle, or they may be arranged in multiple separate cycles. Whatever the arrangement, the number of swaps it takes to solve a particular group of pieces will always equal the number of incorrectly permuted pieces minus the number of cycles. To express this as a formula, if p represents the number of pieces, c represents the number of cycles, and s represents the number of swaps needed to solve these pieces, then s=p-c. So in order to determine parity, we really only need to count the number of cycles, then subtract that number from the number of unsolved pieces. We can look at an easy example using four letters:

B C D A

Let's trace the swaps needed to put them in alphabetical order, starting with A. A belongs in B's spot, B belongs in C's spot, C belongs in D's spot, and D belongs in A's spot. All four letters are in the same cycle, and three swaps will sort all of the letters into their correct places. This arrangement has odd parity: 4 letters minus 1 cycle equals 3 swaps. Now look at this example:

C D A B

Here, the letters are arranged in two separate cycles, and we can sort them using only two swaps. This arrangement has even parity: 4 letters minus 2 cycles equals 2 swaps. Note that this example is the same as the previous example, except that the letters have all been rotated one spot to the left. This should help to illustrate how a quarter-turn switches pieces between odd and even parity.

We can apply exactly the same analysis to our corners quite easily. Count the number of corners that are out of place (don't count corners twisted in place), subtract the number of cycles it takes to permute them, and that number will tell you whether the corners have odd or even parity.

After we determine parity, our next goal is to solve two corners such that 3 corners remain unsolved with even parity. We can do this by solving 2 of our 5 unsolved corners using either an odd or an even number of quarter turns. 4-move commutators are very useful here. Remember that a 180 degree turn like U2 counts as two quarter turns. Once you have 3 corners unsolved and even parity, solve the last 3 corners with a single commutator, and this step is complete. (If you end up with all unsolved corners twisted in place, this is an even parity situation as well, it is just less efficient.)


Of course, if you already know a set of 2x2 or CLL algorithms you can just use those, but this method is designed for people who don't know any algorithms at all.

Personally I have found this step to be quite challenging but extremely fun and interesting. After practicing with my 2x2 I am starting to do fairly well. This step also works as a method for solving a 2x2 intuitively and reasonably efficiently.



https://imgur.com/TqZPj1V


*Step 3b: Solve the remaining edge pair to extend the 1x3x3 block into a 1x3x4 block.* (~6 moves)

This is self-explanatory. You want to end up with two 1x3x4 blocks solved on opposite sides, and all corners solved.



https://imgur.com/xSBkOka


*Step 4: Solve 3/4 of one middle slice, to extend one 1x3x4 block into a 2x3x4 block.* (~14 moves)

This is more block building, but you have to use entirely new tactics that don't apply to 3x3. It took me some time to get the hang of this step, but I can now complete it in 12-15 moves. You can use several techniques to connect center pairs with edge pieces and insert them, but my favorite is to put the edge piece on the L or R side of the top layer, turn the M slices to pair centers with it, then rotate the top layer to insert the trio.



https://imgur.com/eswDDev




https://imgur.com/5B0MifF


*Step 5: Use the unsolved slice to solve 7 of the remaining 10 edge pieces.* (~14 moves)

It took me a while to get the hang of this as well, but it ends up being more efficient than using commutators. Instead of pairing adjacent edges, you pair opposite edges on the unsolved slice, then insert them into the top face. The goal here is to arrive at a state in which three edge pieces are unsolved, which will mean that we have even edge parity, and we can solve these last three pieces with one commutator.

There are a lot of different ways to do this, but I like to solve all of the top-layer edges except for the two in the unsolved slice. In this case, all of the unsolved edge pieces will be in the same slice. It's not guaranteed to end up with only 3 pieces unsolved, but the odds are favorable here - for the even parity cases, you have a 2/3 chance for 3 unsolved pieces, a 1/6 chance for 4 unsolved pieces (which you can solve using 2 commutators), and a 1/6 chance for a skip in which all 4 pieces are solved. This is my preferred technique because of that sweet and satisfying skip. However, you can frequently save a lot of moves by just looking out for good cases and solving whatever edges are easiest.

It's usually not necessary to check for parity since you will correct it automatically by arriving at a state with 3 unsolved edge pieces, which is an even parity state. 2 unsolved edge pieces means odd parity, and 3 unsolved edge pieces means even parity. If you want to check parity earlier, or if you have more than 3 unsolved pieces, you can trace swaps and cycles just as we did when solving the corners. Note that individual edge pieces cannot be flipped in place, so a flipped edge piece must always be permuted to be solved.

If you have odd edge parity, simply turn the unsolved slice by 90 degrees to get to even parity. That's all it takes to avoid edge parity problems. Once you have even parity, you can check which of the two even-parity positions is most favorable for edges and centers - switch between them with a 180 degree turn of the unsolved slice.



https://imgur.com/0H4sC8d




https://imgur.com/x1HNBlN


*Step 6: Use a commutator to solve the last 3 edge pieces and some center pieces.* (~10 moves)

Since edges now have even parity, we can solve the last edge pieces with a commutator instead of learning a set of "last edges" algorithms.

It's possible to include either three or six center pieces along with the edge commutator, similarly to how we construct a pair 3-cycle on a 3x3 cube. This is easiest if the edges are not conjugated outside of the M slice layers. You can also include center pieces in your conjugates, of course. Sometimes it even makes sense to conjugate only the centers with a wide S2 or E2 move.

Using tricks like this, it's possible to move a lot of center pieces along with the edge commutators, without increasing the move count much or at all. Solving even one center piece during this step can end up being very helpful, since it could decrease the number of commutators needed to solve the centers in the next step.



https://imgur.com/QvqubOT


*Step 7: Center commutators* (~20-25 moves)

In this last step, we have four types of commutators available:

1. 8-move commutators, moving 3 pieces
2. 8-move pair commutators, moving 6 pieces
3. 4-move commutators, moving 6 pieces
4. 4-move pair commutators, moving 12 pieces

Because center pieces have a 1/4 chance of being solved randomly, you will most often end up with 7 or 8 unsolved pieces, just by random chance, or less if you were able to solve some more center pieces along with your edge commutator. Centers will usually take 2 or 3 commutators to solve, the first of which can usually be a 4-move commutator that moves 6 pieces. Because of the way the previous steps set up the centers, you will often be able to easily conjugate a 4-move commutator with a wide slice move. Note that 4-move commutators can be extremely efficient, even with long conjugates. I frequently solve 5 pieces with a single 4-move commutator, which is very efficient even if it requires a 3-move conjugate for a total of 10 moves. It's worth studying and understanding how these 4-move commutators work.

Center commutators will usually require some kind of conjugate, and you can save moves by trying to conjugate the same face for every commutator. This means that you won't have to undo your conjugate at the end of each commutator - you can just rotate the face to a new conjugate for the next commutator instead.

Once you complete the centers, the cube is solved!

*Wait, what about PLL and OLL parity?*

Since we are solving pieces directly and ensuring even edge parity in step 5, we will never have to solve PLL or OLL edge parity problems as such. We avoid corner permutation parity problems in step 3.

*The End*

So, that is my method. If you have any suggestions for improvements I'd love to hear them! I feel like I should be able to do more work during the corner step, or do it more elegantly, but I haven't come up with any improvements yet.

Please also let me know if the explanation was too confusing, or if you have any interest in a video demonstration. Thanks for reading!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 9, 2019)

That's quite interesting! Very infact. A video would be great.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 10, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> That's quite interesting! Very infact. A video would be great.



Alright, here is a video demonstration: 




This is my first-ever YouTube video where I have a speaking role. Thanks for encouraging me to make this -- I had a lot of fun doing it!

I counted my moves, and came up with 135. I didn't count demonstration moves, immediately reversed mistakes, and pauses in the middle of turns, but I did count mistakes that I didn't reverse (notably in step 5, which cost me 7 extra moves). I think that's pretty good, considering that I was making no effort to be efficient.

I also noticed something interesting while re-watching the video. I think that the 6 unsolved center pieces in the last step were actually in a very bad configuration such that an 8-move 3-cycle would not be able to solve 3 pieces -- at least not without some very ugly conjugates -- since there were no unsolved center pieces located on opposite-color sides. So, the 4-move commutator that I used was actually able to save me a lot of moves, and possibly an entire commutator, even though it took a total of 8 moves including the conjugate.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 10, 2019)

That's a very interesting method! If you were gonna optimise it for speedsolving, 42 corners would work well with it, or even straight L5C, but that's 614 algorithms, so not really alg free. And I can see how this could be optimised a lot in terms of movecount. When I can, I'll edit this post with some more thoughts on the method after playing about with it.

EDIT: So, I've done a few solves so far, and I think that this method has potential. There just needs to be some speed optimising of the L3E+centres steps. Making that algorithmic would help a lot, but that's not too hard as you can just use comms from bld. The best way to do corners is 42 style IMO, as it allows you to use only 42 algorithms that a lot of solvers attracted to this method will already know (roux), and it's applicable on 3x3 as well. I'm not sure how it compares to Yau, but if it's more efficient, it should stand a good chance, and as you don't get parity, that will also help.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 10, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> That's a very interesting method! If you were gonna optimise it for speedsolving, 42 corners would work well with it, or even straight L5C, but that's 614 algorithms, so not really alg free. And I can see how this could be optimised a lot in terms of movecount. When I can, I'll edit this post with some more thoughts on the method after playing about with it.


Thanks, I would love some more move optimization ideas!

I just tried this on a 5x5 and it actually worked (though I'm not sure how efficient it is). The middle edge pieces add a nice little bit of complexity, since they are in a separate orbit from the wing edges. But, they make the corner step easier since you can do it exactly like Heise. Just make sure to solve the two unsolved middle edge pieces in the D layer before starting step 3, then do step 3 exactly like Heise and you will end up with all corners and middle edge pieces solved. I suppose the D layer middle edges could be solved along with the blockbuilding step.

You can then solve 3/4 of the middle slice (which makes a cool-looking design) and 3/4 of one of the wing slices (or whatever they are called), and then use the remaining unsolved wing slice to solve 7 out of 10 wing edges, just like in the 4x4 method. The rest of the method is the same, with a single commutator for the last wing edges and a few center commutators.

For larger cubes, I think you would always have to leave 1/2 of the wing slices unsolved in order to be able to pair all of the wing edges, so it seems like the method would get much less efficient as cubes got larger and proportionally more of the pieces were centers. But of course I haven't tested it because my largest cube is a 5x5.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 11, 2019)

Had a simple 3x3 method idea that’s kind of a ZZ-roux variant:

Start:

EoLine (But with inserting DL and DR instead of DF and DB)
FB (as in roux. You start with the DL edge and insert pairs around that w/o messing up EO)
SB (same style as FB except with DR)


Finish:

Then there are a few options for the finish. I’m not sure which one is better so I’m just putting them all out there:

Roux Finish:
CMLL (43 algs I think)
LSE (I don’t know if CMLL messes up EO. If it doesn’t you can skip EO during LSE)

ZZ- like finish:
Insert both edges into DF and DB w/o messing up EO
ZBLL (493 algs)

Lin Finish (Lin is a square one method I use):
CMLL+1: (Insert DB edge, then do CMLL and insert the other D edge with one alg) (These algs would preserve EO) (43 algs I think)
EPLL (4 algs)


I like the Lin finish the best because it fits with the first part the best and is the most unique.

This is my first serious method idea, so it probably has been thought of before and also probably sucks, so please correct me as much as you please.

I’ll attach an example solve with all 3 finishes later when I have time.

Thanks!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 11, 2019)

First step: you're doing the cfop/roux hybrid that is bad but with eo. (DRDL, F2L, CMLL, LSE). That doesn't save the method. You're better off doing standard roux. 
Second step: not bad, but nothing massively good either. 
Third step: exactly the same as the second.
Fourth step: CMLL messes up eo, so you'd use COLL.
Fifth step: L6EP (ELL but with 2 extra edges) would make this method alright.

Verdict: not bad, but not good. When you're coming up with new methods, you'll want to think if what you're proposing is bringing anything new to the scene, but don't let one not so good method mean that you don't make any more. Keep up with ideas and at least one good one will be in there.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 11, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> First step: you're doing the cfop/roux hybrid that is bad but with eo. (DRDL, F2L, CMLL, LSE). That doesn't save the method. You're better off doing standard roux.
> Second step: not bad, but nothing massively good either.
> Third step: exactly the same as the second.
> Fourth step: CMLL messes up eo, so you'd use COLL.
> ...


I understand. That makes a lot of sense. However, I invite you to look at Lin finish as opposed to just Roux Finish. I know that won’t save the method either, but I think that finish has potential and I want to keep working with it.


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 11, 2019)

Hexagonal Francisco is cool, so here is a different finish for it:

1. Build a Hexagon on D (a layer with an adjacent corner and edge missing on the right)
2. Insert E-slice edges (<rUr', RUR', U, u> gen)
3. L5E (what ever method you want)
4. L5C (two commutators or an alg)

This is pretty similar to M-CELL or T-CELL, just an edge in a different place.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 11, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I understand. That makes a lot of sense. However, I invite you to look at Lin finish as opposed to just Roux Finish. I know that won’t save the method either, but I think that finish has potential and I want to keep working with it.


For the Lin finish, you can do COLL+edge->L5EP or CMLL+edge->L5E. If you do CMLL+edge, you might as well not do eo first and do the blocks like roux.



Skewbed said:


> Hexagonal Francisco is cool, so here is a different finish for it:
> 
> 1. Build a Hexagon on D (a layer with an adjacent corner and edge missing on the right)
> 2. Insert E-slice edges (<rUr', RUR', U, u> gen)
> ...


It's that method just with a different way to do F2L. L5E should be a nice alg set, and you should do L5C before L5E if you want to do it the best (1 look). And I think it needs to be explored a bit because it could be good, but afaik, L5C->L5E is the best for now.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 11, 2019)

Skewbed said:


> Hexagonal Francisco is cool, so here is a different finish for it:
> 
> 1. Build a Hexagon on D (a layer with an adjacent corner and edge missing on the right)
> 2. Insert E-slice edges (<rUr', RUR', U, u> gen)
> ...


I made a variant of HF that I really like:
1) Hexagon + E layer however you like (I usually do Petrus block + F2L pair + edge)
2 or 3) CLS
2 or 3) EODF
4) PLL


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 11, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> For the Lin finish, you can do COLL+edge->L5EP or CMLL+edge->L5E. If you do CMLL+edge, you might as well not do eo first and do the blocks like roux.
> 
> 
> It's that method just with a different way to do F2L. L5E should be a nice alg set, and you should do L5C before L5E if you want to do it the best (1 look). And I think it needs to be explored a bit because it could be good, but afaik, L5C->L5E is the best for now.


I know. I didn’t originally understand that CMLL doesn’t preserve EO. So it would be insert DB edge, then COLL+1, then EPLL. All that is only 47 algs. I’m not trying to prove that this is a good method, I’m just trying to help you understand what I was going for.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 11, 2019)

COLL+1 is more than 47 algs, unless you do it 2 look.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 11, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> That's a very interesting method! If you were gonna optimise it for speedsolving, 42 corners would work well with it, or even straight L5C, but that's 614 algorithms, so not really alg free. And I can see how this could be optimised a lot in terms of movecount. When I can, I'll edit this post with some more thoughts on the method after playing about with it.
> 
> EDIT: So, I've done a few solves so far, and I think that this method has potential. There just needs to be some speed optimising of the L3E+centres steps. Making that algorithmic would help a lot, but that's not too hard as you can just use comms from bld. The best way to do corners is 42 style IMO, as it allows you to use only 42 algorithms that a lot of solvers attracted to this method will already know (roux), and it's applicable on 3x3 as well. I'm not sure how it compares to Yau, but if it's more efficient, it should stand a good chance, and as you don't get parity, that will also help.


Thanks for trying it out! If you know a CLL algorithm set, then I think you're right that solving two 1x3x4 blocks and then doing the corners of the last layer would be easiest and fastest (this is basically Lewis method). Inserting the last edge in step 3b is not very move-efficient. Solving the corners and this one edge are the least efficient parts of the method, requiring just over 3 moves per piece solved.

I figured the last steps would be difficult to optimize for speed since they rely on slice moves, and speed solvers don't like slice moves. But it would be extremely easy to generate a set of algorithms for the edge pieces of the last slice, since there are only 24 possible permutations, arranged in 6 groups of 4 representing the 4 different positions of a rotated slice. So if you consider the 4 rotations to be a single permutation, then there are only 6 cases, one of which is a skip. In addition, the commutators for the last 3 edges in a single slice are always exactly the same and very easy to recognize.

User Rachmaninovian has already created an algorithm set for centers-last solving which is linked on the Sandwich Method wiki page, so that could be adapted here. There would of course be fewer cases and some more restrictions since we have 6 center pieces in one slice solved already. Much of the move efficiency in the last step of my solves comes from using 4-move commutators to solve lots of pieces at once, but these can be difficult to conjugate so they might not be appropriate for a speed solve. It also takes me about 12 minutes to solve a 4x4, and I'm sure if you spent 12 minutes on almost any method it would be very move-efficient.

Thanks again for taking the time to try it out. I can't really speak to speed solving, but I'm glad that you think it could be adapted to that purpose!

Edit: I just tried a "speed" solve and got 7 minutes, which is good for me I guess!


----------



## u Cube (Mar 11, 2019)

What if Instead of doing CMLL 4a 4b and 4c you just did CMLL EBL (Edges of bottom layer) then ELL (Edges of Last Layer). Would that be a faster approach, or is it not worth looking into. Please write your opinions below!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 11, 2019)

No, just no.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 11, 2019)

u Cube said:


> What if Instead of doing CMLL 4a 4b and 4c you just did CMLL EBL (Edges of bottom layer) then ELL (Edges of Last Layer). Would that be a faster approach, or is it not worth looking into. Please write your opinions below!


No, it's not worth anything.
Doing ELL alone is less efficient than LSE. The reason is because with ELL, you have less freedom and have to backtrack to solve, but LSE 4a, 4b, 4c, you don't have either of those problems, and each step is very short. (am I making sense?)
The whole not backtracking thing is why computer algorithms like Thistlewaite and Kociemba don't blockbuild.
Many people has had this idea, but its less efficient, requires learning 25 algs, and is *slower* overall.


Aerma said:


> I made a variant of HF that I really like:
> 1) Hexagon + E layer however you like (I usually do Petrus block + F2L pair + edge)
> 2 or 3) CLS
> 2 or 3) EODF
> 4) PLL


This is exactly how the original proposal by Andrew solves the last 10 pieces, if you don’t know. 
He also thought of HexagonalFrancisco-CT where you solve L10P with EODF, "TSLE", and TTLL. I think this is the faster approach, and has similar alg count as original because at TSLE, slot edge will already be inserted. Both around 130ish.
Either way is good, original or ct.
Also, like the signature of Hexagonal Francisco is the Hexagon, so solving a 2x2x3 at the start wouldn't be much of a HF variant in my opinion.

I thought of a way of L10P that would require a whole lot less algs:
EO - intuitive, easy, max 5 unique cases
CO - easier than CLS but harder than 2x2 CO. Requires 23 algs.
L5CP - basically the best TTLL's from each set. 8 algorithms. kind of inefficent, perhaps the downfall to this idea?
L5EP - Completely MU 2-gen, 16 algs. recognition may be hard, but algs are very quick.
Slower than 3 step aproaches, but has a third the algs.
What do you think?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 12, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Doing ELL alone is less efficient than LSE.


That is inherently false. ELL is in fact a subset of L6E where the user has memorized speed-optimal algorithms for each possible case. Thus, it will always be faster than an intuitively created solution. That being said, bottom layer/top layer is not necessarily better. I think that the method's biggest downfall is the pause for recognition before ELL, and the worse ergonomics as compared to 4c. However, EBL, which includes solving the centers, seems faster than EOLR. With reflections, AUFs, and the guarantee that centers will be oriented (i.e. white or yellow will be facing up, for most people), there are only 24 cases, if I'm not wrong. It seems like they would generally be quick. I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 12, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> That is inherently false. ELL is in fact a subset of L6E where the user has memorized speed-optimal algorithms for each possible case. Thus, it will always be faster than an intuitively created solution.


Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
Efficient as in movecount.
Definition of efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
/ preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
In this case, productivity = solving cube, but resource can mean movecount, as well as ergonomics, number of looks, steps, or time (pauses relates to time).

Most of the time, when people say efficient, they mean moves or something of that nature.

Average ELL cases are “deeper” positions of the cube than average LSE cases, they require more moves, thus less efficient move-count wise.


Sue Doenim said:


> With reflections, AUFs, and the guarantee that centers will be oriented (i.e. white or yellow will be facing up, for most people), there are only 24 cases, if I'm not wrong. It seems like they would generally be quick. I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.



Here is a Random LSE solution with DF/DB, ELL (Sarah’s ell algs)-
Scr: B2 U’ L2 R2 D F2 D2 L R’ B L’ R D x2
Solution- M U’ M2 U M’ // U2 M2 U M U' M' U' M' U M' U M' U' M U2 [20 moves]
Here is a Random LSE solution with 4a, 4b, 4c (NO EOLR)-
Scr: B2 U’ L2 R2 D F2 D2 L R’ B L’ R D x2
Solution- U’ M’ U M’ // U2 M’ U2 M U M2 // U M U2 M [14 moves]

(I know this is only 1 solve, but it still proves a point)
Even if ELL has slightly better ergonomics or recognition, it wouldn’t make up for the 6 move / 30% moves difference, so it’s slower.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 12, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> I feel like most ELLs' bad ergonomics negate that advantage, which, along with the bad recognition, makes it generally worse than standard L6E.


I disagree with this, because ell has pretty nice algs apart from maybe one case, plus the recog isn't bad. But the main reason why ebl->ell is bad is because you're being less efficient and the lookahead is worse, as many people can do LSE virtually pauseless.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Mar 12, 2019)

Hey @WoowyBaby, thanks for posting info about your ideas for the Kociemba variations.

I'm interested in trying this out, so please keep the info coming! (showing cases in the steps, etc.)



-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 13, 2019)

Solvador Cubi said:


> Hey @WoowyBaby, thanks for posting info about your ideas for the Kociemba variations.
> 
> I'm interested in trying this out, so please keep the info coming! (showing cases in the steps, etc.)
> 
> -= Solvador Cubi



I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?

So here goes some full example solves with _Isom's Kociemba:_

Scramble: B' L' F2 D2 B2 R2 B2 L F2 U2 R F2 R' F' L' R' F L2 R F'
y2
R F2 U2 F D' // EO DF
U2' R2' U' R U' R U' // 2-gen CO
E2 R' D' U2 L E2 L' // E-layer placement
U' R2 B2 U2 R2 U' R2 // CS + CP
M2 U2 M2 U' M2 D' M2 // L/R
D M' U2 M z' M' U2 M U2 M2 // 4c
42 STM

Scramble: L R2 B2 L2 U2 R2 U L2 U F2 D' U' R2 L' F R' B2 L D' F2 L
D' R D L2 F // EO
L D U' R' U // CO
E2 R U2 L E2 L’ // E-layer placement
U D R2 // CS
U x R’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ R2 x’ // CP
M’ U2 M’ D’ M2 y M’ U2 M U2 M2 // L/R
U M’ u2 M x y U2 M U2 // 4c
45 STM

Scramble: L' F2 R' B2 L D2 L2 D2 F2 D2 L' F2 U' B' R F D' R' D F' U
D F R B’ L’ // EO DF (5)
R’ U’ R U2 R’ // 2-gen CO (5)
L E2 L’ D’ B2 U’ R E2 R’ // E-layer placement (9)
y R2 U R2 U R2 // CS (5)
U x R’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ D2 R2 x’ // CP (10)
y U’ M u2 M // L/R (4)
U’ M u2 M E L2 E’ L2 // 4c (8)
46 STM

Scramble: U2 R F' R2 B U2 B R2 B2 R2 D2 F R2 D2 U L' D' U2 F' L U2
z2
U B U’ D’ R’ F D’ // EO DF
U R’ U’ R U’ R U’ R’ // 2-gen CO
D2 R E2 R’ // E-layer placement
y R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 // CS
U’ y’ R2 U’ B2 U2 R2 U’ R2 // CP
U M2 U’ M’ U2 M’ D' M2 // L/R
D U2 M2 R2 x U M2 U2 M2 U R2 x’ U2 // 4c
51 STM

Scramble: R2 L F' U2 L' B U B' R U' F2 L2 U F2 B2 U D2 F2 D' F2 D'
y2
U’ L U F // EO DF
U2 R’ U’ R U’ R’ // 2-gen CO
D L E2 L’ U’ R E2 R’ // E-layer placement
U’ R2 // CS
U l’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ D2 R2 x’ // CP
U M2 d M2 U’ M2 // L/R (mismatched)
u M2 u U x M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 x’ u2 U // 4c
49 STM

There’s five example solves!

*Resources:*
These can help with efficiency so much it’s magic!

EO - Many EO cases

CO - All possible 2-gen CO cases

E-layer placement - basically everything revolves around R E2 R’ and L E2 L’, and maybe some R2 F2, and lots of U and D moves to setup to an R E2 R’ case.
See example solves.

CS - So simple, no resources needed

CP -
Diag Top- F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' 
Diag Bott.- R D' R2 U2 R' U R U2 R U2 R D R'
Adj. Top- l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2
Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2
Double Adjacent- R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 Double Diagonal- R2 F2 R2
Adj. Top / Diag Bottom- R U' R F2 R' U R' Diag Top / Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R

Permuting Last Edges - For this, you solve a L/R pair just like Roux, then another L/R on the other side, not a lot to learn, but then when you get to 4c step, there are many tricks you can use to finish your solve, such as R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 and Conjugated H-perm.

Stats-
Algorithms: min 5
Intuitive parts that get way better when you learn some efficient algs, cases, and tricks: literally everything
Movecount: about 42-48

This method doesn’t compete for the best speedsolving method, rather, Isom’s Kociemba is a fun novelty method with almost no algorithms and might be useful for FMC as well. (unrelated sidenote: what methods go on the wiki?)
It is possible to be fast with this, but not as easy as with CFOP/Roux.

That’s about it!
Solvador Cubi, hope this is what you’re asking for! If you want me to make a video, I can
~WoowyBaby


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Mar 13, 2019)

*Tesseract Method*

*Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.*

I have made a few equivalent Amino posts on it, where I also have videos of the best executions of the algs.

I call this method the *Tesseract** method*. I designed it as an add-on set of algs for any top-first solver, especially one that uses 1-Flip or Oka.
*The top consists of a solved edge, and two edges that need to switch. Unlike Nutella, however, these edges don't for a solid block of color on the front. *

I'll be honest and say that not all of the algs are the best. I just wanted an alg for every case. Though, some are, in my opinion, are very good.

https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...hod-alg-set/Pr8E_ldtmux8ep3vDRdEBWjagx6Pnqlq6
https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...algorithms/Bqxl_7JIwu56NKZJxzZ6jdJYL1MpKm11mj 

I think that some of these algs might help to turn a bad scramble into a very good scramble.

*For example: This case with no centers is U' R' U R' U' R U R. If executed correctly, it can be sub-1'ed easily.*


*I realize that this method might not be great, but I thought that it would be a fun attempt at trying to come up with something new. Let me know what you think!*


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 13, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
> Efficient as in movecount.
> Definition of efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
> / preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
> ...


True. I was just being a bit nitpicky about the wording you used in your post from before, because it gave me the impression that you were saying that any L6E case will be solvable faster than any ELL case.


PapaSmurf said:


> I disagree with this, because ell has pretty nice algs apart from maybe one case, plus the recog isn't bad. But the main reason why ebl->ell is bad is because you're being less efficient and the lookahead is worse, as many people can do LSE virtually pauseless.


Yeah. I wasn't super clear myself. I was including lookahead as part of recognition, since it really is just pre-recognition, and I meant alg speed rather than efficiency.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 13, 2019)

VIBE_ZT said:


> *Tesseract Method*
> 
> *Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.*
> 
> ...


It's probably another useful method to know for top first. Just learn more methods, and if you can come up with your own, great! I'm not good at pyra though, so if someone who was good could give their thoughts too, that'd be great.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Mar 13, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
> now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?
> ...



Great, Thanks so much! I'm sure all this will help me (and others).

I'll be practicing it, but it will take me some time for me to get good at it, I'm sure.
and I plan to be taking my own notes along the way so I can hopefully make another 1 page reference sheet. 

It seems like a nice method because even though there are several steps, they are all fairly simple.
(as well as having a low move count!)

In the PCBL step, I'm checking out the "Diag Top" alg you listed, to see if I like it.
It ends in a nice sexysledge, but I've always used: R U’ L U2 R’ U R L’ U’ L U2 R’ U L’ (14 htm)

I'll also need to find a way to intuitively do CO efficiently without memorizing the 72 cases! 

Lastly, I don't know enough about Kociemba and how much your proposed steps are similar,
but if it's different enough, I say.. name the method anything you want! 


-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 13, 2019)

Solvador Cubi said:


> Great, Thanks so much! I'm sure all this will help me (and others).
> 
> I'll be practicing it, but it will take me some time for me to get good at it, I'm sure.
> and I plan to be taking my own notes along the way so I can hopefully make another 1 page reference sheet.
> ...



*Diag Alg:* People do have their preferences for algorithms and I am aware of Diag Top algs besides Y-perm PLL, so I could provide more than one alg per case and slam it on a sheet maybe here- (link)

*CO:* For CO, understand exactly what an R / R’ move does, then memorize the cases that are only 3 moves, like R U R’.
Then, memorize all 72 cases. This is not too difficult, as many just do a couple moves to reduce it to a 3 move case, so you can memorize a case like: “ok just a Pi OLL on Top is held in back and is “down-left U backhammer”. Boom, memorized. (R’ U’ R U R’ U2 R is the alg you’re wondering)
Not that on Lucas Garron’s Sortega page, every case ends with R, but it can be replaced with R’ if it’s better ergonomically. Ex: R U’ R’ is better than R U’ R

Edit: Doing a single R move changes it to a different case

Idk really what to say about the CO, I’m not an expert or anything.
It’s like looking at a page of all 160 possible F2L cases and thinking it’s impossible to learn, when really, because it’s a semi-intuitive step, it’s far easier to memorize cases than from an algorithmic step.


*Kociemba:* Kociemba is not a method persay, it’s a computer algorithm used today and invented by Herbert Kociemba.
It is a 2-phase algorithm-
Phase 1: Reduce cube to R2,L2,F2,B2,U,D, state. In other words, Orient all edges, Place middle(equator) layer pieces somewhere in middle layer, and Orient all corners.
Phase 2: Permute the rest of the cube with the restricted move set. Now it’s solved.
The goal of 2-phase algorithms are to split the solve into 2 parts that take roughly the same amount of computing power and moves.

Doing either phase in one step is far too hard conceptually for humans, so there are different methods to do each phase in multiple steps. In the case of Isom’s Kociemba (such a bad name ew), the first three steps are EO DF, 2-gen CO, and E-layer placement. This achieves phase 1. Next phase: CS,CP, L/R, 4c, solves the rest of the cube.
Other methods that do basically this are Orient first, Human Thistlewaite, and SSC.

Just a side note: I’m actually pretty slow with this method.
Holy this is a huge block of text whoops lol.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 14, 2019)

I tried the method on a 5x5 again and counted my moves this time. I came up with 208 which I think is not too bad, considering that I made some mistakes, was using an inefficient version of the method, and wasn't particularly efficient in general (33 moves to solve the first 2 centers). This seems to be similar to the move count in a reduction speedsolve. It's slightly less efficient than my 4x4 average, at 2.26 moves per piece solved versus 2.17 for 4x4.

The efficiency surprised me at first, because I was expecting this method to be much worse for 5x5. But it actually makes sense, for two reasons. First, solving corners is more efficient and easier because you can solve middle edges at the same time, just as you do in Heise. Second, you can solve 3/4 of the middle slice before the last step, so you end up with a maximum of only 17 unsolved center pieces, compared with 10 on the 4x4. This is about 18% of the total pieces on the cube, which is the same proportion as on the 4x4. Adding the middle slice actually enables us to solve proportionally more of the center pieces before the last step: 65% on the 5x5 vs about 58% on the 4x4.

I modified the methodfor the 5x5 as follows:

1. Opposite centers

2. 1x3x3 block and 1x3x4 block

3. 3/4 of the middle slice

4. Pair (not solve) the last edge of the second 1x3x4 block

5. Orientation of remaining 5 middle edges (this can be done earlier but it doesn't seem to make much difference)

6. Solve all middle edges and corners exactly as in Heise steps 3-4

7. 3/4 of a wing slice

8. 7 wing edges

9. Commutator to solve last 3 wing edges

10. 3-5 center commutators

I also tried a solve on a virtual 7x7, which requires two wing slices to remain unsolved. I ended up with 38 unsolved center pieces in the last step. So, the method will work for any nxnxn cube, but it just gets progressively less efficient as the cube gets larger because there are proportionally more center pieces versus wing edges. But hey, at least you don't have to learn any parity algorithms!


I actually found the5x5 solve to be extremely fun, since there is so much variation in the different techniques used. I never really paid attention to 5x5 because I don't like reduction solves, but now that I have a direct intuitive method, I'm having a heck of a lot of fun! I might actually enjoy it more than the 4x4 version.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 15, 2019)

@dudefaceguy Here's some 4x4 example solves with your method-
"1. Solve two opposite centers. 
2. Solve a 1x3x3 block and a 1x3x4 block (similar to Roux) on the opposite face.
3a. Solve two more corners such that the last 3 corners are out of place, then solve the last 3 corners using a commutator. 
3b. Solve the last edge pair of the 1x3x3 block to extend it to a 1x3x4 block.
4. Extend one of the 1x3x4 blocks into a 2x3x4 block by solving one middle slice excluding the top layer.
5. Use the unsolved slice to solve exactly 7 of the remaining 10 edge pieces.
6. Solve the remaining 3 edge pieces and some center pieces with a commutator.
7. Solve the remaining center pieces with 2 or 3 commutators."

Scramble: D2 L R2 F2 L2 R2 D2 B L2 U2 B' U2 B2 F' U' F2 D2 L2 R' U' R Fw2 Rw2 R' B2 D2 Fw2 F L' B Uw2 F D2 B' Uw L2 Uw2 L' B2 Uw' B Rw Fw B Uw2 U Fw2
x2
R2 f r U2 r' U R' y r U2 r' z // 2 Opposite Centers (10)
R U R2 L U' r' U' F' L2 F // Red 1x3x3 (10)
R2 U' r L F' L D L2 U R' U' r2 R' F R2 F' R' U R2 U' R2 U' R U r' U2 R U R' U' R y D' R U' R' D // Orange 1x3x4 (36)
y U2 R' F2 R F' R' F2 R2 U R' // Corners (10)
U' R l L R2 D' R2 L2 U R' // Remaining Edge (10)
2R U 2R' m' U m' D2 U m' U m D2 2R U' 2L2 U2 m2 U 2L' U2 2L m U2 m' 2R2 U' 2R2 U m U2 m2 U2 m 2R2 U 2R2 U' m' U2 m // Left M slice (40)
U2 2R U2 2R2 U' 2R2' U2 2R U2 2R2 U 2R' r U R' U' 2R' U R U' R' // Solve 7/10 Edges (21)
// Non-Intuitive Near-Impossible L3E Commutator
// Non-Intuitive Near-Impossible Last 12 Centers Commutators
137 STM + ~40-50 for the rest = 180 ish

This method is extremely difficult to solve with, not for beginners whatsoever, requires a very high level understanding of the cube, many parts are too complex to do efficiently.
I spent actually over an hour on the solve, because how complicated it is.
Algorithms are easier to understand than commutators.
I actually know exactly how commutators work, and have lots of experience on 3x3, but I didn't grasp this.
Even in your own video you struggled near the end to solve using your own method.

This is an interesting method, maybe just not for me 
Maybe other people will like it though


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 15, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> @dudefaceguy Here's some 4x4 example solves with your method-
> "1. Solve two opposite centers.
> 2. Solve a 1x3x3 block and a 1x3x4 block (similar to Roux) on the opposite face.
> 3a. Solve two more corners such that the last 3 corners are out of place, then solve the last 3 corners using a commutator.
> ...



Wow, thank you very much for testing out this method! I agree that it is definitely not a beginner-friendly method. The intended audience is very specific and possibly includes only myself. It's not meant to be a generally popular or universal method, but rather to fill a specific niche for weirdos like myself by providing a couple of things that I couldn't find in other methods.

The ideal candidate would be someone like myself, who learns Heise for 3x3 because they really REALLY don't like learning algorithms, and then wants to try larger cubes without learning parity algorithms. It also helps if you really REALLY love commutators and enjoy spending lots of time to work out move-optimal solutions. I will often spend a few minutes on a single commutator, trying to save one or two moves or solve one extra piece. This is not necessary of course, but I really enjoy doing it.

I realize that most people will not be looking for these things when selecting a method. But, I couldn't find a method that satisfied by own weird criteria so I made one. I gave absolutely no regard for things that are very important in speedsolving methods, like minimizing rotations, avoiding slice moves, and other ergonomics. Making a big cube method intended for Heise mains is already restricting the intended audience to like 5 people in the world.

Thank you for linking the solve, because I am not good at following notation. The 3/4 slice step was definitely very difficult for me to figure out at first, but it can be done pretty easily. It looked like you were making bars and then pairing them with edge pieces and inserting them, which I tried to do at first also. I've found it to be a lot more efficient to build the 3/4 slice like this:

1. Place the edge in the top layer on the L or R side, oriented such that the color you want to pair is on the U face.
2. Rotate the slices (mostly just the unsolved slice) to join center pieces with the edge, making a bar that goes from the L to the R face - perpendicular to the slice where it will be inserted. Rotate the U layer 180 degrees to shift the edge piece between the L and R side, depending on where the center pieces are located. The 3 pieces can be joined with only U and r moves, and sometimes l moves if necessary.
3. Once the two center pieces are joined to the edge, rotate U 90 degrees to place the three pieces in the correct slice.

This was not clear in my video - I probably should have spent more time on this step.

As for L3E commutator, the moves will always be exactly the same, or mirrored, if the 3 edges are in the same slice. For example, if the unsolved slice is u and the unsolved edges are in the columns FL, FR, and BR, and the FL edge belongs in the FR column, use [L': [F' U' F, u]]. This, or it's mirror, will solve all cases of L3E in the same slice. I use this in my video. If instead the last edges are in different slices, the commutator can sometimes require an ugly conjugate, but it can be easier to include center pieces.

Thanks again for posting the solve and for linking it!


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 15, 2019)

I’m sure this has been thought of before, but isn’t there a way to algorithmically combine steps 4b and 4c of roux? It doesn’t seem like there would be a ton of algs. Just want to get input; I couldn’t find this anywhere.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 15, 2019)

alg.cubing.net

It's all contained in the link.




ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I’m sure this has been thought of before, but isn’t there a way to algorithmically combine steps 4b and 4c of roux? It doesn’t seem like there would be a ton of algs. Just want to get input; I couldn’t find this anywhere.


Yeah. It's just called L6EP, and is useful in L7E or when you get an eoskip in LSE. Otherwise, just use EOLR.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 15, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> alg.cubing.net
> 
> It's all contained in the link.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much!
Do you know where any algs are? I know about EOLR, but I did a quick search on speedsolving wiki and a bit on google, and I couldn’t find anything. I just want to see how many there are and what they’re like.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 15, 2019)

Here they are un sorted.

There are 96 (including EPLL) and they're all probably very good. I don't know how many are trivial, but they'll be an easy set to learn. Average movecount is around 8.6 iirc.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 15, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Here they are un sorted.
> 
> There are 96 (including EPLL) and they're all probably very good. I don't know how many are trivial, but they'll be an easy set to learn. Average movecount is around 8.6 iirc.


Thanks so much! I’m more of a beginner so maybe I’ll look into simpler ways of doing that. Maybe getting l/r edges together in the bottom layer after EO and then apply an alg to solve the whole thing? I might put that into cube explorer because I’m pretty sure no one has tried that out and it shouldn’t be a lot of algs. I’d like to hear your thoughts on a beginner version of L6EP executed that way. In other words, algorithmically (or possibly intuitively) predicting 4c. Would that have any extra algs than just normal 4c or no? I’m a bit confused about that.

Edit: you can skip the 4c step with l/r edges on the bottom together, I randomly found one case while playing around with alg.cubing.net: https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M2_U2_M2_U2_U_M2&alg=U_M2_U2_M2_U3_M2_U
Don’t know if this is even useful, but the alg I found doesn’t ever go into the 4c roux step.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 15, 2019)

You'll be better doing EOLR most of the time then L6EP when you get an eo skip, because it's more efficient. And Kian Mansour has a good video here and videos here.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 16, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Thanks so much! I’m more of a beginner so maybe I’ll look into simpler ways of doing that. Maybe getting l/r edges together in the bottom layer after EO and then apply an alg to solve the whole thing? I might put that into cube explorer because I’m pretty sure no one has tried that out and it shouldn’t be a lot of algs. I’d like to hear your thoughts on a beginner version of L6EP executed that way. In other words, algorithmically (or possibly intuitively) predicting 4c. Would that have any extra algs than just normal 4c or no? I’m a bit confused about that.
> 
> Edit: you can skip the 4c step with l/r edges on the bottom together, I randomly found one case while playing around with alg.cubing.net: https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M2_U2_M2_U2_U_M2&alg=U_M2_U2_M2_U3_M2_U
> Don’t know if this is even useful, but the alg I found doesn’t ever go into the 4c roux step.


In my opinion, 4c starts when LR edges (or FB edges if you're doing EOFB) are on the D layer and EO is solved. That way, you can make the solve better by implementing techniques like dots evasion when applicable. As a Roux solver, I know that as you get more experienced with L6E, it gets easier to predict 4c after EOLR is solved, and I bet that more experienced solvers can take that further and predict it earlier. At any rate, I don't think the bad recognition is worth it, and the speed gain would probably be negligible in cases where it applies.


----------



## Umar Uzden (Mar 21, 2019)

Hello, guys. I'm new here and just finished reading this thread. Also I checked "List of methods". Is there any actual or work in progress algorithmic method to blockbuild to F2L - 1 slot state?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 21, 2019)

Umar Uzden said:


> Hello, guys. I'm new here and just finished reading this thread. Also I checked "List of methods". Is there any actual or work in progress algorithmic method to blockbuild to F2L - 1 slot state?



I don't think blockbuilding could be algorithmic? I'm not quite sure what you are asking...


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 21, 2019)

Umar Uzden said:


> I'm new here and just finished reading this thread.


That must have taken you a whole day… (I've done it once before, but that was when the thread was only 100-ish pages long.)

Anyway, no, there isn't any work being done on "algorithmic" blockbuilding. The biggest obstacle is the sheer alg count; it's just not realistic to learn all of the different cases as separate algs. For example, starting with a 2×2×3 block, the number of cases to build an additional square is 3024; restricting this to the cases where there's already a pair built still has 323 cases. For this reason, blockbuilding _outside of inspection_ is usually done by forming pairs and joining them up (relatively few cases), as opposed to directly solving a whole block at once. (If you have 15 seconds of inspection time, that can make it easier to plan out solutions that are better than just creating pairs separately and joining them.)


----------



## Umar Uzden (Mar 21, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> That must have taken you a whole day...



It took me way longer - three weeks or so )

I was thinking about lowering case count through restricting order of solve and corner position.
By order I mean, for example, 2x2x2 block in BDL, then square in FDL (FDL corner + FL and DF edges), then BDR square (BDR + BR and DR)
Any corner except BDL can be moved to FUR position by 1 move, so it will reduce cases by 7 times for front square, so there will be 864 cases, and by 6 times for right square leaving 504 cases.
I genned near 100 algs for front square, and average movecount was ~5.4 face turns. For right square movecount will be higher, but I doubt (don't have access for my pc for week or two) that average will be higher than 9 moves.
Also, for first square corner can be oriented and moved to FUR in 2 moves or less, for second square in 3 or less moves, reducing cases by 3 times, but increasing movecount.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 24, 2019)

2OP (said too-ahp) is an interesting 3x3 speedsolving method that is barely related to any other method, switches off between intuitive parts and algorithmic parts, high chance of lucky solves (see examples), low movecount, about 80% moves being RU, decent lookahead due to 2x2x2 being solved, and fast developed algs.
Cons are pause before EO and high algorithm count, but these can easily be overcome.

A little explanation of the *Steps*:
*2x2x2*- Just normal Petrus Block
*(EO2x2x2)- *This is much better, but harder to plan in inspection than just 2x2x2, so if you can do it, do it, if you can’t then that’s fine. I personally cannot do it.
*EO- *You have 9 edges and RUF moves, so you basically bring 4 bad edges to F layer using R and U moves, then F to flip those 4.
*Koce. F2L-1*- Short for Kociemba F2L minus 1 slot, you make F2L-1 so it looks like you’ve done Kociemba Phase 1. It sounds very confusing and complicated, but actually very simple and easy.
*TSLE*- Just from the ZZ-CT method, you orient remaining 5 corners and place last E edge. Algs: https://gyroninja.net/zzct/zzct-tsle.html
*F2L-1*- I think everyone knows what this is.
This step can be done entirely [R2,F2,U] if you want to, because Kociemba Phase 1 is already done.
By the way, you can have your slot any of three places, not just FR.
*TTLL*- Again, from ZZ-CT. Permutes your last 9 pieces, finishing your solve. 1/5 of the time your D corner will be solved, so it PLL time. Algs from same website as TSLE.
Basically how this method is
(kinda random notes):
- 2x2x2 and EO
- Part of Koce. Phase 1 intuitively
- Alg to finish Phase 1
- Part of Koce. Phase 2 intuitively
- Alg to finish Phase 2

EXAMPLE SOLVES:

Scramble: D2 L2 B2 U2 B2 D2 U F2 D' F' R' B2 D2 B2 F' D R2 B2 R2

U2 u R U D’ L2 // 2x2x2
R’ F2 R’ U’ F // EO
R L’ U L // Koce. F2L-1
R’ U R U2 R’ U2 R // TSLE
y’ R2 U2 R2 B2 R2 U R2 U’ R2 // F2L-1
R' U R' U R U' R U' R2 D R' U' R U D' R’ U2 // TTLL
48 moves, 83% of them RU moves

Scramble: U2 B2 U2 F2 R2 U' L2 D R2 F2 D' R F' L D L2 B U2 F2 R B'
x2
r’ U F r F’ U’ // 2x2x2
l2 F2 U F’ // EO
R’ U2 R // Koce. F2L-1
U’ L’ U2 L // TSLE
U’ R2 F2 U’ R2 // F2L-1
y R2 U2 R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 U // TTLL
*30 HTM*, just random scramble off cstimer, went through scramble only once, crazy, right?? (almost FMC PB!)

Scramble: F2 R2 F2 U' B2 L2 D' F2 U B2 U2 F R2 B' F2 L' F' L' R B'
(x)
R’ U’ R’ r U’ // 2x2x2
(x) U’ F R2 F’ // EO
U R2 U2 R’ // Koce. F2L-1
U’ L’ U’ L U2 L’ U L // TSLE
U2 R2 M’ U2 M U’ y’ M U2 M’ // F2L-1
x' y' D2 U R U' R' D2 R U R' U' // TTLL
40 STM, drilled solution to 7.20 seconds

More Example Solves!


Spoiler



Scramble: B' R2 D' B2 L2 B2 D2 L2 U2 B L2 R2 B' L' R2 U' L2 R2 B' R

R L’ U L y U2 R u’ // 2x2x2
F U’ F // EO
// Koce. F2L-1 Skip
U’ R U' R' U R U2 R' // TSLE
F2 R2 F2 R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 U2 R2 // F2L-1
U2 R U' R D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R' U' R U2 R' // TTLL
44 HTM

Scramble: B2 U' L' F L' D2 B' U2 L2 D2 B2 L2 D2 R B2 D2 L F2 D2 U L
y2 z
u U R’ U z x’ u’ // 2x2x2
R’ U R F’ // EO
L’ U2 L R2 // Koce. F2L-1
R’ U2 R U R’ U2 R // TSLE
U’ R2 U’ R2 // F2L-1
d’ R2 U2 R' U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U' R2 U2 // TTLL
41 HTM

Scramble: L' U2 L' D2 U2 B2 F2 R U2 F2 L U F' U2 L D2 U' B' D F'

r u' r' U2 R' u2 // 2x2x2
z' U F' // EO
L' R U' R' // Koce. F2L-1
U' L' U' L' D' L U' L' D L U L // TSLE
F2 L2 U2 M' U2 M // F2L-1
R2 U2 R U' R' U R' U2 R2 U R U R' // TTLL
43 STM

Scramble: F2 L2 R2 D2 F' U2 R2 F R2 D2 L2 U' B' R2 B' L' B2 D B' F

U' R2 U' R' U2 // 2x2x2
x2 y' U R' F // EO
U' L' U2 L R' U L' U' R U' L // TSLE
F2 U' F2 U R2 U2 M' U2 M // F2L-1
F2 U' R2 u2 R2 F2 D R2 D r2 // TTLL
38 STM



Random notes:


Spoiler



- Using this for FMC, movecounts of steps are about:
2x2x2: 5 EO: 4
Koce. F2L-1: 4 TSLE: 7
F2L-1: 7 TTLL: 12
Total(FMC)- 39 moves
_|In speedsolve: ~42-44 moves|_

To be faster with this method,
- Plan your entire 2x2x2
- Track EO in inspection (or even solve it simultaneously w/ 2x2x2?)
- Learn all TSLE and TTLL algs and get recognition down
- Lookahead to F2L-1 during TSLE
————
The name 2OP comes from 2x2x2 -> Orient -> Permute, but also make 2x2x2 then do OverPowered stuff



*OPTIMAL TTLL ALGORITHMS *(useful for FMC)


Spoiler



The algorithms will be in the same _order _as this website:
Opposite Front:
1- (U) R2 U’ F2 r2 U F2 U’ r2 F2
2- R2 U2 R' U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U' R2
3- (U) R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R’
4- R’ L’ F2 R L D’ F2 R2 U’ L2 B2 R2 U2 L2
5- F2 R2 U2 F2 U F2 U R2 F2
6- R L U2 R L’ B2 U’ F2 L2 D’ L2 F2 U R2
7- (U2) R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2
8- (U2) F2 L2 D' B2 D' B2 D2 L2 F2
9- R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2
10- (U2) F2 R2 U' F2 U' F2 U2 R2 F2
11- F2 L2 D2 B2 D B2 D L2 F2
12- R2 D2 B2 D' B2 D' R2 F2 U F2
Opposite Right:
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9- F2 U2 F2 U F2 U F2
10-
11-
12-
Diagonal:
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11- R2 U B2 U R2 U' R2 U' B2 R2
12-
All Bars:
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8- R U R' F2 L D' L D L2 F2
9-
10-
11-
12-
Bar Right:
1- D B2 D' F2 D B2 D' F2
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-
Bar Front:
1- D' r2 U R2 U' r2 D R2
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10-
11-
12-


*OPTIMAL PLL ALGORITHMS *(useful for FMC)


Spoiler



Let’s go:
Aa- (x) R’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ D2 R2
Ab- (x) R2 D2 R U R’ D2 R U’ R
E- L U' R D2 R' U R L' U' L D2 L' U R'
F- R2 F R F' R' U' F' U F R2 U R' U' R
Ga- F2 D R' U R' U' R D' F2 L' U L
Gb- R2 F2 U R2 D' R2 D B2 U' F2 B2 R2
Gc- B2 R2 L2 U' R2 U R2 D' R2 D L2 B2
Gd- L U L' B2 D' R U' R' U R' D B2
H- R2 F2 B2 L2 D' R2 F2 B2 L2
Ja- R2 D R D' R F2 L' U L F2
Jb- R2 D' R' D R' B2 L U' L' B2
Na- F2 U2 R2 U F2 U2 F2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 F2
Nb- R U' R2 F2 U' R F2 R' U F2 R2 U R'
Ra- R U2 R' U B L' B' R B L B' U R'
Rb- R2 F R U R U' R' F' R U2 R' U2 R
T- R2 U R2 D' F2 L2 U' L2 D F2
Ua- F2 U' R' L F2 R L' U' F2
Ub- F2 U R' L F2 R L' U F2
Y- R2 U' R2 U' R2 U F U F' R2 F U' F'
Z- R2 U' R2 U R2 B2 R2 U B2 U' R2 B2




I’ve been thinking whether this is actually useful for 3x3 2H speedsolves today, I should do some practice and testing speedsolving this, and if it’s not good, then it’s still useful for FMC.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Mar 24, 2019)

Promising


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 25, 2019)

I wrote up an updated and simplified tutorial for my intuituve 4x4 method, incorporating the feedback and criticism from @PapaSmurf @WoowyBaby and @dbeyer. Thanks guys for all of the feedback!

Here's the updated tutorial: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/intuitive-4x4-method-with-parity-avoidance.73049/


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 26, 2019)

The start of 2x2x2 + EO seems really good.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 26, 2019)

Just do eo2x2x2. Should be possible. Also, you could use a variation on OL5C from SSC to optimise steps 3 and 4. The last 2 steps should be good, although maybe weird ergonomics.
Very good idea though.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Mar 26, 2019)

Yes, I was first thinking of EO2x2x2 but I thought it might be too much to plan in inspection so I split them up, if you guys day it’s possible then ok! (I’ll edit the post)
Edit: Just saying, In the random notes section, under the “To be faster with this method:” I said this about EO- “even solve it simultaneously w/ 2x2x2”


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 26, 2019)

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=B-_D2...0
U_x-_z_L-_U-_L_D2_L-_U_L_D2_F2//TTLL,_50/50
Here's a solve with the ideas I mentioned. This method seems quite nice.


----------



## Imam Alam (Apr 3, 2019)

bismillaahir raHmaanir raHeem


```
Gilles Roux said:

Hey Ryan, you could be much faster.
You know what's the problem with you?
You think too much, you'll never be a speedcuber!

... P.S.: I've got the same problem...

([email protected])
```


.
.

*What This Post is About*

Just sharing a bunch of simple methods and variants for solving the 3x3x3 cube in fun, novel and elegant ways.

I guess this is more of a concept idea post than a new method post.


Spoiler



The main goal is to solve the cube with more understanding, and rely less on rote memorization.



.
.

*Methods Overview*

This is my collection of "mini-methods" that have only "mini-algs", along with other cubing concepts.

Feel free to add more methods or method variants to this list!


Spoiler






Spoiler: Mini-Methods



a mini-method is a stand-alone (complete) method that solves the entire 3x3x3 cube. It is not just a sub-step. I am calling it "mini" because it is based on a simple idea, and it is possible to boil it down to one or two core concepts.





Spoiler: Mini-Algs



a mini-alg (or a trigger) is a very short sequence of moves that is so easy to understand and implement that you may even choose to call it "intuitive".


Spoiler



I don't believe that any method or variant can ever be 100% intuitive, just more intuitive or less intuitive (that, too, varies person to person).

I am simply focusing on the ones that are more intuitive for me.








Spoiler: Disclaimer



I don't claim any credit for any of these methods.

Just trying to share and discuss methods invented by others.

My contribution (hopefully) is the way these methods are organized and modified to fulfill the requirements described below.



*The methods outlined here would have the following properties:*

- solving as fast as possible is not the goal, nor winning competitions (rather the goal of using these methods would be pure fun/enjoyment, or a better understanding of the cube, or both)


Spoiler



No, I am not against speedsolving and competitions (both have their places in cubing), just looking for ways to expand the horizon, and to try out new things.



- methods that require some intuitiveness are preferred (simplified versions of the popular methods are also welcome)


Spoiler



No, I am not against memorization and algorithms (both have their places in cubing).

In fact, the more you practice intuitively the more it becomes memorized/algorithmic, and vice versa.

We still use algorithms as beginners, in one form or another, but we keep on trying to understand how those algorithms actually work.



- have significantly different step(s) compared to more popular methods, and preferably do not end with LL (last layer) algorithms


Spoiler



Well, I am not against popular methods either.

It is just that popular methods are usually optimized for speedsolving, and here we are focusing more on other factors, such as fun, novelty, challenge, and elegance.



- diverse solving styles, fun new methods to try out (elegant, aesthetically pleasing solutions are a bonus)


Spoiler



Concepts are preferred over memorized algorithm sets.

Examples: freedom of movement, symmetry, parity and twist constraints, group theory.

In practice: block building, commutators, generator reduction (domino, 2-gen), EO and CP etc.



- relatively few (<10) algs, learning new algs with every new method is not desired (shorter and ergonomic algs are a bonus)


Spoiler



No, I am not against methods with large alg sets.

I just find a smaller alg set to be easier to digest, easier to understand thoroughly in less time, and easier to recall.



- relatively low (<70) move count STM/HTM


Spoiler



Here we are expressing move count in STM (Slice Turn Metric) and HTM (Half Turn Metric), i.e. these methods should not require more than 70 slice turns (and half turns) on average to solve the cube.



That's what I am aiming for.


Spoiler



Feel free to add to my list, your methods don't need to fulfill all of the above conditions, so if you think that you know of a method that goes with the general spirit, just go for it!






.
.

*Algorithms Overview*

The algs should be easy to understand and easy to implement, i.e. it should be a nice alg set.

Hence shorter and simpler algorithms are preferred.


Spoiler






Spoiler



For the 15 mini-methods and variants I am sharing here, I propose an alg set of 9 triggers or mini-algs (yes, you read that correctly: *9 short algs for 15 methods combined!*).



*The algorithms included here would have the following properties:*

- the alg set is short (<10 algs for one complete method)


Spoiler



I am using 9 algs for 15 methods, none of these methods require more than 8 algs, and there are one or two methods that virtually require 0 algs.



- each alg is short (3 ~ 6 moves HTM and STM)


Spoiler



The 9 triggers I am using have an average length of 4.89 moves HTM (4.11 moves STM), none of them is longer than 6 moves HTM (and 6 moves STM).



- the algs should be easy to understand and recall (the user of the method should know exactly what the algs do to which pieces)


Spoiler



All of the 9 algs I am using can be considered as nice (usually symmetric), so they are even shorter, and easier to understand.



- additionally, the algs should be ergonomic if possible (preferably 2-gen)


Spoiler



All of the 9 algs I am using are 2-gen.






.
.

*Methods List*


Spoiler






Spoiler



From here onward "methods" stands for "methods and variants".



*The mini-methods that I am sharing may be put into the following groups:*


Spoiler: Disclaimer



When I describe a method with the name of the inventor of that method, I do that only generally, sometimes only taking a method partially and simplifying the rest.

For example, when I describe a method as "Roux" I don't claim that this is exactly how Gilles Roux had proposed it.

So please take the method names with a grain of salt.



*[2-Generator Methods]*

Method 1. Wu


Spoiler



- 1x1x3: EO (trigger 1 / trigger 2) then CP (trigger 8 / 2GR / others), or CP (trigger 8 / 2GR / others) then EO (trigger 2)

- 2x2x3 (blockbuild)

- 3x3x3: make 4 corner-edge pairs (2-gen blockbuild) while doing CO L6C (triggers 1 and 7 / trigger 1 + mirror / corner 3-cycle / sune), then EP (trigger 6), then permute last 2 layers (trigger 9)



Method 2. ZZ


Spoiler



- EOline (trigger 1 / trigger 2)

- F2L (blockbuild), optional CO L4C

- L4C (trigger 1 + mirror / corner 3-cycle + sune), or CP L4C if CO L4C already done (trigger 1 + mirror / corner 3-cycle)

- EP L4E (triggers 3, 4 and 5 / trigger 1 + mirror + inverse / sune + mirror)



Method 3. Petrus


Spoiler



- 2x2x3 (blockbuild)

- EP L7E (trigger 1 + mirror using F turns)

- F2L (blockbuild), optional CO L4C

- L4C (trigger 1 + mirror / corner 3-cycle + sune), or CP L4C if CO L4C already done (trigger 1 + mirror / corner 3-cycle)

- EP L4E (trigger 1 + mirror + inverse / sune + mirror)



*[Edges First Methods]*

Method 4. Heise


Spoiler



- F2L-1 (blockbuild, then EO) (w/ or w/o pseudo blocks)

- L5E EP (w/ or w/o EC pairs)

- L5C or L3C (corner 3-cycle)



Method 5. Keyhole


Spoiler



- F2L-1

- EO L5E (trigger 1 + mirror)

- EP L5E (trigger 1 + mirror)

- L5C (trigger 1 + mirror + inverse / corner 3-cycle)



Method 6. Coffer


Spoiler



- F2L-1

- EP L5E (trigger 1 as R U2 R')

- EO L5E (trigger 1 as R U2 R')

- L5C (trigger 1 as R U2 R' + mirror / trigger 1 / corner 3-cycle)



*[Corners First Methods]*

Method 7. Sandwich


Spoiler



- 8C (trigger 1 + mirror / corner 3-cycle)

- E slice and S slice

- EP L4E (triggers 3 and 4)

- EO L4E (edge flip commutator)



Method 8. Columns


Spoiler



- 8C (trigger 1 + mirror / corner 3-cycle)

- E slice and DL+DR as 3 pairs or LMCF style E2L (trigger 5)

- EO L6E (trigger 2)

- EP L6E as 3 pairs (triggers 3 and 4)



Method 9. Roux


Spoiler



- FB and SB (blockbuild)

- LLC (corner 3-cycle)

- EO L6E (trigger 2)

- EP L6E (triggers 3 and 4)



*[Orient First Methods]*

Method 10. Thistlethwaite


Spoiler



- EO and separate E slice edges (trigger 1 / trigger 2)

- CO (triggers 1 and 7 / trigger 1 only)

- CP (trigger 8)

- EP (triggers 3, 4 and 6)



Method 11. Morozov OF


Spoiler



- CO (triggers 1 and 7 / trigger 1 only)

- separate E slice edges (trigger 5) and EO L8E (trigger 2)

- CP (trigger 8)

- EP (triggers 3, 4 and 6)



Method 12. Morozov CF


Spoiler



- CO (triggers 1 and 7 / trigger 1 only)

- CP (trigger 8)

- separate E slice edges (trigger 5) and EO L8E (trigger 2)

- EP (triggers 3, 4 and 6)



*[Permute First Methods]*

Method 13. Benek CF


Spoiler



- CP (trigger 8 / 2GR / others)

- CO (triggers 1 and 7 / trigger 1 only)

- separate E slice edges (trigger 5) and EO L8E (trigger 2)

- EP (triggers 3, 4 and 6)



Method 14. Benek PF


Spoiler



- CP (trigger 8 / 2GR / others)

- EO (trigger 2)

- CO (triggers 1 and 7 / trigger 1 only)

- separate E slice edges (trigger 5) and EP (triggers 3, 4 and 6)



Method 15. Benek 2GR


Spoiler



- EO (trigger 1 / trigger 2)

- CP (trigger 8 / 2GR / others)

- CO (triggers 1 and 7 / trigger 1 only)

- separate E slice edges (trigger 5) and EP (triggers 3, 4 and 6)






.
.

*Algorithms List*


Spoiler



*The mini-algs (triggers) for the above methods are:*


Spoiler: Disclaimer



I don't claim to have generated any of these algs.

I have simply collected, compared and selected the algs to come up with a relatively nice alg set.



Trigger 1. R U* R' (U*) = [R: U] or [R, U]


Spoiler



length: 3 or 4 HTM, 3 or 4 STM

application: this is the only alg required for method 5 (keyhole), it is also the only alg required for method 6 (coffer) as R U2 R', and it is useful for CO in methods 10 ~ 15 (OF and PF methods)



Trigger 2. M' U M* = [M': U]


Spoiler



length: 5 HTM, 3 STM

application: EO alg in methods 7 ~ 15 (CF, OF and PF methods)



Trigger 3. U2 M2 U2 (M2) = [U2: M2] or [U2, M2]


Spoiler



length: 4 or 6 HTM, 3 or 4 STM

application: EP alg in methods 7 ~ 15 (CF, OF and PF methods)



Trigger 4. M' U2 M (U2) = [M': U2] or [M', U2]


Spoiler



length: 5 or 6 HTM, 3 or 4 STM

application: EP alg in methods 7 ~ 15 (CF, OF and PF methods)



Spoiler



Instead of using 90 degree M slice turns, we can use R2 U2 R2 F2 R2 U2 R2 F2 = [[R2: U2], F2] (8 HTM, 8 STM), thus making the EP finish in methods 7 ~ 12 (OF and PF methods) purely with 180 degree turns.

In these methods we progressively reduce the cube to be solvable with 180 degree turns, so I find this alternative alg pretty elegant.

Although not a 2-gen alg, it is still quite ergonomic and short, and has some symmetry.






Trigger 5. U M2 U* = [U: M2]


Spoiler



length: 4 HTM, 3 STM

may also be applied as R E2 R*

application: EP alg (M slice or E slice) in methods 7 ~ 15 (CF, OF and PF methods)



Trigger 6. R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 = [R2 U2 R2, z' y2]


Spoiler



length: 6 HTM, 6 STM

application: EP alg in methods 10 ~ 15 (OF and PF methods)



Trigger 7. (U) R2 U2 R* = [U R2, z' y2]


Spoiler



length: 3 HTM, 3 STM

application: CO alg in methods 10 ~ 15 (OF and PF methods)

source: Morozov method



Trigger 8. R2 U R2 U' R2 = [R2 U: R2]


Spoiler



length: 5 HTM, 5 STM

application: CP alg in methods 10 ~ 15 (OF and PF methods)

source: Morozov method



Trigger 9. R U R2 U' R' = [R U: R2]


Spoiler



length: 5 HTM, 5 STM

application: this is the permutation alg for method 1 (Wu), and this is the main alg for that method






.
.

*Methods Comparison*


Spoiler





```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   type    |             steps            |  #EO  |       features       |       redux
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           | Wu               EO CP BB BB |  12   | BB          OF    PF |                 RU
    2G     | ZZ               EO BB CS EP |  12   | BB          OF       |                 RU
           | Petrus           BB EO CS EP |   7   | BB                   |                 RU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           | Heise            BB EO EP CS |   5   | BB                   |
    EF     | Keyhole             EO EP CS |   5   |                      |
           | Coffer              EP EO CS |   5   |                      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           | Sandwich            CS EP EO |   0   |       CF             | MU
    CF     | Columns             CS EO EP |   6   |       CF             | MU
           | Roux             BB CS EO EP |   6   | BB    CF             | MU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           | Thistlethwaite   EO CO CP EP |   8   |       CF    OF       |      G1+G2+G3
    OF     | Morozov OF       CO EO CP EP |   8   |       CF    OF       | MU   G1+G2+G3   RU
           | Morozov CF       CO CP EO EP |   8   |       CF    OF       | MU   G1+G2+G3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           | Benek CF         CP CO EO EP |  8/11 |       CF    OF    PF |      G1+G2+G3   RU
    PF     | Benek PF         CP EO CO EP |  8/11 |       CF    OF    PF |      G1+G2+G3   RU
           | Benek 2GR        EO CP CO EP | 11/12 |       CF    OF    PF |      G1+G2+G3   RU
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```




Spoiler: Comments



- Generally speaking, the earlier methods in the list (methods 1 ~ 6) have more of a blockbuilding/edges first/face turns/direct solve style, and later methods (methods 7 ~ 15) have more of a corners first/columns first/slice turns/reduction style

- Earlier methods in the list (methods 1 ~ 9) solve the corners relatively directly, later methods (methods 10 ~ 15) solve corners more indirectly.

- Number of edges to be oriented during the EO stage gradually decreases and then increases again as we progress through the list.

- For methods 7~ 9 and 10 ~ 15, each method builds upon the previous ones, hence they get more and more complex as we progress through the list.

- Generally speaking, methods 10 ~ 15 first reduce the cube to <F2, B2, R, L, U, D>, then to <F2, B2, R2, L2, U, D>, and then to <F2, B2, R2, L2, U2, D2>, before finally solving it with 180 degree turns only.

- Will add more methods to the list, that is when I find them.






.
.

Yup, that's my first post in this forum!


Spoiler



(Been lurking around for a long time...)



.
.


```
Tony Fisher said:

Intuitive means you are fully aware of every move you are making and understand what each turn is doing.

(http://twistypuzzles.com/~sandy/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27543)
```


subHaanakallaahumma wa biHamdika ashhadu an laa ilaaha illaa anta astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilaika


----------



## Hazel (Apr 3, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> That must have taken you a whole day… (I've done it once before, but that was when the thread was only 100-ish pages long.)
> 
> Anyway, no, there isn't any work being done on "algorithmic" blockbuilding. The biggest obstacle is the sheer alg count; it's just not realistic to learn all of the different cases as separate algs. For example, starting with a 2×2×3 block, the number of cases to build an additional square is 3024; restricting this to the cases where there's already a pair built still has 323 cases. For this reason, blockbuilding _outside of inspection_ is usually done by forming pairs and joining them up (relatively few cases), as opposed to directly solving a whole block at once. (If you have 15 seconds of inspection time, that can make it easier to plan out solutions that are better than just creating pairs separately and joining them.)


I think they may have meant intuitive blockbuilding – like if anybody has really dived into the idea of blockbuilding the F2L-1 state?


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 4, 2019)

Hey- I’ve been brewing this idea in my head for a little while now. It’s a roux variant in that the first and last steps are *very *similar. This is probably a pretty bad variant, but I’ve played with it for a little and it seems OK. I don’t have an example solve yet, but I will have one up later today. I’m open to comments, including ones that say: “No you’re stupid this is a dumb idea,” because it probably is. anyway, here’s the method:

1. Make two 2x2x1 blocks like in roux, but without the two corner-edge pairs on the F-face
2. Then you intuitively solve the UFR, UFL and DFL corners. (The easiest way to do this is put in the DFL corner first and then place the two other corners
3. Use an alg to solve the last 3 corners
4. L8E, or last 8 edges. Just insert either UR/UL edges or FR FL edges and then do LSE.

There it is! I’ll have an example solve later; tell me what you think.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 4, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Hey- I’ve been brewing this idea in my head for a little while now. It’s a roux variant in that the first and last steps are *very *similar. This is probably a pretty bad variant, but I’ve played with it for a little and it seems OK. I don’t have an example solve yet, but I will have one up later today. I’m open to comments, including ones that say: “No you’re stupid this is a dumb idea,” because it probably is. anyway, here’s the method:
> 
> 1. Make two 2x2x1 blocks like in roux, but without the two corner-edge pairs on the F-face
> 2. Then you intuitively solve the UFR, UFL and DFL corners. (The easiest way to do this is put in the DFL corner first and then place the two other corners
> ...


This actually reminds me of the old version of my 4x4 corners method. My goal was to solve the corners using commutators, so I wanted to leave 3 unsolved just as in your method, but I arrived at the result differently. Converting to 3x3, I would solve a 1x2x3 and a 1x2x2 block, then solve any 2 of the last 5 corners to leave 3 corners unsolved (I needed even corner parity for a commutator, but you don't). Then I would solve the last 3 corners and slot in the last edge to make two 1x2x3 blocks and all corners solved.

I suppose the virtue of this method would be to leave the corners in a state that can be solved with fewer algs than full CMLL. However, you can do this more easily by manipulating the corners while solving the last pair of the second block, so that at least one corner is oriented (which can then be solved in one move). You are then in the same situation as your method, but the front edges are already solved.

But maybe I am missing the intended benefit of your idea.

Edit: I also sometimes solve Roux blocks on the 4x4 by making two 1x3x3 blocks and then expanding them into 1x3x4 blocks, rather than solving one full block and then the other. I find the added freedom useful for edge pairing, but I haven't found it to be quite as useful for 3x3.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 4, 2019)

Hey, thanks for the reply! In all honesty, I just kind of stumbled on the idea (or something close to it), threw it away for a little while, came back to it, made a few modifications, tested it out, and it is what you see. I guess the purpose of solving the corners after the blocks was kind of because I think it looks cool when you have all of the solve and you look on the R/L face. I just wanted to see where that idea would lead me, and it turned out the result wasn’t horrible, and it saves (maybe) on CMLL algs, so I decided to post it. You’re right about the corner manipulation during SB, that does make more sense, but I almost treat this as a separate method I made just for fun. I’ll still do an example solve of it and post it tonight; I want to see move count, etc., but I really just wanted to see where this would go!

Also, I don’t think I ever said that your 4x4 method is awesome, which it is, so kudos on coming up with that!


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 4, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Hey, thanks for the reply! In all honesty, I just kind of stumbled on the idea (or something close to it), threw it away for a little while, came back to it, made a few modifications, tested it out, and it is what you see. I guess the purpose of solving the corners after the blocks was kind of because I think it looks cool when you have all of the solve and you look on the R/L face. I just wanted to see where that idea would lead me, and it turned out the result wasn’t horrible, and it saves (maybe) on CMLL algs, so I decided to post it. You’re right about the corner manipulation during SB, that does make more sense, but I almost treat this as a separate method I made just for fun. I’ll still do an example solve of it and post it tonight; I want to see move count, etc., but I really just wanted to see where this would go!
> 
> Also, I don’t think I ever said that your 4x4 method is awesome, which it is, so kudos on coming up with that!


Hey thanks! I'm down to a PB of 3 minutes 15 seconds, which is still a DNF under competition rules 

I checked a CMLL algorithm list, and it looks like having at least one corner oriented will eliminate 10 algorithms. This has got me thinking about what other easy things could be done to cut down on the number of cases while solving the last pair. There are only 12 cases with exactly one corner oriented.


----------



## Imam Alam (Apr 6, 2019)

bismillaahir raHmaanir raHeem


```
Gilles Roux said:

Other cubers may use a similar approach, because there's nothing very special about it.
When I found it, I decided to give it a chance because you can make it very efficient using a limited set of formulae.

(http://grrroux.free.fr/method/Intro.html)
```


.
.

*New Method Proposal

Method Name: HSC (Hollow Stairs & Columns)*



Spoiler



Similar to: Morozov & Columns First, SSC & ECE, Belt & Domino Reduction, Thistlethwaite & Kociemba Algorithm



.
.

*Method Overview*



Spoiler: General Information



Proposer: Imam Tanvin Alam
Proposed: 6th April, 2019
Variants: Direct Solve, Corners First, Orient First, Permute First, Reduce First (all variants can be Virtually Rotationless, Direct Solve variants can be Virtually Regripless)
No. Steps: 3 major though lots of flexibility, depends on variant
No. Algs: 8 semi-intuitive 2-gen triggers, 3 ~ 6 HTM/STM each (8, 24, or 72 additional 2-gen algs for advanced)
Avg Moves: ~40-50 STM (depending on variant)
Purpose: Experimental (Speedsolving, Fewest Moves, One-Handed Solving possible)

Pros and Cons: similar to SSC/ECE





Spoiler: Main Theme



in columns first methods, the E slice edges are usually solved early, and those E slice edges get in the way of the corners, hence some algorithms (CLL, CMLL, CxLL, CMSLL etc) are required later on

this method (HSC) bypasses that by hiding two E slice edges out of the way of the corners (Hollow Stairs step)

in corners first methods, the corners are usually solved early, and those corners get in the way of the E slice edges, hence some awkward manipulation (E moves, cube rotations, re-gripping etc) is required later on

this method (HSC) bypasses that by placing those two E slice edges along with the corners (Hollow Columns step)

another unique feature of this method is that the sequence of steps is highly flexible and allows for many alternative ways of achieving the same end result


Spoiler



most other methods have a rigid sequence of steps, e.g. the CFOP F2L pairs are almost always made during the second step, and it is generally unacceptable to make the F2L pairs after OLL (because making F2L pairs after OLL would undo the progress made during OLL step)

even highly flexible methods, including blockbuilding based methods (e.g. Petrus/Roux/Heise), generally do not allow swapping two steps, because these methods are designed in such a way that swapping two steps would be counterproductive

but this method (HSC) can be implemented in such a way that EO, CO and CP steps can be done in any sequence, as long as EP is done at the end






.
.

*General Structure

1. Hollow Stairs
2. Hollow Columns
3. End Game*





Spoiler: Hollow Stairs



Hollow Stairs = build two (oriented, but not necessarily permuted) "L" shaped blocks in DLF and DLB (meaning Petrus style 2x2x3 block, minus the centers and the S slice edge)



Spoiler: How To



the following 3 substeps may be done in any order (avoiding <F, B> moves if CP and/or EO has already been done):

1. place any oriented corner pair in LD (may be swapped, permutation does not matter), an easier alternative is to start with any 2 oriented corners in LD and do CP later

2. place any 2 oriented E slice edges in LF-LB (permutation does not matter)

3. place the other 2 oriented E slice edges in DF-DB (permutation does not matter)

additionally, center correction may be done during this step (see "Fundamental Techniques" for more information)



Spoiler: Advanced Hollow Stairs



another advanced option would be to build one complete stair before the other, although that may require more experience with the method








Spoiler: Degrees of Freedom



after Hollow Stairs step, <R, U> moves are still available to be used freely, also <F, B, L, D, S, M, E> moves are ok if edges are yet to be oriented, and <F2, B2, L, D, S, M, E> moves are ok if corners are yet to be permuted








Spoiler: Hollow Columns



Hollow Columns = place four (oriented, but not necessarily permuted) "I" shaped blocks in LF, LB, RB and RF (meaning CFOP style F2L pairs, plus the LL corners)



Spoiler: How To



1. place any 2 oriented corners in RD with <R, U> moves

2. perform trigger 1 (and setup moves) until the 4 U/D stickers form 2 pairs on L and R faces (double headlight) while still having any 2 oriented corners in RD

3. do M2 to make two columns in UF and UB

4. do setup move U* (U/U') if needed and perform trigger 2



Spoiler: Advanced Hollow Columns (Larger Alg Set)



an advanced version of this method would be to solve CO L6C with algorithms

the Sortega alg set by Lucas Garron may be used, although it requires a little modification (see "Algorithms List" below)








Spoiler: Degrees of Freedom



after Hollow Columns step, <M, S> moves are still available to be used freely, also <F2, B2, R2, L2, U, E, D> moves are ok until End Game step starts








Spoiler: Corner Permutation



permute the last 6 corners (before or after the Hollow Stairs and Hollow Columns steps) with <R, U> and <L, U> moves



Spoiler: How To



A. if done before columns placing (Hollow Columns) step: after placing any oriented corner pair in LD (may be swapped, permutation does not matter), CP L6C may be done with <R, U> and <L, U> moves (see "Fundamental Techniques" for more details)

B. if done in-between stairs building (Hollow Stairs) and columns placing (Hollow Columns) steps: swap corners at URF and URB with D R U R' D'

C. if done after columns placing (Hollow Columns) step: CP L6C may be done with <R2, U> and <L2, U> moves mainly using trigger 3 and its mirror (see "Fundamental Techniques" for more details)








Spoiler: Edge Orientation



orient the edges (before, after, or in-between the Hollow Stairs and Hollow Columns steps) with F/B moves or <M, U> moves



Spoiler: How To



A. if done before stairs building (Hollow Stairs) step: do ZZ/Thistlethwaite style EO of all 12 edges with F* moves (F/F') or B* moves (B/B')

B. if done between stairs building (Hollow Stairs) step and columns placing (Hollow Columns) step: place an oriented U/D layer edge at LD and do Petus style EO L7E with F* moves (F/F') or B* moves (B/B'), or alternatively place 2 oriented U/D layer edges at RF-RB and do Roux style EO L6E with <S, U> moves mainly using trigger 4 (may be re-gripped as <M, U>)

C. if done after columns placing (Hollow Columns) step: EO L8E may be done with <M, U, D> moves mainly using trigger 4 (no need to re-grip)








Spoiler: End Game



End Game = finish the solve as a 3x3x2 domino puzzle (meaning only <F2, B2, R2, L2, U, D> moves are allowed)



Spoiler: Degrees of Freedom



for the End Game step, <U, E, D, M2, S2> moves are available, and <F2, B2, R2, L2> moves are ok if corners/columns are yet to be permuted, also <M, S> moves are ok under certain conditions





Spoiler: How To



finish the solve with <M, U, D> moves and 180 degree moves such as <R2> mainly using triggers 5 ~ 8

this may be executed in many ways (such as Roux style, columns style, Thistlethwaite style, no regrips/rotations, blockbuilding, pair by pair, slice by slice, no 90 degree turns, or any combination of these)






.
.

*Algorithms List*



Spoiler: Overview



for the 8 triggers, the average alg length is 4.75 HTM, 3.88 STM


Spoiler: Calculation



(3 + 3 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 38 HTM; 38/8 = 4.75 HTM)
(3 + 3 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 31 STM; 31/8 = 3.88 STM)








Spoiler: Basic Triggers



trigger 1 (CO). R U* R' = [R: U]

trigger 2 (CO). (U) R2 U2 R* = [U R2, z' y2]

trigger 3 (CP). R2 U R2 U' R2 = [R2 U: R2]

trigger 4 (EO). M' U M* = [M': U]

trigger 5 (EP). U M2 U* = [U: M2]

trigger 6 (EP). U2 M2 U2 (M2) = [U2: M2] or [U2, M2]

trigger 7 (EP). M' U2 M U2 = [M', U2]

trigger 8 (EP). R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 = [R2 U2 R2, z' y2]





Spoiler: Advanced Algs (CO)



advanced alg set (requires modification by adding inverted trigger 2 after each alg):

https://garron.us/cube/sortega/



Spoiler: How To



there are 3 options here (including the solved case): 8 cases if RDF-RDB corners are oriented, 24 cases if only RDB corner is oriented, and 72 cases if none of them are oriented

for this method, modify the Sortega alg set as follows (cancelling/modifying some moves by adding inverted trigger 2 at the end of each Sortega alg):

1. cancel the R move at the end of the existing Sortega alg (by adding R'; getting a cancellation of R move in 7 of 7 cases, 23 of 23 cases, and 71 of 71 cases)

2. if possible, modify/cancel the U* move (U/U'/U2) immediately before that (by adding U2; getting a cancellation of U2 move in ~5 of 7 cases, ~18 of 23 cases, and ~53 of 71 cases)

3. if possible, modify/cancel the R* move (R/R'/R2) immediately before that (by adding R2; getting a cancellation of R2 move in ~2 of 7 cases, ~2 of 23 cases, and ~8 of 71 cases)

4. if possible, modify/cancel the U* move (U/U'/U2) immediately before that (by adding U*; getting a cancellation of U2 move in ~0 of 7 cases, ~2 of 23 cases, and ~8 of 71 cases)






.
.

*Fundamental Techniques*



Spoiler: Centers Correction



centers correction early in the solve may help, as described below:

A. if EO has already been done: centers correction (placing F/B centers in F/B faces) helps with EO preservation and recognition (otherwise R* and U* moves would destroy EO)

B. if EO has not been done yet: although not absolutely necessary, centers correction (placing F/B centers in F/B faces or R/L centers in R/L faces) helps with EO recognition (and possibly to avoid difficult cases and/or parity later on)





Spoiler: Hollow Stairs Recognition



there are 3 options while building the stairs: consider no centers, or consider F/B centers, or consider R/L centers





Spoiler: no centers (Hollow Stairs)



if centers are not considered during stairs building, then centers correction may be required later on in the solve, which would take 0 ~ 3 moves (usually <M, S> moves)





Spoiler: F/B centers (Hollow Squares)



recognition with fixed F/B centers (which results in 2 squares) is easy, requiring either no adjustment after this step, or a single S* move (S/S')

the benefit of this approach is that just 1 move is better than 3 moves, although S slice moves may not be preferable (awkward finger trick or cube rotations in the middle of the solve)





Spoiler: R/L centers (Hollow String)



recognition with fixed R/L centers (which results in a continuous string of pieces) is also easy, requiring either no adjustment after this step, or a single M* move (M/M')

the benefit of this approach is that it would require an M slice adjustment rather than S slice adjustment, bypassing a potential need for a cube rotation in the middle of the solve, although subsequent <R, U> moves may destroy EO unless F/B face centers are also adjusted properly



in any of the above 3 cases, the E slice edges must have counter-colors to each other on the F/B faces, and the corner sticker can be of either color



Spoiler: Explanation



for example, let us consider white/yellow as the U/D colors

during the stairs building (Hollow Stairs) step, the following patterns are ok on the F face (red means red/orange, blue indicates blue/green):



and the following patterns are not correct in terms of EO:



for recognition on the B face, simply mirror the above instructions








Spoiler: CO Techniques



the main idea for CO is very similar to ZZ/Thistlethwaite style EO

simply get 4 unoriented corners on one layer, so that all 4 can be oriented with a single 90 degree turn of that layer (R/R'), and so on



(adopted from Morozov method)

use <R, U> moves to find your way through CO cases

with the above flowchart, the following algs may be constructed (*using nothing but triggers and setup moves*):



case 1. R* U2 R2
case 2. R U R' (U) R U' R'
case 3. R U2 R' (U) R U' R'
case 4. R U R' (U2) R U' R'
case 5. done
case 6. R U R'
case 7. R U R' (U2) R U R'
case 8. R U' R'

so this is just <R, U> spamming, but in a smart way, the algs are still easy and short


Spoiler: Calculation



for the 8 CO cases (when RD corners are oriented), the average alg length with trigger 1 is 5.15 HTM

(alg length * case probability: 3*1 + 7*4 + 7*4 + 7*4 + 0*2 + 3*4 + 7*4 + 3*4 = 139; 139/27 = 5.15 HTM)








Spoiler: CP Techniques





(adopted from Benek method)

use <R, U> and <L, U> moves to find your way through CP cases



Spoiler: CP Correction



using cube rotations (and/or some face turns) place corners in a way so that the 4 corners on the D layer have one color in common, and the 4 corners on the L layer have one color in common (orientation does not matter, any pair can also be swapped)

now look at the 4 corners on the F layer, there are three possible cases as described below:



Spoiler: Case A (4:0)



if all 4 corners on the F layer have one color in common (probability: 1/6), then CP is done, it does not need any correction, simply place any pair in LD



Spoiler: How To



only doing cube rotations place any 2 adjacent oriented corners in LD

if they are not oriented, orient them (after moving to LD position) only using <L, U> moves (<F, B, D, R> moves would destroy CP), but do not swap them

once they are both oriented, they become the unbreakable pair, until the other 6 corners are completely solved

after making the unbreakable pair, manipulate the other 6 corners only using <R, U> moves (<F, B, D, L> moves would destroy CP)








Spoiler: Case B (3:1)



if 3 corners on the F layer have one color in common and the fourth corner has the opposite color (probability: 4/6), then CP is done, it does not need any correction, simply place the different pair in LD



Spoiler: How To



only doing cube rotations place the different corner pair at LD (i.e. at DLF and DLB locations)

if they are not oriented, orient them (after moving to LD position) only using <L, U> moves (<F, B, D, R> moves would destroy CP), but do not swap them

once they are both oriented, they become the unbreakable pair, until the other 6 corners are completely solved

after making the unbreakable pair, manipulate the other 6 corners only using <R, U> moves (<F, B, D, L> moves would destroy CP)








Spoiler: Case C (2:2)



if 2 corners on the F layer have one color in common and the other 2 corners have the opposite color (probability: 1/6), then *CP needs correction*



Spoiler: How To



only doing 180 degree <x2, y2, z2> cube rotations place any of the 4 pairs in LD

if they are not oriented, orient them (after moving to LD position) only using <L, U> moves (<F, B, D, R> moves would destroy CP), and *also swap them*

once they are both oriented and swapped, they become the unbreakable pair, until the other 6 corners are completely solved

after making the unbreakable pair, manipulate the other 6 corners only using <R, U> moves (<F, B, D, L> moves would destroy CP)














Spoiler: Hollow Columns Options



after CO is done (double headlights with U/D stickers on R and L faces), there are several options for columns placing, as shown below:


```
M2 U*   R2 U2 R*
1 2    3  4       5
```


1. R2 U2 R* U2 R2 vs no move - pairs up the corners on the U layer in 2 different ways

2. U2 vs no move - inserts edges into the columns in 2 different ways

3. U vs U' move - places the corners on the R layer in 2 different ways

4. D vs D' vs D2 vs no move - pairs up the corners on U and D layers in 4 different ways

5. R vs R' move - places the corners on the R layer in 2 different ways

if CP correction has already been done, then a few (~3-10) moves may be saved by keeping track of the two RD corners (the two corners that have D layer stickers) during CO, and by (fully or partially) solving CP during the Hollow Columns step

the RD corners should be swapped if LD corners are still swapped after CP correction, and all corners are to be solved together (with R2 F2 R2 or something similar) later on in the solve



.
.

*Example Solve*



Spoiler: Scramble



qqTimer Scramble (generated on 8th April, 2019):

R2 F D F R D' B2 F U' R B F2 U F' R' F' B' L' F2 D L' B D B R2





Spoiler: Solution



live solve 55 HTM (43 STM), reconstruction 52 HTM (40 STM):

z x' M' U M u2 R' U R2 U' R2 U M2 U R2 U2 (R' R2) U R2 U' R2 u M' U M' x2 U2 M' U M' (u U U) M2 (U u2 U2) z2 x M' U2 M U2 z y M' U2 M U2



Spoiler: Explanation





```
// (Hollow Stairs step, planned in inspection)
z x' // corner pair in LD
M' U M // 2 oriented E slice edges in DF-DB
u2 // 2 oriented E slice edges in LF-LB
// (Hollow Stairs done in DLF and DLB)

// (Hollow Columns step begins)
R' U R2 // connect oriented corner pair in UF
U' R2 // place oriented corner pair in RD
U // (trigger 1 skip!) setup
M2 // two columns in UF and UB
U R2 U2 R' // columns placing (trigger 2)
// (Hollow Columns done)

// (CP & EO remaining)
R2 U R2 U' R2 // CP (trigger 3)
u // setup
M' U M' // EO (trigger 4)
x2 U2 // setup
M' U M' // EO (trigger 4)
// (CP & EO done)

// (End Game step begins)
u U // setup
U M2 U // (trigger 5)
u2 U2 z2 x // setup
M' U2 M U2 // EP (trigger 7)
z y // setup
M' U2 M U2 // EP (trigger 7)
// (End Game done)
```






Spoiler: Simulation



to see a simulation of the solve, paste the scramble and the solution here:

https://alg.cubing.net/

paste the scramble under "setup" and the solution or the explanation under "moves"








Spoiler: Comments



although there were some cube rotations towards the end, the solve was still finger trick friendly, consisting of <R, U, u, M> moves only

this example solve was done with the basic 8 triggers only (advanced Sortega algs were not used)

this solve had a skip, which is not unusual, almost every solve ends up having one or two small substep skips

this is the Corners First variant (see "Variants List" for other variants)



.
.

*Variants*



Spoiler: Variants List





```
type  |      steps     | similar method | HS corners |  # EO  |       features      |    redux
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct  | HS HC CP EO EP | Columns        |   solved   |    6   | CF               VR | RU        MU
Solve   | HS HC CP EO EP | Columns Pairs  |   solved   |    8   | CF               VR | RU        MU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corners | HS HC CP EO EP | Morozov CF     |  any 2 OC  |    8   | CF    OF         VR | RU   TA   MU
First   | HS HC EO CP EP | Morozov OF     |  any 2 OC  |    8   | CF    OF         VR | RU   TA   MU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orient  | EO HS HC CP EP | Thistlethwaite |  any 2 OC  |   12   | CF    OF         VR | RU   TA   MU
First   | HS EO HC CP EP | Thistlethwaite |  any 2 OC  |  6/8   | CF    OF         VR | RU   TA   MU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permute | CP HS HC EO EP | Benek CF       |   OC pair  |    8   | CF    OF    PF   VR | RU   TA   MU
First   | CP HS EO HC EP | Benek PF       |   OC pair  |  6/8   | CF    OF    PF   VR | RU   TA   MU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduce  | CP EO HS HC EP | Benek PF       |   OC pair  |   12   | CF    OF    PF   VR | RU   TA   MU
First   | EO CP HS HC EP | Benek 2GR      |   OC pair  |   12   | CF    OF    PF   VR | RU   TA   MU
```




Spoiler: Key



HS = build Hollow Stairs

HC = place Hollow Columns

VR = Virtually Rotationless solve possible

TA = Thistlethwaite Algorithm style reduction to <F2, B2, R, L, U, D>, then to <F2, B2, R2, L2, U, D>, then to <F2, B2, L2, R2, U2, D2>

solved = directly solve the 2 corners

any 2 OC = place any 2 Oriented Corners

OC pair = place an Oriented Corner pair (may be swapped)








Spoiler: How To






Spoiler: Direct Solve (L6E)



- solve 2 corners in LD (correct pieces, correct orientation, correct permutation), optionally solve LD edge
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct pieces, correct orientation, correct permutation)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice is solved)
- permute last 6 corners
- solve DL-DR (or just DR if DL is already solved)
- solve (orient then permute) L6E with <M, U> moves





Spoiler: Direct Solve (L8E)



- solve 2 corners in LD (correct pieces, correct orientation, correct permutation), optionally solve LD edge
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct pieces, correct orientation, correct permutation)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice is solved)
- permute last 6 corners
- solve (orient then permute) L8E (or L7E, if DL edge is already solved) with <M, U, D> moves





Spoiler: Corners First (solve corners)



- place any 2 oriented corners in LD (correct orientation, but can be of any color, and they do not need to be a pair)
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- permute all 8 corners
- orient L8E with <M, U, D> moves
- permute all 12 edges





Spoiler: Corners First (CO)



- place any 2 oriented corners in LD (correct orientation, but can be of any color, and they do not need to be a pair)
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- orient L8E with <M, U, D> moves
- permute all 8 corners
- permute all 12 edges





Spoiler: Orient First (EO)



- orient all edges with F/B moves (ZZ/Thistlethwaite style)
- place any 2 oriented corners in LD (correct orientation, but can be of any color, and they do not need to be a pair)
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- permute all 8 corners
- permute all 12 edges





Spoiler: Orient First (EO in-between)



- place any 2 oriented corners in LD (correct orientation, but can be of any color, and they do not need to be a pair)
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- orient L8E by first placing 2 oriented edges in RF-RB and then the last 6 edges with <S, U> moves
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- permute all 8 corners
- permute all 12 edges





Spoiler: Permute First (CP)



- place an oriented corner pair in LD (correct orientation, must have 2 colors on common, may be swapped, permutation does not matter), so that CP correction for the L6C is done
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- solve all corners (place in correct locations)
- orient L8E with <M, U, D> moves
- permute all 12 edges





Spoiler: Permute First (EO in-between)



- place an oriented corner pair in LD (correct orientation, must have 2 colors on common, may be swapped, permutation does not matter), so that CP correction for the L6C is done
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- orient L8E by first placing 2 oriented edges in RF-RB and then the last 6 edges with <S, U> moves
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- solve all corners (place in correct locations)
- permute all 12 edges





Spoiler: Reduce First (CP)



- place an oriented corner pair in LD (correct orientation, must have 2 colors on common, may be swapped, permutation does not matter), so that CP correction for the L6C is done
- orient all edges with F/B moves (ZZ/Thistlethwaite style) *without breaking the corner pair in LD*
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- solve all corners (place in correct locations)
- permute all 12 edges





Spoiler: Reduce First (EO)



- orient all edges with F/B moves (ZZ/Thistlethwaite style)
- place an oriented corner pair in LD (correct orientation, must have 2 colors on common, may be swapped, permutation does not matter), so that CP correction for the L6C is done
- place the 4 E slice edges to form Hollow Stairs (correct orientation, but permutation does not matter, so any 2 of the 4 edges can be swapped)
- make Hollow Columns (now E slice edges are in E slice)
- solve all corners (place in correct locations)
- permute all 12 edges






.
.

*Improvements & Alternatives*



Spoiler: CO Shortcuts and Alternatives






Spoiler: Making it More Intuitive



an alternative approach (to Hollow Columns step) would be to orient all 8 corners by first setting up the remaining (unoriented) corners so that they can be oriented with a single R* (R/R2/R') move, or with a trigger such as R U* R' (or its mirror)

if this approach is taken then CO can be done before or after EO, and E slice edges can be placed in the E slice with a trigger such as R* S2 R* or R* E2 R* (if Hollow Stairs step is remaining), or with R2 U2 r* S2 r* (if Hollow Stairs step is already done)





Spoiler: Basic CO Shortcuts



case 7. R' U R
new recognition pattern, but intuitive
this is actually the mirror of case 8

case 4. R U2 R' (U*)
new recognition pattern, but intuitive
alternatively do R' U2 R (U*) keeping the 2 oriented corners on B layer (instead of F layer)

so the alg list becomes:



case 1. R* U2 R2
case 2. R U R' (U) R U' R'
case 3. R U2 R' (U) R U' R'
*case 4. R U2 R' (U*)*
case 5. done
case 6. R U R'
*case 7. R' U R*
case 8. R U' R'

with these improvements, the average alg length with trigger 1 for the 8 CO cases (when RD corners are oriented) goes down to 3.96 HTM (was 5.15 HTM under "Fundamental Techniques")


Spoiler: Calculation



(alg length * case probability: 3*1 + 7*4 + 7*4 + 3*4 + 0*2 + 3*4 + 3*4 + 3*4 = 1; 107/27 = 3.96 HTM)








Spoiler: Basic CO Alternatives



case 1. D*
no new recognition pattern

in this case columns making (in Hollow Columns step) can be done by doing R2 U2 r* S2 r* or (R2 U2 L* E2 L*) without re-gripping

this does not destroy CO, CP, EO, and offers alternative ways of pairing up the corners

this will be considered as 1 HTM because this saves 5 moves later on in columns making (Hollow Columns) step

so this gives us two alternative ways to make columns when all corners are already oriented:

1. D* (R2 U2 r* S2 r*) U2 R2 D*
2. R* U2 R2 U* M2 U* R2 U2 R*

as mentioned previously, the S2 may be executed as E2 (i.e. as L* E2 L*)





Spoiler: Advanced CO Shortcuts



the modified Sortega algs for the first 8 cases, when improved with the above shortcuts, are as below:



case 1. R* U2 R2
*case 2. R U2 R' U2 R' (U*)
case 3. R2 U R' U2 R' (U*)*
case 4. R U2 R' (U*)
case 5. done
case 6. R U R'
case 7. R' U R
case 8. R U' R'

with these improvements, the average alg length with modified Sortega for 8 CO cases (when RD corners are oriented) goes down to 3.37 HTM (was 5.15 HTM under "Fundamental Techniques")


Spoiler: Calculation



(alg length * case probability: 3*1 + 5*4 + 5*4 + 3*4 + 0*2 + 3*4 + 3*4 + 3*4 = 1; 91/27 = 3.37 HTM)











Spoiler: CP Shortcuts



this is for CP Case C (2:2), if CP is not corrected at the beginning

if 2 pairs are correctly permuted and the other 2 pairs are incorrectly permuted, bring both correct pairs to the front (one pair at FU and the other at FD), then do:

CP 2 pairs: R2 U R2 (U' D') R2 D R2 = [R2, U][D', R2]

this is basically trigger 3 twice, with cancellation

(R2 U R2 U' R2) (R2 D' R2 D R2) => (R2 U R2 U') (D' R2 D R2)

it is possible to execute the U' and D' moves at the same time with some practice





Spoiler: EP Shortcuts






Spoiler: For All Variants



cancelling moves from trigger 8: try combining trigger 8 earlier in the solve with triggers 3 (during CP step) to cancel R2 moves, or with triggers 5 & 6 (during EP step) to cancel U2 moves and/or R2 moves (by doing r2 moves instead of R2 and M2 moves), or with triggers 6 & 7 (during EP step) to cancel U2 moves

swap RU-LU and FD-BD: U (M2 U2 M2) U* = [U: [M2: U2]]

dot case (or all 4 M slice edges swapped) without E moves: U2 M2 U2 (M') U2 M2 U2 (M*) = [[U2: M2], M']

swap FU-FD and BU-BD without cube rotations and re-grips: (M') U2 M2 U2 (M*) = [M': [U2: M2]]





Spoiler: For 180 Degree Variants



swap RU and FD: U (M' U2 M U*) = [U: [M': U2]]

swap RU-LU and RD-LD without cube rotations and re-grips: (UD') M2 U2 M2 (UD*) = [U D': [M2: U2]]

special case (apply on a solved cube to see what it does): RL (U M2 U2 M2 U) L'R' = [RL: [U: [M2, U2]]]

EP L8E without cube rotations and re-grips: M2 (UD') M2 (UD') = [D U', M2 z2]






.
.

*Optimization*



Spoiler: For Retention



this simply means there is high focus on understanding cube theory (long term memory), and low focus on rote memorization (short term memory), and other aspects such as speed and move count are not optimized

HSC is already low on alg count, so once the concepts and basic theory behind HSC are understood, they go into the long term memory, and forgetting HSC is highly unlikely after that

also there are lots of symmetrical/mirror/inverse cases in HSC, and they are easy to learn/understand, so knowing one case is equivalent to knowing many cases

there are so many tricks and variants for this method, many of them are described in this document, learn them all, also explore and experiment on your own, and don't forget to share your findings with me!





Spoiler: For Speed



- plan as much as possible during inspection (EO, CP, corner pair, line on left, line at bottom)
- learn and use Sortega modified
- direct solve preferred (even if partial), especially columns
- rotationless solve preferred (even if partial)
- Roux style or SSC style end game (EP) is good

there are so many tricks and variants for this method, many of them are described in this document, learn them all, also explore and experiment on your own, and don't forget to share your findings with me!





Spoiler: For Move Count



one word: Attila

he has developed a very efficient approach for FMC which goes very well with HSC

for starters, both his approach and HSC are very flexible in terms of sequence of steps (corners first, EO first, CO first, domino reduction, sometimes belt or CE pairs etc)

one major theme is trying to solve/orient/position as many edges as possible while solving/orienting/positioning the corners (see examples below)

also, HSC has lots of symmetrical/mirror/inverse cases (choices between U and U' moves, or R and R' moves, for example), so there are lots of opportunities for move cancellation

on top of all that, with HSC, full or partial CO, CP, EO, EP (i.e. pretty much everything) may be done at the same time between Hollow Stairs and Hollow Columns steps



Spoiler: Attila 1



Attila said:
(https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/how-to-solve-a-rubiks-cube-for-mit-graduates.27501/)

I used a very intuitive corner first method, what i try perfecting now , and i used only for FMC.
first time i try a solution for all corners , usually with Ortega method, sometimes with Guimond or other algs,
then i changed this corner-algo, so that a few edges to be solved on two opposite sides, but not much more moves is needed,
then i solved more edges, to be Roux 6E4C position.
then i solved the last 6 edges.
For example: if the corner algo was FDU2R’BF’D2, but this not solve edges, some of the possible variant: Fdu2R’bF’D2 or fDU2R’bf'd2 and more endless variant…I make changes to it,which must be solved edges. This method the corners position still, but a few opposite edges effectívely solvable at one time with corners solve.
Two nice solution with this method: http://fmc.mustcube.net/ , round 328, 329, classic.





Spoiler: Attila 2



Attila said:
(https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-3x3x3-example-solve-thread.14345/page-212#post-985210)

scramble: R2 U2 B' F' L2 R2 F' D2 B D B2 F R' B D' F2 R2 D2 R

F B'D' F2 B2 D2 B' U' D' R'
U F2 R' B F' U'
L' B' D U' L
F U2 B D2 B2 F L2 B F

...

here is my explanation:
F B'D' F2 B2 D2 B' U' D' R' orient corners, and 5 edges,
U F2 R' B F' (U) more 1 edge,
(U2) L' B' D U' L more 2 edges, oriented S slice,
F U2 B D2 B2 F L2 B F corners permutation.

...

For better understanding, is needed to write a longer explanation.

Scramble: R2 U2 B' F' L2 R2 F' D2 B D B2 F R' B D' F2 R2 D2 R

First, to find a solution for all corners.
At first sight, i found the following start :
R F' R2 F' orient corners,
R U2 R U2 R' U2 R2 solved all corners with 11 moves.
In the next step I try to make a few corner-edge pairs, ie changed initial step.
R F' R2 F' instead of:
R' B2 F2 R2 B' L2 B'(which gives same corners position, but solved 3 c-e pairs,
L U2 L D2 L' F2 L2 all corners, and 3 edges.
To continue I will use 2 cubes.
The first cube setting: scramble, then R' B2 F2 R2 B' L2 B' L U2 L D2 L' F2 L2
The second cube setting: z' y, (corners set to the same places)
then back to the original scramble both cubes: L2 F2 L D2 L' U2 L' B L2 B R2 F2 B2 R.
Now there is 8 corners and 3 edges same places.
I start again to solve both cubes simultaneously,
attentively looking a chance to solve more edges:
S' solve 4th edge
R' B2 F2 R2 B'
L' l' 5th edge
B'
I write this 10 moves without cube rotations:
F B'D' F2 B2 D2 B' U' D' R', will be the beginning of the solution.
U F2 continuing corners permutation
R' B F' U solve 6th edge
(U2) L' B' D U' L more 2 edges, taking care of the rest edges right orientation
F U2 B D2 B2 F L2 B F permutation ending.
I hope that's understandable,if you have any more questions, I will answer.





Spoiler: Attila 3



one member said:
(https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-133#post-1014925)

...I don't understand how did he came up with each substep, for example the "modifying the corner solution to solve some edges" substep.

...

porkynator said:
(https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-133#post-1015004)

For that step, I think he adds slice moves (that don't affect corners) to pair up one or more edges to the matching corner; slice moves should preferably cancel 1 or even two moves (in the last case, you are just using a wide move instead of a regular one).

For example, if you have a corner solution like:

U R F2 L'

you can transform it to:

U [E2] R F2 [M'] L'

and without slice moves it becomes:

U' D2 L B2 L'

That's how I understand that step and how I do it, but we should wait for Attila's reply to be sure

...

Attila said:
(https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-133#post-1015081)

Here is an example about corner-edge pairing, during solve corners.

Scramble: F2 U2 B2 R U2 B2 U2 F2 U B D R2 U' R' B U2 B L2 F (German Nationals)

F R D’ R2 D orient (5)
F2 L F2 L F2 L all corners (11 moves),
modifying:
F R D’ R2 d, orient but not lose the 1st pair,
F f, 2nd pair,
L f2, not lose the 2nd pair,
L F’ f’, all corners( - 1 move), 3rd and 4th pairs,
2nd modifying:
F R D’ R2 d F f l f2 L F’ f’ (F R D’ R2 U R L U F2 U F’ B’ - L) solve 2 centres,
3rd modifying:
F R D’ r2 U R L U F2 U F’ B’ L (F R D’ L2 D R L D B2 D F’ B’ L) 13 moves, 5 edges.
I always leave an unsolved slice(here: M), and try to solve the edges on two opposite sides, then I try to find the easiest LSE case.





Spoiler: Attila 4



Attila said:
(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-167)

Weekly scramble: U’ B2 R’ F2 U’ B’ R U’ F2 D’ B L2 F2 U2 B D’ U2 B D2 L’

I want to show an advanced trick, how to solve more edges, before corners permutation. I called it this technique "edges-cloning" . I hope that my explanation is useful, those who are interested the CF method.

Solution: L’ U2 D2 L D L D’ B2 U R2 U’ F2 D R2 B2 D’ F’ U D’ L D2 U’ 22 moves (within 90 mins)
First, as usual, solve all corners and some edges( which found easily)
B R orient corners and 2 edges,
B’ D2 F L2 F’ U2 B L2 D2 all corners and 3 edges.
After this, I use a second cube for proceed. Left the first cube, right the second (solved) cube.
Right cube rotate x’ z2 ( same place the corners on both cubes, centres ignore now)
Then , return to the original scramble (left cube): D2 L2 B’ U2 F L2 F’ D2 B R’ B’
Same 11 moves (right cube): D2 L2 B’ U2 F L2 F’ D2 B R’ B’
Now compares both cubes, there are 8 corners and 3 edges on same places.
I start again to solve both cubes simultaneously, and try to insert more edges on left cubes (I named this cloning).

inserted moves on left cube:
L’ @ R 5 edges,
insert at @: E2 ( L’ E2 l ) 7 edges,
orient corners (simultaneuosly both cubes) : B R
B’ D2 F L2 F’ U2 B L2 D2 permute corners ( both cubes),
B’ U’ S’ U F’ B2 L5E. (left cube)
Final solution ( left cube): L’ E2 l B R B’ D2 F L2 F’ U2 B L2 D2 B’ U’ S’ U F’ D2





Spoiler: Attila 5



Attila said:
(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-183)

weekly FMC:
D F B U2 R L' U' B2 L' D' B' L2 F2 R2 U' F L' D2 F2 B'

I found a nice CF continuation for this Roux FB start:

B (B U') Roux FB,
F2 L2 R B orient corners and 6 edges,
R B2 R B2 L2 F2 R' /F' D2 R' L B2 D'/ L B2 domino solution with /inserted LSE/.

Final solution:
B F2 L2 R B R B2 R B2 L2 F2 R' F' D2 R' L B2 D' L B2 U B' 22 moves.

...

Q: What did you do to obtain the domino solution with inserted LSE? Can you please explain it in more detail? Did you force an easy LSE case by trying out different ways to solve the domino? I'm really lost with that...

A: So, after corners orientation, I try out a few different way, which will permute corners:
R' B2 R B2 R' B2 R' maybe this is the shortest permutation, but 3 oriented edges moved to wrong places.
Another way: R B2 R' B2 R B2 R B2 it seems better, but the 6th edge still wrong,
Finally: R B2 R B2(square on R face!) R2 B2 R' B2 R B2 a longer permutation, but 6 edges solved.
For better LSE insertion, I changed this 10-move permutation:
R B2 R B2 L2 F2 R' prepare LSE,
instead of F2, now insert F' D2 R' L B2 D'
then L B2 finish.
The easy LSE case I not forced this time, I was just a bit lucky.





Spoiler: Attila 6



one user said:
(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-209)

do EO Line and put E slice edges in the slice disregarding permutation, orient all corners, and solve as a domino. However, I am having a hard time optimizing domino so here's a solution up to that state if you guys would like to help me out. Thanks!

Scramble: F2 U' R2 U L2 U B2 D F2 L2 D2 F D' R' D2 L U' F' U L2 D

F' R' U B' R' U// EO with domino style belt (6) **solved belt unintentional
R2 L2 D' R' L2 U' D' R D2 R'// Corner Orientation (domino redux) 10/16

...

another user said:
(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-209)

If you switch to the invserse scramble, you can do
(U' L2 D' U' R2 U L2 U R2 U) which leaves 3 corners. I'd ask @Attila for domino advice.

...

Attila said:
(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-209)

So, in my opinion, such a random domino reduction, will not be finished with a few moves.
I tried many random domino scrambles,and the average movecount around 13-14 (optimal with CE). The average human solution is obviously more than that.
That's why we need some trick, that reduces the 2nd phase movecount.
I'll explain in more detail, as I usually solve.

In the next logical order:
1st: solve all corners in 2 phase, orient first, then permute with domino moves
2nd: orient corners and solve a few edges (as much as possible)
3rd: swith to inverse, and permute corners (while caring for the existing ce-pairs)
4th: swith back to normal scramble, with inverted permutation moves
5th: orient corners again (here you can see clearly where the edges are to be moved)
6th: orient the remaining edges with Roux-style LSE algs
7th: solve the 5th and 6 step, without inverted premoves
8th: permute corners on normal (and it will be solved all edges).

Let's look at an example using your actual scramble:
F2 U' R2 U L2 U B2 D F2 L2 D2 F D' R' D2 L U' F' U L2 D

1st: D' R B' U' B U R2 D R2 D' F2
2nd: U F' B R2 B L' D' L orient corners and 4 edges,
3rd: switch to inverse with premoves L' D L B' R2 B' F U'
(F2 D R2 D' L2 U') permute corners,
4th:swith to normal with premoves U L2 D R2 D' F2
5th: U F' B R2 B L' D' L orient corners and 4 edges,
6th: L2 U' D' L B' U2 D2 F R' 2 more edges (exceptionally, the last 2 edges will be solved later)
7th: U F' B R2 B L' D' L-L2 U' D' L B' U2 D2 F R' orient corners and 6 edges,
8th: D2 B2 U2 - F U D' L' - D' B2 D F2 D' L2 D U' domino 2nd phase, with inserted F U D' L' moves.
Final solution: U F' B R2 B L' D' L' U' D' L B' U2 D2 F R' D2 B2 U2 F U D' L' D' B2 D F2 D' L2 D U' 31 moves.

I hope this is useful, if there is any question, I can help, if I can.

...

another user said:
(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-209)

I don't understand the purpose of step 1? You don't seem to use it later on in your solution.

...

Attila said:
(http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-fmc-thread.13599/page-210)

1st step : D' R B' U' B orient corners
2nd step: instead of D' R B' U' B, I do d M' D2 r B' U' B /U F' B R2 B L' D' L without rotations/ 4 edges solved,
3rd step: instead of ( F2 D R2 D' R2 U') , I do (F2 D R2 D' L2 U') save ce-pairs.



there are so many tricks and variants for this method, many of them are described in this document, learn them all, also explore and experiment on your own, and don't forget to share your findings with me!





Spoiler: For One Handed



even without optimization, HSC mostly uses <R, U, M> moves, so transition to one handed solving is easy

- better do CP/EO at the beginning, so that the rest of the solve is entirely 2-gen
- may need table abuse for M slice moves
- in many cases, there is an option between R and R', U and U', M and M' moves, try to use the option that gives some advantage (easier case afterwards, easier lookahead, easier to execute etc)

there are so many tricks and variants for this method, many of them are described in this document, learn them all, also explore and experiment on your own, and don't forget to share your findings with me!





Spoiler: For Other Puzzles






Spoiler: Smaller Cuboids






Spoiler: Domino Cube (3x3x2)



this is simply a 3x3x3 cube minus one slice (the E slice)

so, knowledge of HSC is very easily transferable to solving this cuboid, since HSC essentially reduces the 3x3x3 cube to this state





Spoiler: Tower Cube (3x2x2)



this is simply a 3x3x3 cube minus two slices (the M and S slices, or the S and E slices)

knowledge of HSC is very easily transferable to solving this cuboid, no orientation required, simply permute the corners, and then permute the edges





Spoiler: Pocket Cube (2x2x2)



again, this is simply a 3x3x3 cube minus all three slices (the M, S and E slices)

knowledge of HSC is very easily transferable to solving this cuboid, simply solve the corners (CO then CP, or CP then CO)








Spoiler: Bigger Cubes (4x4x4, 5x5x5 ... )



bigger (odd and even) cubes may be solved with HSC in a similarly semi-intuitive way as the 3x3x3 cube

simply learn the additional steps from Morozov method (after Hollow Columns, solve RL edges, then remaining edges, finally centers)

another option is reducing the big cube down to a 3x3x3 cube (using any big cube reduction method), then solving with HSC



there are so many tricks and variants for this method, many of them are described in this document, learn them all, also explore and experiment on your own, and don't forget to share your findings with me!



.
.

*Why This Method*



Spoiler



solving as fast as possible is not my goal, nor winning competitions, rather my main goal is to solve the 3x3x3 cube with more understanding, and rely less on rote memorization (also solving in fun, novel and elegant ways in the meantime)

I prefer methods that require some intuitiveness (or simplified versions of the popular methods), they should be aesthetically pleasing, and should have significantly different step(s) compared to more popular methods

I like my methods to have relatively few (<10) algs with relatively low (<70) move count STM/HTM, the algs should be easy to understand and easy to implement, so shorter and simpler algorithms are preferred (and ergonomic if possible, preferably 2-gen)



rationale behind proposing this method (and similar methods by other proposers):

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ubstep-concept-idea-thread.40975/post-1315558

.
.


```
Ryan Heise said:

Because all algorithms are short and simple,
someone who tries this method can say they solved the cube and understood how they did it!

(https://www.ryanheise.com/cube/human_thistlethwaite_algorithm.html)
```


subHaanakallaahumma wa biHamdika ashhadu an laa ilaaha illaa anta astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilaika


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 7, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Hey- I’ve been brewing this idea in my head for a little while now. It’s a roux variant in that the first and last steps are *very *similar. This is probably a pretty bad variant, but I’ve played with it for a little and it seems OK. I don’t have an example solve yet, but I will have one up later today. I’m open to comments, including ones that say: “No you’re stupid this is a dumb idea,” because it probably is. anyway, here’s the method:
> 
> 1. Make two 2x2x1 blocks like in roux, but without the two corner-edge pairs on the F-face
> 2. Then you intuitively solve the UFR, UFL and DFL corners. (The easiest way to do this is put in the DFL corner first and then place the two other corners
> ...


This reminds me a lot of the BOPE method proposed a while ago, but your version has a different way of dealing with the corners.


Imam Alam said:


> bismillaahir raHmaanir raHeem
> 
> *New Method Proposal*
> 
> ...


What is the focus of the method? Is it designed for use with FMC or for speed? And can you provide an example solve, just to help clarify the steps?


----------



## Imam Alam (Apr 8, 2019)

> What is the focus of the method? Is it designed for use with FMC or for speed? And can you provide an example solve, just to help clarify the steps?



FMC or speed? still experimenting with it, cannot say anything definite yet

edit: example solve and other relevant info added to the original proposal


----------



## FakeMMAP (Apr 9, 2019)

here is my new concept: influencing LSLL during third pair

in particular I have generated algorithms for edge orientation when the last 2 slots are opposite


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 9, 2019)

Or just do ZZ and have eosolved in all slots for rotationless <R,U,U2,U',L,D> F2L and ZBLL with little to no effort.


----------



## FakeMMAP (Apr 9, 2019)

here is my new concept: influencing LSLL during third pair

in particular I have generated algorithms for edge orientation when inserting the LB pair when the last 2 slots are opposite, which I called EOLB.

so the method could go as follows:

-cross+diagonal pairs however the hell you want to do them
-EOLB 
-LSLL with oriented edges (very developed)

EOLB is when the edge that belongs in BL is oriented, otherwise the set is called Flipped EOLB

these sets are further divided based on the orientation of the edge situated in RF: EOLB+ when it's oriented (and you can do VHLS algorithms) and EOLB- (and similar for flipped EOLB+ and -)

the names given to the cases follow a convention similar to VLS: the flipped edges in U, apart from the edge that goes in BL) are notated (so UF- is the case where UF and RF edges are unoriented), 0 is the case where all non-BL-belonging edges in the U layer are unoriented and ALL notates the case where all non-BL-belonging edges in the U layer are oriented

I've copied all optimal algs generated from cube explorer in the following spoilers. execute EOLB algs with third pair in UL-ULB and execute flipped EOLB algs with pair in UL-ULF




Spoiler: EOLB+ algorithms



ALL+: U L U' L'
UB+: L' B L B'
UR+: U B' R' U' R B
UF+: [U L F U' F' L' or U2 B2 R B R' B] 
URUF+: [U L2 F' L' F U' L' or U2 L U' F U' F' L' or U2 B L' B' L2 U2 L' or F' U2 L U2 F' L' F2
L' B L2 U L' U' B']
UBUF+: L' B L2 U L' U' B' 
UBUR+: [U F B2 D' R' D F' B2 or U F' L U' L2 U2 L F or U B2 D' F R' F' D B2 or U' B D F' L F D' B' or R2 L' B L B2 R' B R' or R2 L' B2 L B R' B R' or R2 L' B' R' B' L B2 R' or L F' U2 F L2 B L B' or L' U' B U L2 U' L' B' or B' U2 F R' F' U2 R B]
0+: [R L' B L U2 B' R' or F' L' U2 B L F B']





Spoiler: EOLB- algorithms



ALL-: [U F' L U' L' F or U L F' U' F L' or F' U L U' L' F ]
UB-: [U F' L U' L' U2 F or U L U' L' F' U2 F or U2 L U2 L' F' U2 F or F' U L U' L' U2 F or F' U2 L U2 L' U2 F or F' L' B L B' U2 F or L F' U2 F' L F2 L2 or L' B L F' B' U2 F ]
UR-: F' U F L U' L'
UF-: [U F' U L U2 L' F or U F' L U' L' U' F or U L U' L' F' U' F or U L2 F' L' U' F L' or U2 F' U L U L' F or U2 L U' F' U' F L' or L F L F' L' F' L']
URUF-: [U F2 L F U' L' F or U F' L U' F' L' F2]
UBUF-: [U F' U' F L' B L B' or U F' U' L' B L F B' or R' F R F' L' B L B' or F2 L' B L2 F L' F B' or F' U2 L U2 L2 U2 L F or F' L' U' B L B' U' F oppure F' L' B L' F' L2 F2 B' or L' B L U' F' U F B' or L' B L B' U F' U' F or L' B L B' U2 F' U2 F or L' B L B' U' F' U F or L' B L B' R' F R F' or L' B L' D F D' L2 B']
UBUR-: [R L' B L U' B' R' or F' L' U' B L F B' or F' L' B L B' U F or L' B L F' B' U F ]
0-: [U F2 L F U' L' U2 F or R L' B L2 U2 L' B' R' or F' U L U' L2 U2 L F or F' L' U' B L B' U2 F or L F' R' F' R U2 F L']





Spoiler: Flipped EOLB+ algorithms



ALL+: B' U B
UF+: U B L' B' L
UR+: L F U F' L' 
UB+: B' R' U R B
UBUR+: R2 B' R' U B R' or B2 R B U R' B or B2 R B R' U B 
UBUF+: U B L' B2 U' B U L or U2 R2 B' R2 U' R B R' or F' L' U L B' U F B or L U2 F U R' F' R L' or B L U L' U' B2 U2 B or B' U B U2 F R' F' R or B' U B2 U L U' L' B' or B' R' U2 R B L U' L'
URUF+: R B' U B2 U B' R' or R' L2 D F D' R L2 or L2 D R' F R D' L2
0+: L F U R' F' R L'





Spoiler: Flipped EOLB- algorithms



ALL-: U B' R2 B' R2 B2 or B' U F' B U F 
UF-: L2 D F D' L2 (note: execute as L2 Uw L Uw' L2)
UR-: B' U2 F' U' F B 
UB-: U' L2 D F' D' L2 (note: execute as U' L2 Uw L' Uw' L2) or B2 R2 B R2 U B or B' U F' B U2 F 
UBUR-: L U2 L D F D' L2 (note: execute as L U2 L Uw L Uw' L2) or L F U2 F2 U' F L' or L F' U F2 U F' L' 
UBUF-: L2 F' L' U2 F U L' 
URUF-: L U L D F D' L2 (note: execute as L U L Uw L Uw' L2) or L2 F' L' U F U L'
0-: R2 B' R' U B2 U B' R'


----------



## FakeMMAP (Apr 9, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Or just do ZZ and have eosolved in all slots for rotationless <R,U,U2,U',L,D> F2L and ZBLL with little to no effort.



ye, but that wouldn't be a new idea, would it?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 9, 2019)

FakeMMAP said:


> here is my new concept: influencing LSLL during third pair
> 
> in particular I have generated algorithms for edge orientation when inserting the LB pair when the last 2 slots are opposite, which I called EOLB.
> 
> ...



Interesting idea. Definently not practical for speedsolves though, because you have to force diag slots and algs have actually terrible ergonomics because it’s in the back left.

Though don’t worry, you only have to do one simple thing to turn this idea from bad to good. Just change one thing.
Have the slot be at FL instead of BL.
This improves literally everything!
In fact, if the algs are decent I actually might use this idea!


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Apr 9, 2019)

example solves plz


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 10, 2019)

*New Substep Idea: 123LS *(short for 1x2x3 last slot)

This can be used when your last slot has an oriented area on top, and you do an algorithm to solve your OLL and your entire pair in one short 2-gen algorithm. There are two phases to this method-
Phase 1- Create a 1x2x3 area on top of oriented/yellow pieces. Permutation doesn't matter. Very intuitive and easy to get good at.
Phase 2- Solve the orientation of the remaining yellow pieces whilst solving your F2L pair. It does not have to be paired up. 65 algorithms.
_Just note that the Phase 2 algorithms are not developed so they are not as good as they can be._

*This method should not be used every time, like if Phase 1 is difficult, just do F2L instead.*

Example Solves-

Scramble: U2 L U F2 U' F' L' F2 L2 U F2 R2 D' B2 D R2
F' U2 F R U' R' // 123LS Phase 1
y U' R' L' U2 R U R' U R L // 123LS Phase 2

Scramble: U R U' R B L' B L D2 L2 D' L2 D' B2 R2 U
R U R' // 123LS Phase 1
d R2 U L U' R2 U L' U R' U R // 123LS Phase 2

Scramble: F2 L2 D B2 L2 F2 U B2 L R' B U B' U L' R'
U' R U R' // 123LS Phase 1
F2 U' R' F2 R U2 F R U' R' F // 123LS Phase 2

Scramble: U2 L2 U R L2 U' R' U B2 R2 D R2 F2 B2 U F2 U'
R U2 R' // 123LS Phase 1
L' U2 R U R' U2 L // 123LS Phase 2

Scramble: F' U2 F U2 F' U2 F U2 F' U F U' R U R' U2
R U2 R' U2 R U R' // 123LS Phase 1
d R U R U R U' R' U' R' // 123LS Phase 2



Spoiler: EDGES SOLVED SET



Corner In Slot:
A1- R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R'
A2- r U R' U' r' F R F'
B1- L' R U R' U' L R U2 R' U' R U R'
B2- R U' R' U R U2 R' L' U R U' R' L
C1- R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R'
C2- y' R' U R U R' U' R U2 R' U R
Corner On Top:
1a- y R' D R U' R' D' R
1b- R' D' R U' R' D R
2a- R U' R' U' R U2 R'
2b- y' R' U R U R' U2 R
3a- y' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R' U2 R
3b- R U2 R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R'
4a- L U' R U L' U' R'
4b- y' L' U R' U' L U R
5a- R U R' U' R U' R' U R U' R'
5b- y' R' U' R U R' U R U' R' U R
1O- R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2
2O- y' R' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U2 R
3O- y' R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' U R
4O- R U R' U' R U R' U R U' R'
5O- U R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U' R U2 R'





Spoiler: 2-FLIP SET



Corner In Slot:
A1-
A2-
B1-
B2-
C1-
C2-
Pure 2-flip-
Corner On Top:
1a-
1b-
2a-
2b-
3a-
3b-
4a-
4b-
5a-
5b-
1O-
2O-
3O-
4O-
5O-





Spoiler: EO RIGHT SET



Corner In Slot:
A1-
A2-
B1-
B2-
C1-
C2-
Insert edge-
Corner On Top:
1a-
1b-
2a-
2b-
3a-
3b-
4a-
4b-
5a-
5b-
1O-
2O-
3O-
4O-
5O-





Spoiler: EO LEFT SET (MIRROR OF EO RIGHT SET)



Corner In Slot:
A1-
A2-
B1-
B2-
C1-
C2-
Insert edge-
Corner On Top:
1a-
1b-
2a-
2b-
3a-
3b-
4a-
4b-
5a-
5b-
1O-
2O-
3O-
4O-
5O-


Thoughts about this method?


----------



## FakeMMAP (Apr 10, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Interesting idea. Definently not practical for speedsolves though, because you have to force diag slots and algs have actually terrible ergonomics because it’s in the back left.
> 
> Though don’t worry, you only have to do one simple thing to turn this idea from bad to good. Just change one thing.
> Have the slot be at FL instead of BL.
> ...


 

ye, I was actually thinking about genning EOFL and EOBR algs, though tbh this whole idea isn't (completely), but someone asked me to gen EOBL algs for some reason


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 10, 2019)

FakeMMAP said:


> ye, but that wouldn't be a new idea, would it?


But it's more practical and better. And more efficient. And yours isn't an entirely new idea. I've heard a lot of people say about eo in third slot, wv in fourth then pll or something along those lines. In terms of Lookahead, you're having to focus on a lot of pieces at once outside of inspection, and it's harder to look into fourth slot. Instead, do all of the difficult recog in inspection and have better F2L ergonomics. Or do it in last slot with ZB, or do it in LL with OLL/PLL. It's a fun idea, but not practical to be quite honest. This applies to whatever slot you do it with.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 10, 2019)

dudefaceguy said:


> Hey thanks! I'm down to a PB of 3 minutes 15 seconds, which is still a DNF under competition rules
> 
> I checked a CMLL algorithm list, and it looks like having at least one corner oriented will eliminate 10 algorithms. This has got me thinking about what other easy things could be done to cut down on the number of cases while solving the last pair. There are only 12 cases with exactly one corner oriented.


Sorry I never got the chance to properly reply. That’s an interesting idea, but I think its major downfall is that building second block would be fairly limited because you’d have to find a way to get at least one corner oriented. Having only one corner oriented is even more so.

Having said that, I thought it might be interesting to integrate the HD Method for 2x2 into a 3x3 roux variant. You would make first block, a 1x2x2 block, and then do LOLS, and then do MNLC (Marmoset-Neuro Last Corners), which corresponds to NLL for the 2x2 but only using algs that don’t affect bottom edges. I’d have to generate some algs for that. The last step would be L7E, in which you solve EO and the FR edge with an alg, and then do L/R and 4c like roux. What do you think? It’s an improvement I think.

Overview:
Left block (as in roux)
Right block (1x2x2, not 1x2x3 like in roux)
LOLS (Lewis orientation of the last slot, these are 16 easy algs that orient all of the corners)
MNLC (Marmoset-Neuro Last Corners, which solve the last 5 corners without disrupting any other part of the solve)
L7E (Last 7 edges, insert FR edge and do EO at the same time, then do 4b and 4c of roux. This step adds a lot of validity to the subset L6EP, where one does 4b and 4c in one step)

Overall it’s quite similar to that other method Sue Doenim mentioned but far fewer algorithms and the L7E step is really cool.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 10, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Sorry I never got the chance to properly reply. That’s an interesting idea, but I think its major downfall is that building second block would be fairly limited because you’d have to find a way to get at least one corner oriented. Having only one corner oriented is even more so. Having said that, I thought it might be interesting to integrate the HD Method for 2x2 into a 3x3 roux variant. You would make first block, a 1x2x2 block, and then do LOLS, and then do MNLC (Marmoset-Neuro Last Corners), which corresponds to NLL for the 2x2 but only using algs that don’t affect bottom edges. I’d have to generate some algs for that. The last step would be L7E, in which you solve EO and the FL edge with an alg, and then do L/R and 4c like roux. What do you think? It’s an improvement I think.


HD method is way outside of my very limited knowledge, as is anything that does corner orientation then permutation. So I can't really comment on that aspect unfortunately. I tend to choose methods based on fun, so if it's fun I say go for it!

I was thinking, it should be possible to create a "method generator" that arbitrarily combines a list of steps to get to a solved cube. It would be fun to solve according to whatever crazy method it spit out.

I've had success so far with ensuring that at least one corner is oriented when I complete the second block, since this just involves choosing between different insertion methods for the last pair. I think you are right that it would be too difficult to ensure that exactly one corner is oriented.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 10, 2019)

dudefaceguy said:


> HD method is way outside of my very limited knowledge, as is anything that does corner orientation then permutation. So I can't really comment on that aspect unfortunately. I tend to choose methods based on fun, so if it's fun I say go for it!
> 
> I was thinking, it should be possible to create a "method generator" that arbitrarily combines a list of steps to get to a solved cube. It would be fun to solve according to whatever crazy method it spit out.
> 
> I've had success so far with ensuring that at least one corner is oriented when I complete the second block, since this just involves choosing between different insertion methods for the last pair. I think you are right that it would be too difficult to ensure that exactly one corner is oriented.


This is already being developed!
This thing


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 11, 2019)

hey again @WoowyBaby ...

In your Kociemba-themed method... do you know if the probability for parity to occur is 50% ?
Do you know of some ways to influence the E-layer edge placement to avoid parity?

Also, I decided to start with your plan and develop it for my own tastes... 
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/which-method-should-i-learn-in-2019.72833/

Now I need to practice it to see if I can achieve decent (for me) times!


thanks again,
-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 11, 2019)

Solvador Cubi said:


> hey again @WoowyBaby ...
> 
> In your Kociemba-themed method... do you know if the probability for parity to occur is 50% ?
> Do you know of some ways to influence the E-layer edge placement to avoid parity?
> ...


About parity, you can influence it during E-layer by making it have an even # of swaps, but it’s hard to do this and see where the specific edges end up, especially if you're speedsolving.
Getting fast is kind of hard with that method, but a lot easier if you use my other Kociemba-ish method below then...

Basically that weird Isom’s Kociemba is... sort of obsolete.
I’ve made a MUCH better Kociemba-themed method here- 2OP Method

-It has way better lookahead due to 2x2x2.
-It has way better ergonomics due to fast alg sets. (TSLE/TTLL)
-It’s easier to learn/understand, no difficult concepts, not much learning curve so you can be good at it fast.
-Similar average movecount, perhaps even lower, useful for FMC too, I got a 30 mover with zero effort.
-Just better.

Glad you like my ideas Solvador!


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 13, 2019)

Idk if this belongs here, but here's a method that averages 34 moves-


Spoiler



Scramble: B2 L2 B2 R' U2 R' F2 U2 R F2 D' U' F' R' U2 B L2 B
U D2 L' U B2 D // Dual Squares (6)
U' F2 U' F' M' U2 F // Dual Pairs (7)
R' y' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U y r // CMLL (10)
u2 M u2 U M U' M2 // LSE (7)
30 moves

Scramble: R D U F2 U B2 F2 U F2 R2 F2 U2 F R' U F' L D2 B F
D2 R' B U' R B L2 B // Dual Squares (8)
U' F U2 R' F R U F2 // Dual Pairs (8)
y R U2 R D R' U2 R D' R2 y' // CMLL (9)
M U M2 U' M U' M' U2 M U' // LSE (10)
35 moves

Scramble: R D' F2 L' F2 L D2 R F2 D2 L R2 F U' F2 D' F D2 B'
U L2 D2 F2 L D F D // Dual Squares (8)
L' U' R L2 D' R2 F L' // Dual Pairs (8)
F U' R' F' L F2 D' R F2 L' // CMLL (10)
F2 M2 U M U2 M2 U' M' U2 F2 // LSE (10)
36 moves

Scramble: F' B2 L D B2 R2 B U F U2 R2 U2 R' F2 R' D2 R2 F2 L B2 R2
y2 F D2 R' F' R' U L2 B // Dual Squares (8)
U2 M' F2 U' F' M U2 F2 // Dual Pairs (8)
F' L F L' U2 L' U2 L // CMLL (8)
U2 F2 U M' U' F2 U M2 U' M' U' // LSE (11)
35 moves

Scramble: F2 R2 B2 D' U F2 D' L2 R2 D L B' D F' U2 R D2 B' R F'
L2 B' D2 B2 L D2 // Dual Squares (6)
U F2 U' x U2 M U' M2 U x' // Dual Pairs (8)
R2 F2 R' U' R F2 R' U R' // CMLL (9)
U2 M U' F2 U' M' U' M U2 F2 U' // LSE (11)
34 moves


Since I don't care much for this method, I won't write a long post with lots of info or anything.

Edit: pls ignore this method, it’s not worth your time, and 34 moves is misleading.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 13, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Idk if this belongs here, but here's a method that averages 34 moves-
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


So just Roux with a different method of solving first 2 blocks? Could be promising.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 13, 2019)

Aerma said:


> So just Roux with a different method of solving first 2 blocks? Could be promising.


Basically.
Movecount is likely much lower, but less ergonomic because you have to use F moves.
Dual Squares is also harder to predict in inspection than FB (debatable)
Btw, the best way to think about Dual Pairs is NOT left pair + right pair, but kinda more like corners -> edges.

You can do some testing if you want to see which is better, you're probably more experienced with Roux.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 13, 2019)

Aerma said:


> So just Roux with a different method of solving first 2 blocks? Could be promising.


Especially for dweebs like me who want decent FMC results but don’t want to work hard for them.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 13, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Especially for dweebs like me who want decent FMC results but don’t want to work hard for them.


Actually, using this, it would be difficult to get <45 moves for FMC...
The 34 movecount figure is misleading because I used Cube Explorer to solve steps (because I’m iffy at blockbuilding and I don’t know all cmll’s), and each slice turn is 2 moves for FMC.
Speedsolving movecount is probably ~42 using this, nowhere near 34.
FMC is about the same maybe less because the moves you save in efficient blocks is negated by slice moves.
If you want to get decent FMC results without working hard, Kociemba / Kociemba-based ideas might be the way to go! I’ve gotten any PB, 24 moves, by doing it, and I don’t know any advanced FMC techniques like NISS or insertions or whatever people use. Link to 24 single


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 13, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Actually, using this, it would be difficult to get <45 moves for FMC...
> The 34 movecount figure is misleading because I used Cube Explorer to solve steps (because I’m iffy at blockbuilding and I don’t know all cmll’s), and each slice turn is 2 moves for FMC.
> Speedsolving movecount is probably ~42 using this, nowhere near 34.
> FMC is about the same maybe less because the moves you save in efficient blocks is negated by sliding moves.
> If you want to get decent FMC results without working hard, Kociemba / Kociemba-based ideas might be the way to go! I’ve gotten any PB, 24 moves, by doing it, and I don’t know any advanced FMC techniques like NISS or insertions or whatever people use. Link to 24 single


Yeah, I noticed that the LSE was really weird. I guess that makes sense. I am somewhat interested in FMC and will probably learn some techniques, but thanks for providing all of that info!


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 13, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Basically.
> Movecount is likely much lower, but less ergonomic because you have to use F moves.
> Dual Squares is also harder to predict in inspection than FB (debatable)
> Btw, the best way to think about Dual Pairs is NOT left pair + right pair, but kinda more like corners -> edges.
> ...


I usually do dual squares on the 4x4 instead of first block/second block, since I like the extra freedom of the F face, and I find that it helps with recognition. You don't really need to do F turns, since there are always alternative pairings and insertions that use the U layer. It depends on how badly you want a low move count.

I always thought it was strange that Roux did the entire first block before the second block, because it seemed very restrictive. But I think the main reason is that it's easy to plan the first block in inspection. I'm getting more into Roux lately and having a blast.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 17, 2019)

Here I present a method way better than what is currently done....... for the Tower Cube 2x2x3 lol.

Seriously though, most people do Seperate -> PBL -> E-layer which is not as good as this method I made-

*Steps:
Left Block- *A 1x2x2 block, 2 corners 2 edges, on the down-left. Looks sort of like Roux FB. This is pretty easy to see in inspection, average ~3 moves. You can even predict the next step, which is:
*R Pair- *Simply a pair. Usually RB. Can be RF pair as well, but you would have to rotate before final step. After this step it should look like F2L-1. This step is actually really easy to recognize, averages ~3 moves, and is entirely 2-gen
-Combining these steps in one makes this a two step method
*PL5C- *Permute Last Five(5) Pieces. This step only has 8 total algorithms, which means its very realistic to learn, even for puzzle that's not official. Most of these are somewhat short. I should note that this step has WAY easier recognition than E-layer, the last step of the method most people use.
PL5C Algs:
Diag Top- R2 U' R2' U' R2 U R2' D' R2 U R2' U' R2 D R2'
Adj. Top- R2 U R2' U' R2 U' D R2' U' R2 U R2' D'
Opp. Front- R2 U2 R2' U' R2 U' R2'
Opp. Right- y' R2' U2 R2 U R2' U R2
Bar Front- D' R2 U R2’ U' R2 D R2’
Bar Right- (U) R2' D' R2 U R2' U' R2 D
Diagonal- R2 U R2' F2 U' R2 U R2' U F2
Basically Solved- R2 U R2' U' R2 D R2' u' R2 U R2'
Average movecount: 9.033

Pros:
- movecount <16
- algcount <10
- Fast recognition
- Fairly easy to predict R Pair in inpection
- Great ergonmics, R Pair is 2-gen and PL5C has fast algs.
- PL5C is objectively better than PBL (don't argue this)
- Cool blocks (subjective)
- Rotationless solve

*EXAMPLE SOLVES:*
Scrambles from cstimer, under LxMxN

Scr: D2 F2 D' F2 U R2 U' F2 D F2 U'
z2
u2 R2 D' // Left Block + R Pair (3)
U2 R2 D' R2 U R2 U' R2 D // PL5C (9)

Scr: R2 U2 R2 U R2 D F2 U' R2 D F2
y’
u’ R2 u R2 u’ // Left Block + R Pair (5)
R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 U // PL5C (7)

Scr: R2 U R2 U F2 U2 R2 D' R2
z2
u R2 u2 // Left Block (3)
R2 U R2 // R Pair (3)
U’ R2 U R2 U' R2 U' D R2 U' R2 U R2 D’ U’ // PL5C (15)

Scr: U' R2 U D2 R2 U' F2
y’
E2 R2 D’ // Left Block (3)
R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 U’ // Pair + PL5C (8)
(1-looked solve!)

I am aware this isn't an official event, but it can still be fun to be fast. Have fun with this method!


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 17, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Here I present a method way better than what is currently done....... for the Tower Cube 2x2x3 lol.
> 
> *PL5C- *Permute Last Five(5) Pieces. This step only has 8 total algorithms, which means its very realistic to learn, even for puzzle that's not official. Most of these are somewhat short. I should note that this step has WAY easier recognition than E-layer, the last step of the method most people use.
> 
> ...



Nice job! I too pick up the mini tower every once in a while. 

Can you explain the 8 *PL5C *cases a little better?
as in, what would I see for "Opp. Front" or "Diagonal"?


thanks,
-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 17, 2019)

Solvador Cubi said:


> Nice job! I too pick up the mini tower every once in a while.
> 
> Can you explain the 8 *PL5C *cases a little better?
> as in, what would I see for "Opp. Front" or "Diagonal"?
> ...



I use this trick often- whenever you see an alg and not sure exactly what it does (what case, which angle, what auf, etc.), apply the inverse and you will see.
Diag Top and Adj. Top do exactly what you think, its PLL just like 2x2.
For the other 6 cases, for recognition, you ignore the D color piece, which should be in BLU, so all you look at is 4 stickers- 2 in front, 2 on right. If the 2 stickers in front are opposite colors, you do Opp. Front.

Hope that cleared up your question!
Just in case you cared, using this method I've gotten 2.5 Ao5 and my global average is sub-6 on Tower Cube.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Apr 18, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Here I present a method way better than what is currently done....... for the Tower Cube 2x2x3 lol.
> 
> Seriously though, most people do Seperate -> PBL -> E-layer which is not as good as this method I made-
> 
> ...



This is actually awesome! If I had a 2x2x3 I would so learn this! I think it's cool when cubers take on a challenge like this, especially when it isn't for an official WCA event. I like how interesting this method is, and how it uses some cool algs. Bravo.

I might have to get a 2x2x3 after reading this.


----------



## QuestionableCuber (Apr 18, 2019)

I made this kind of 3x3 method (don’t know if it exists probably does) but here are the steps: solve 3 cross edges then solve all f2l pairs don’t insert the last cross edge then solve all top corners then permute them with a j or y perm then using the empty cross edge slot do cmll on top layer so all edges top and bottom are yellow and white then insert last edge if not already solved then u perm ua perm z perm or h perm


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 18, 2019)

Check out 3CFCE and 3CFCEP.


----------



## QuestionableCuber (Apr 18, 2019)

So the method I “made” is just 3CFCEP cool I use this method as my main method

But in *3CFCEP they don’t mention permuting the corners at the top layer*


----------



## willtri4 (Apr 18, 2019)

3. Solve the corners using _COLL_

This includes permutation


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 19, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I use this trick often- whenever you see an alg and not sure exactly what it does (what case, which angle, what auf, etc.), apply the inverse and you will see.



Yes, I realize I can reverse algs to see the cases, but at the time, I was just walking through a solve and following along
and when I got to the last step, I didn't know which case I had. 

What do you think the average move count is for a standard method of: Sep -> PBL -> E-layer ?
Looking back at an info sheet I made using that: http://solvexio.cf/app/#/MiniTower_Page 
(note that I prefer holding it "sideways", so the notations are relative to that orientation)

It appears that if the corners can be separated in 4 moves, the rest would average 13.. then totaling 17.
I don't know the probabilities, so perhaps my averages are off, though.

Thoughts?


thanks,
-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 19, 2019)

Solvador Cubi said:


> Yes, I realize I can reverse algs to see the cases, but at the time, I was just walking through a solve and following along
> and when I got to the last step, I didn't know which case I had.
> 
> What do you think the average move count is for a standard method of: Sep -> PBL -> E-layer ?
> ...



You’re just asking about movecounts, right?
I don’t know much more than you, sorry.
I personally believe movecount is not a big part of speed, example, compare CFOP vs. Roux, it’s like 60 moves vs. 48 moves yet both are similar speed.

If you don’t know the probabilities or can’t calculate the movecount, just do a bunch of solves and count the moves to get a good idea, it’s called movecount for a reason lol

Testing data (normal solves, NOT fmc)-
Left block: 3 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 5 / 1 / 4 / 3 / 3 = 3.4 moves
R Pair: 1 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 2 / 2 = 2.0 moves
PL5C: 8 / 1 / 9 / 8 / 7 / 9 / 9 / 8 / 11 / 13 / 8 = 9.1 moves
TOTAL- 14.5 MOVES
Sample size is fairly small so actual number could be different, I think it’s 15.0

For Sep->PBL->E-layer I don’t even know the pbl’s haha so these movecounts are just guesses-
Seperation ~3.5
PBL ~9.5
E-layer ~4
Total- 17 moves maybe??

Going outside of movecounts and comparing these methods directly, Seperation and Left block and very comparable, PBL and PL5C are very comparable, but then E-slice is way WAY worse than R pair.
Maybe take that with a grain of salt as my opinion is baised towards my method lol xd, (though perhaps I have good reason because I average 5 flat with it, so...)

That’s about it for today, I’m glad people are supportive of my ideas here!


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 19, 2019)

yes, move counts. I'm preoccupied with them lately. 
I would agree with your estimates of around 15 and 17, though.

Anecdotally, my Roux solves are about 10% faster than my CFOP solves, which for me is about about a 10-15 move difference.
But I agree that lower move counts don't always mean faster times.
Just like i'm trying to see if I can be faster at my ParKoci than my Roux.
i.e. lower move count vs fewer steps


Thanks again WoowyBaby.


----------



## VIBE_ZT (Apr 19, 2019)

Do you think this 2x2x3 method could be expanded for something like 2x2x4? Or maybe any 2x2xn?
It may be possible to reduce the E layers to one layer, and then do the R pair and PL5C. I think that might prove to be pretty interesting.

Also, you need a name for this method. Saying "WoowyBaby's 2x2x3 Method" is kind of a lot.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 19, 2019)

I don't own a 2x2x4 or a 2x2xAnything except 2x2x3, so I don't know.

Anybody that doesn't have a 2x2x3 Tower Cube, you can replicate it on a 4x4 by fat R2,L2,F2,B2 and regular U,D moves. Cool, right?

Also, I'm fine with "WoowyBaby's 2x2x3 Method", I don't want to name it BPLS or something weird like that.


----------



## American-Cuber (Apr 20, 2019)

Thoughts on lmef (low movecount edges first)
This is a method I really wish was real. Any ideas to make it possible?


----------



## Hazel (Apr 21, 2019)

The thing about edges-first methods is that there just aren't any ways to make them efficient. With corners first you can still easily manipulate edges without messing up the corners, but it's not that way for edges-first. The best way of solving the corners would just be commutators, but at that point, you're better off using any other method...


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 27, 2019)

Haha lol, low movecount edges first. What a joke, right? There couldn't possibly be a method that is LMEF, right?


Spoiler: Low movecount edges first solve



Scramble: F' R' L2 B' D L F D F' U2 B2 R2 B2 L' D2 R F2 R U2 L2
y'
D' R D F' // EO
U2 R' L D R L2 D' F2 // Edge F2L-1
U' R U R' // Place Last Edge
D2 R D R U R' D' R2 D2 R' U' R D2 R D2 // 3 D Corners
U R B' R B U2 R2 F R' F' R' U2 R2 U' // L5C
45 MOVES! TOTALLY LEGIT!

TO THE EXTREME-
Scramble: F2 L2 F B' D' L2 U' B R' F2 R2 F2 B L2 F R2 B R2 F2
D B' U F' L D F2 R2 B2 D F2 // Edges
R' U2 R B2 U2 D' L U2 L U R2 D2 F2 R2 U R2 D' L2 // Corners
27 MOVES NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




All jokes aside, no time should be wasted exploring this honestly xD


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 27, 2019)

*New Developed Method:
Skis Method*

Steps:
*Skis- *Two 1x1x3 blocks on bottom, left and right. Basically skis. _Centers do not have to be solved_. Compared to Roux FB, Skis is easier to plan in inspection and requires less blockbuilding knowledge. Avg ~7? moves. And these moves are often mostly RU or RUF. If you're some sort of god you can even predict the next step,
*CLL- *Just like 2x2, basically all algs translate because 2x2 algs generally don't mess up DR edge. You don’t have to AUF. 42 algorithms, which are extremely developed. Algs. Sub-2 seconds for this step is fairly easy.
*LR- *Solve the 4 E-layer edges, but in pairs, like the LSE step LR, hence the name LR. This step may sound confusing, but just see the example solves and you will see.
Also, you don’t have to solve the pieces in any particular order and you want to align left/right centers but you don’t care about M-slice centers or any AUF.
*LSE- *The step everyone knows and loves. It's 2-gen which makes spamming TPS easy. Avg ~15 moves. To know more about LSE, just search up Roux method.

<50 algorithms
<50 moves
Could be thought of a mix of Corners First and Roux.
It is theoretically possible to predict everything except LSE in inspection, plan Skis, prdict CLL, see E Edges and centers, do CLL that doesn't affect them and go into LR. No other method has the capability to do this, not even close. Although this isn't that practical so this could be ignored.
Easier learning curve than Roux because you don't need to develop blockbuilding skills.
Better than corners first because this is more efficient and you know what to look for/what you're doing.
LR Step is kind of the downfall of this method, because its the only step you can't spam a billion TPS on.

EXAMPLE SOLVES-
Scramble: B2 R B2 R B2 R2 B2 F2 U2 B2 L' D L U' R2 F' U' B L B
x2
U' R B’ R U R' U R2 // Skis
R U' R' F R' F' R // CLL
y M’ U M2 x’ U M2 U’ // 1st LR
x U’ F’ U M U’ M’ F // 2nd LR
M U M’ U’ M2 U2 M’ U M U2 M’ U M2 U2 u’ // LSE
43 STM

Scramble: L2 D L' F2 R F2 L' B2 L D2 R' F2 R D U2 L' R2 F' L B'
(z x')
u F' R2 U' R' f R' f' // Skis
U' F R U R' U' F' // CLL
U2 M x' U M2 U' // 1st LR
x F' M U M U' F // 2nd LR
M' U' M U' M' U' M2 U2 M' U M2 U M2 U' // LSE
40 STM

Scramble: L2 U F2 D2 F2 D' F2 L2 D' R2 B2 U2 R F2 D2 B' U2 R U' L
U M2 F' R' U' R U R' // Skis
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' // CLL
U2 x' U2 M U' M2 U' x M U' M2 x U M2 u' M E' // LR
x' U M U' M' U' M' U M2 U M' // LSE
41 STM

Scramble: F2 D L2 F2 L2 F' U2 F' R2 B' D2 B2 L2 D' L2 R F2 L F' U2
(x2 y)
L' U R' U L // Skis
y F' R U R' U' R' F R // CLL
M2 u R2 z M U2 x U M2 U' // LR
z y U' M U M' U2 M U' M2 U' // LSE
*30 STM!*

Scramble: U2 F L2 U2 F D2 R2 D2 L2 U2 B2 R' D' U' L F L R2 D F2
(z y')
R' U2 B' R U' R U2 R' U R' U' R // Skis
U2 R U' R' F R' F' R // CLL
y' R2 E' R2 D U' M2 x U' M U2 M2 U' // LR
x' M' U M' U2 M U M2 U2 M U M2 U' M U2 M u' U // LSE
48 STM

Scramble: B2 U2 L U2 L F2 L2 B2 F2 D2 L U L' F L' F2 L2 R' B2
(y2)
R2 U2 F' R B' F2 // Skis
U R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R' // CLL
U M' U // LR Pair
x y U2 M' U' // LR Pair
S2 M' U' // Align
y' x' U M' U M U' // EO
M2 U2 M // L/R
U' M2 U M2 U' // 4c
38 STM






CLL Algorithms:


Spoiler



2x2 CLL http://algdb.net/puzzle/222/cll
3x3 CMLL https://sites.google.com/view/kianroux/cmll
Most algs are from 2x2 CLL,
but some are from CMLL because a few algs mess up DR
AND RUD move algorithms are usable and nice on 3x3 but not 2x2.



Useful LR phase tricks:
x U M2 U’ - Open up and insert edge pair
F M’ U M U’ F’ - Slot to solve two peices
R2 E' R2 - Change permutation of E layer
R U M’ U’ R’ - Slot to solve one piece
- And basically anything that’s <6 moves can be a useful trick! Try to explore the cube yourself to find more!

Thoughts about this method?``


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 27, 2019)

Its interesting,it lr is kinda annoying, but maybe people could develop algs for that.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 27, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Its interesting,it lr is kinda annoying, but maybe people could develop algs for that.


For the Skis Method?
No, I don’t know what you’re thinking, it’s an intuitive step, there no way to make LR algorithms.
It’s like trying to make an alg set for CFOP Cross, it just doesn’t make sense.


----------



## adsuri (Apr 27, 2019)

Possible Yau3 idea I had. No idea if it will work.:
1) Build Roux 1x2x3 block on left.
2) Use <R, U, r, M> to solve FD, BD, & F & B centers intuitively. This can be done usually pretty quickly & resembles Yau centers.
2a) EO maybe?
3) Solve rest of cube with CFOP.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 27, 2019)

Have you tested this with real solves? Everyone in this thread should actually test their ideas before spitting out whatever.
Edit: I regret saying this


----------



## adsuri (Apr 27, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Have you tested this with real solves? Everyone in this thread should actually test their ideas before spitting out whatever.


About maybe 30 casual solves.
I don't know Roux yet so the block felt awkward.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 27, 2019)

adsuri said:


> About maybe 30 casual solves.
> I don't know Roux yet so the block felt awkward.


Alright. I'm sorry if I sound mean. I do think that the first steps is a pretty cool way to get to EO2x2x3, and it might actually be better than doing 2x2x2->2x2x3->EO which is what most people would do. Seems nice!
Solving the rest with CFOP would consist of DR edge, RB pair, RF pair, OCLL, PLL, which is fast


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 27, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> For the Skis Method?
> No, I don’t know what you’re thinking, it’s an intuitive step, there no way to make LR algorithms.
> It’s like trying to make an alg set for CFOP Cross, it just doesn’t make sense.


Maybe im just dumb, but lr is kinda hard for me to do intitively. And i dont think comparing it to cfop cross is very accuarate. Cross has probably hundreds of cases where as lr has maybe 20-30 cases, maybe less. Plus, cross is much easier to do jntuitively. But again, maybe im just dumb. =D


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 27, 2019)

adsuri said:


> Possible Yau3 idea I had. No idea if it will work.:
> 1) Build Roux 1x2x3 block on left.
> 2) Use <R, U, r, M> to solve FD, BD, & F & B centers intuitively. This can be done usually pretty quickly & resembles Yau centers.
> 2a) EO maybe?
> 3) Solve rest of cube with CFOP.


This is quite similar to petrus except with a different way of constructing the 2x2x3. I dont now yau, so i cant really tell which is more similar, but it does look a lot like petrus. =D


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 27, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Maybe im just dumb, but lr is kinda hard for me to do intitively. And i dont think comparing it to cfop cross is very accuarate. Cross has probably hundreds of cases where as lr has maybe 20-30 cases, maybe less. Plus, cross is much easier to do jntuitively. But again, maybe im just dumb. =D



It actually is pretty comparable to Cross because you’re dealing with 4 edges and none/not many other edges are solved.
Edit: Algs for when there’s just like one edge missing or something actually might be useful

If you’re not very good at it, at first I wasn’t either, don’t worry you’re not dumb 
To help with understanding, do an x rotation and kinda think you’re doing Roux LSE and take two edges that share a color, example red-green and orange-green. Solve them to DF and DB (meaning green on bottom) using M, U, Bw, moves to make the LR Pair, then find the blue pieces and do a similar thing. There are of course other ways to do it too!
Hope you understand this step more!


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 28, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> It actually is pretty comparable to Cross because you’re dealing with 4 edges and none/not many other edges are solved.
> Edit: Algs for when there’s just like one edge missing or something actually might be useful
> 
> If you’re not very good at it, at first I wasn’t either, don’t worry you’re not dumb
> ...


Ok lol. For some reason i was assuming all the edges were in the e layer lol. I wasnt thinking straight. Btw thx for the follow. ill try it agian, hoperully i can do it properly. =D


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 28, 2019)

adsuri said:


> Possible Yau3 idea I had. No idea if it will work.:
> 1) Build Roux 1x2x3 block on left.
> 2) Use <R, U, r, M> to solve FD, BD, & F & B centers intuitively. This can be done usually pretty quickly & resembles Yau centers.
> 2a) EO maybe?
> 3) Solve rest of cube with CFOP.



It's called Leor


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 28, 2019)

Bump- I added a explanation video and more example solves to my main Skis Method post


Spoiler: What I added








Scramble: L2 U F2 D2 F2 D' F2 L2 D' R2 B2 U2 R F2 D2 B' U2 R U' L
U M2 F' R' U' R U R' // Skis
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' // CLL
U2 x' U2 M U' M2 U' x M U' M2 x U M2 u' M E' // LR
x' U M U' M' U' M' U M2 U M' // LSE
41 STM

Scramble: B2 U2 L U2 L F2 L2 B2 F2 D2 L U L' F L' F2 L2 R' B2
(y2)
R2 U2 F' R B' F2 // Skis
U R2 D R' U2 R D' R' U2 R' // CLL
U M' U // LR Pair
x y U2 M' U' // LR Pair
S2 M' U' // Align
y' x' U M' U M U' // EO
M2 U2 M // L/R
U' M2 U M2 U' // 4c
38 STM

Scramble: U2 F L2 U2 F D2 R2 D2 L2 U2 B2 R' D' U' L F L R2 D F2
(z y')
R' U2 B' R U' R U2 R' U R' U' R // Skis
U2 R U' R' F R' F' R // CLL
y' R2 E' R2 D U' M2 x U' M U2 M2 U' // LR
x' M' U M' U2 M U M2 U2 M U M2 U' M U2 M u' U // LSE
48 STM

Scramble: F2 D L2 F2 L2 F' U2 F' R2 B' D2 B2 L2 D' L2 R F2 L F' U2
(x2 y)
L' U R' U L // Skis
y F' R U R' U' R' F R // CLL
M2 u R2 z M U2 x U M2 U' // LR
z y U' M U M' U2 M U' M2 U' // LSE
30 STM


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 29, 2019)

LMCF's second step E2L has a lot of cases similar to those of the second step of the Skis method. Those would probably help.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 29, 2019)

Yep, I looked into LMCF! I’ll add some useful tricks for LR phase to my main post.

Maybe there will be a battle LMCF vs. Skis Method ???


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 29, 2019)

Lol another yau variant I’ve thought of and actually seen someone mention recently: Yau-G (Yau for gigaminx). Note: I came up with this casual idea independently, and then saw someone else mention a more developed version of what I was thinking. I don’t have a gigaminx, therefore I didn’t do any solves and this may have to be modified.

Step 1: Solve the white center and the 5 centers around it
Step 2: Use the unsolved centers to solve the star edges
Step 3: Solve the rest of the centers
Step 4: Solve the rest of the edges
Step 5: Megaminx stage!

Also, @WoowyBaby, I’ll probably switch to skis! I average around 23-24 with roux, and skis would not be much of an adjustment.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 29, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Bump- I added a explanation video and more example solves to my Skis Method post
> 
> 
> Spoiler: What I added
> ...


However, as a rider, I propose a name change to “Snowboards”


----------



## Hazel (Apr 29, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> However, as a rider, I propose a name change to “Snowboards”


@WoowyBaby this is your method, so you get to name it _anything_ you like. Anything. Call it something completely random and funny, do whatever!


----------



## Skewbed (Apr 29, 2019)

Why solve corners before E slice edges? Sure, it makes CLL algs better, but it makes E slice edges more hard than they should be. At that point, why not just use Roux?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 29, 2019)

Thanks everyone for the support, and good luck @ImmolatedMarmoset using this method!
@Skewbed It’s not quite as simple as that, this method has a lower learning curve because it’s less blockbuild-y which can be good for some people, and 2x2 one-looking skills transfer to this, unlike Roux, so doing Skis+CLL is pretty realistic occasionally.
I feel that one is not definitively better than the other, but it depends on things about the solver. (maybe I’m wrong?)
@Aerma maybe I’ll name this fluffy alligator??? (joke lol, I’ll stick with Skis)


----------



## Angry_Mob (Apr 29, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> maybe I’ll name this fluffy alligator???


Fluffy Alligator already exists, lol. No one really talks about it though. Here a video if you're interested.






These are the algs:
https://sites.google.com/site/stewycubing/home/fluffy-alligator


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 30, 2019)

@WoowyBaby I like the look of the skis method a lot. If you can somehow do L and R well, I think that it could be really good. An E2L approach would probably work. Also, CLL is definitely better than CMLL, and it could be possible to one look skis+corners, as it's one looking a 2x2+2 edges. As a plus, LSE is already highly developed. 

Optimization will be slightly needed for CLL, as most 2x2 algs would work. And compiling a lot of the L&R cases to see if you could find a good way to do it when the edge is in placed and flipped (for example) and finding good ways to solve the majority of cases.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 30, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> @WoowyBaby I like the look of the skis method a lot. If you can somehow do L and R well, I think that it could be really good. An E2L approach would probably work. Also, CLL is definitely better than CMLL, and it could be possible to one look skis+corners, as it's one looking a 2x2+2 edges. As a plus, LSE is already highly developed.
> 
> Optimization will be slightly needed for CLL, as most 2x2 algs would work. And compiling a lot of the L&R cases to see if you could find a good way to do it when the edge is in placed and flipped (for example) and finding good ways to solve the majority of cases.



Yeah, I do agree LR is _definitely_ the step with the most room for improvement and optimizations, and I’ll try to add more useful tricks/algs to my main post, and yes a LMCF E2L approach is useful.
I kinda want clear up the reason I named it LR is because in the LSE step LR you solve an edge pair. In Skis, if you do decide to solve it in two pairs of edges, it doesn’t have to be left side color then right side color or anything (LR≠Left&Right). I guess my naming of the step LR wasn’t so smart. Oh well.

For CLL, basically all 2x2 algs work, but for 3x3, RUD algs become accessible like R2 D’ R U2 R’ D R U2 R where on the 2 you’d do something else. I’ll soon add a spoiler on my main post with CLL algs.


Spoiler: “Other”



lol I’ve edited my main post like fifty times xd the more the merrier amirite

ImmolatedMarmoset I’m sorry if your gigaminx method idea is forever buried :/ hopefully not =)

At what point do ideas ‘merit their own thread’? What things go on the SS Wiki?
It makes sense if these aren’t answered, they’re just my thoughts.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 1, 2019)

I'd say it merits its own thread when it's kinda developed. So once there's a solid and consistent way to do LR, go with that. My thoughts have been to solve the LR centres sooner too. Out of Chris Olson's CLLs, the ones that don't work are: S 2 and 5*, Pi 4**, U 3* and 4*, L 3* and 4, H 2* and 4*. If there's a * it means that an alt also works. The number of them is the number alt. For the ones without an alt, just use the CMLL.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 1, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Yeah, I do agree LR is _definitely_ the step with the most room for improvement and optimizations, and I’ll try to add more useful tricks/algs to my main post, and yes a LMCF E2L approach is useful.
> I kinda want clear up the reason I named it LR is because in the LSE step LR you solve an edge pair. In Skis, if you do decide to solve it in two pairs of edges, it doesn’t have to be left side color then right side color or anything (LR≠Left&Right). I guess my naming of the step LR wasn’t so smart. Oh well.
> 
> For CLL, basically all 2x2 algs work, but for 3x3, RUD algs become accessible like R2 D’ R U2 R’ D R U2 R where on the 2 you’d do something else. I’ll soon add a spoiler on my main post with CLL algs.
> ...



Hi! Yeah, Gigaminx<3x3 so I’m not too worried about it. Also, instead of just solving FL FR BL BR in the LR stage, it seems to me you could also do UL UR FL FR or UL UR BL BR. Would that make LR better?


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 1, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Hi! Yeah, Gigaminx<3x3 so I’m not too worried about it. Also, instead of just solving FL FR BL BR in the LR stage, it seems to me you could also do UL UR FL FR or UL UR BL BR. Would that make LR better?


In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t really care about Left/Right colors.

MAY 5TH EDIT: AHHH I MISUNDERSTOOD- yes solving UL UR BL BR could be better but then your color scheme is wrong for LSE and most people are only white/yellow neutral, so this would only be considered if you’re color neutral. (are you?)


PapaSmurf said:


> My thoughts have been to solve LR centres sooner too.


 Or FB centers?


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 1, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> What? In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t care about Left/Right colors.


Oh! Sorry I must not have seen that part. I’ll keep thinking of different ways to improve L/R.


----------



## Angry_Mob (May 4, 2019)

New 2x2x4 method.

Its basically reducing to a 2x2x3, but I think the way I get there is unique.

Also, I know that literally no-one cares about speedsolving 2x2x4 

The steps:

*Corner Orienation* - Return the puzzle back to tower shape. Since you're just orienting a 2x2, use Guimond orientation (16 algs)
*Horizontal Layer - *Hold the puzzle horizontally, with the oriented corners on the right and left. The goal of this step is to solve a layer using Rw, U2 and F2 (to preserve CO). This step is pretty intuitive.
*CLL -* Do CLL, just like on 2x2. There are only 7 cases (U3, U4, T5, T6, H1, H2 and Y-perm) which will show up because the corners are oriented on the left and right. You can also solve a diagonal face and do EG-2, but not as many people know it, and the algs are worse. You can't use two-look CLL here because it'll screw up CO.
*2x2x3 - *Now it's a 2x2x3 with the E-slice solved. Use @WoowyBaby 's method because eveything else sucks (sorry PBL)

Does this already exist? If it does I'll delete ASAP.

*Example solve:*
Scramble: U' R2 U' F2 D2 R2 D R2 Uw R' Uw' F R' F Uw F2 (Made by merging a 2x2x3 scramble and a 2x2 scramble)

R' Uw R //orientation (3/36)
z' y2 R2 F2 //layer (2/36)
Rw U Rw' U2 Rw U Rw' U Rw' F Rw F' U'//CLL (13/36)
z U2 R2 U R2 D2 //left block (5/36)
R2 //right pair (1/36)
U' R2 U R2' F2 U' R2 U R2' U F2 U //PL5C (12/36)

*36 Moves* (but extremely lucky, average movecount is probably somewhere between 40 - 50)


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 4, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> New 2x2x4 method.
> 
> Its basically reducing to a 2x2x3, but I think the way I get there is unique.
> 
> ...



That’s pretty cool! I wish I had a 2x2x4 to test this out.....
BUT THEN I REALIZED I DO!
-I think I said earlier, you can perfectly simulate a Tower Cube (2x2x3) on a 4x4 if you do Wide R2 L2 F2 B2 and Normal U D.
-Well you can simulate a 2x2x4 too! Wide R L F B U D + Normal U D! Although you can't get the shape shifting cause it’s a 4x4, it still solves the same way.

Your method is pretty smart GJ! If I were to make a 2x2x4 method, it would start with CO, just like yours.
Doing an E layer is a fine step.
Though I’m against CLL for the other E layer, I think there could be a better way...
As for the 2x2x3 step, thanks for using my method! I’m happy people like you think my Tower Cube method is better than OPE.

I messed around for a while and this is the best method idea I got, you tell me if you think its better or worse than yours-

Your scramble:
U' R2 U' F2 D2 R2 D R2 Uw R' Uw' F R' F Uw F2
My solution:
R' Uw R // CO (3) Same as you, again GJ for picking CO as first step
U (x2) U' Uw' R2 // 3 Pairs (4)
U' D' R2 U R2 U' R2 D // L5Pairs (8)
Uw' F2 // 3/4 Layer (3)
R Uw' R Uw' R' F R' F' R Uw R' Uw // L5P (12)
*30* moves

Here's another solve with the 2x2x4 method I've made-
Scramble: U R2 U' R2 U' F2 U2 R2 D R2 F Uw R' Uw R F' Uw' F' Uw2
(z y)
F R2 Uw R' // CO (4)
U' D L2 (y) // 3 Pairs (3)
U' R2 U R2' U R2 U2 R2' U' // L5Pairs (9)
Uw' R2 // 3/4 Layer (2)
Uw' R2 Uw R2 Uw' R2 Dw R2 // L5P (8)
*26* moves

Average movecount under 30, though solving pairs has bad recog.
That's my 2x2x4 method.

My post is so all over the place ew


Angry_Mob said:


> Also, I know that literally no-one cares about speedsolving 2x2x4


 True dat xD

That's it for now!


----------



## Angry_Mob (May 4, 2019)

I'm amazed that you we're able to get under 30 moves on average. That's insane! Solving it in pairs is what MMAP taught in his tutorial, and that's what I used to solve it originally. I gave up that method because imo the recognition was wayyyyy to hard. I feel like it's because there are two red + green edges, so you have to match the correct corner with one of two edges that look exactly the same.

How does L5Pairs work? I'm assuming its algs (which would make a lot of sense) but I'm not entirely sure how you do it. If it is algs, how many are there? My method has 7 (CLL) + 8 (PL5C). I'm curious to see how many yours has.

Overall, I don't think my method can get anywhere close to the movecount yours has (seriously, I never even considered <30 moves as possible),
I do however think my method is better for spamming TPS . So I guess it depends on weather you're doing 2x2x4 speedsolves or 2x2x4 FMC .



WoowyBaby said:


> -Well you can simulate a 2x2x4 too! Wide R L F B U D + Normal U D! Although you can't get the shape shifting cause it’s a 4x4, it still solves the same way.



I tried that earlier, but I stopped because it made CLL look really stupid lol


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 4, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> I do however think my method is better for spamming TPS


I do agree, with my method there's no way to spam TPS during pairs, your method is better.

I haven't tested either method with lots of solves, so I don't know which is faster, but I don't really care about speedsolving 2x2x4, I don't even have one lol (4x4 substitute xd)

As for the # of algs, I think its 8 L5Pairs + 8 L5P = 16 algs (if you include CO then its 19 algs total)

I don't think I'm going to do any more 2x2x4 method theorizing, I'm done with it now lol


----------



## efattah (May 6, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> For the Skis Method?
> No, I don’t know what you’re thinking, it’s an intuitive step, there no way to make LR algorithms.
> It’s like trying to make an alg set for CFOP Cross, it just doesn’t make sense.



As the developer of LMCF I would disagree dramatically; in fact solving your skis-LR step would be very algorithmic. The latest LMCF document is vastly out of date (by years) and since its publication vast advancements have been made to the LMCF method which I have been wanting to finally compile into a new document, and most of the development has happened in the transition & E2L phases primarily because of the poor ergonomics that the E2L phase originally had (it was the weakest of the phases, since LMCF is EG-Transition-E2L-LSE). 
For LMCF the trick to E2L is to first solve more edges U and D edges in the transition phase (giving you more lookahead time to plan E2L), then choose a flow that minimizes regrips and rotations during E2L; and this is done by making decisions during lookahead and choosing alternate E2L algorithms (or choosing a different pair to solve) based on the current state of the cube; by knowing multiple E2L algs for each case you can choose one that does not require a regrip or rotation leading into the next pair or LSE. Most E2L algorithms solve UL-UR plus optionally E slice edges or D-slice edges. For Skis-LR, the problem is targeting the four E edges will not be ergonomic at all; you will instead more likely solve UL+UR plus either FR+FL or BR+BL, then do an x/x' and finish with LSE. The reason I feel LMCF still holds an advantage because it doesn't place any constraints on which edges are solved, maximizing luck and maximizing freedom to solve easier pairs and triplets. I have (long ago) tried LMCF variants that solve additional D layer edges during the corners solve, making variants similar to Skis-LR. The most obvious choice is to solve the BD edge during EG, since almost all EG algorithms do not affect the BD edge; to be fair, the vast majority of EG algorithms do not affect the DL or DR edges either; so in fact you could start with Skis-EG and make it much easier to form the skis on the 1st step. From there my personal preference would be to solve the L/R edges in an unconstrained fashion using the E2L pairs, triplets and quadruplet algorithms (recent advances in LMCF means that triplets are now the most commonly solved with the occasional quadruplet on luckier solves). Of course in LMCF, LSE is made significantly more complicated by the fact that you can end up with the last six edges where you have M-slices edges unsolved and two edges on the R face that are unsolved (with L face fully solved), or vice versa, and this configuration requires Waterman LSE algorithms which were very poor in their 1988 form (in terms of TPS and ergonomics), and I have recalculated/regenerated all the Waterman LSE algorithms now for way faster TPS and ergonomics, and in a previous post I showed that with the improved Waterman algorithms, in most cases the 'bad' LSE case where two edges are unsolved on the R face (or L face) often ends up faster than the Roux situation, because in the Roux situation you are finishing with 2-gen MU, whereas in the Waterman LSE case the algs are 3-gen RMU with lots of RU and very few M (some are even 2-gen rRU).

Over the last few years LMCF speed potential has greatly increased. However I am still realistic and Roux and ZBRoux, in my opinion, still hold a very slight advantage; however I do not believe their advantage will last long since LMCF still is fairly undeveloped and even in a fairly undeveloped state it is almost as fast and ergonomic as Roux and ZBRoux which are in my opinion the currently fastest methods.

The hurdle with LMCF is that for maximum speed potential there are a lot of algorithms, and ZBRoux and CFOP+ZBLL are the most similar in terms of algorithm count, each requiring around 550 algorithms. I currently use about 300 algorithms for LMCF but I am at a disadvantage because there are still about 250 algorithms that I haven't memorized, and for those cases I need to solve in 2 steps instead of 1.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 6, 2019)

efattah said:


> As the developer of LMCF I would disagree dramatically; in fact solving your skis-LR step would be very algorithmic. The latest LMCF document is vastly out of date (by years) and since its publication vast advancements have been made to the LMCF method which I have been wanting to finally compile into a new document, and most of the development has happened in the transition & E2L phases primarily because of the poor ergonomics that the E2L phase originally had (it was the weakest of the phases, since LMCF is EG-Transition-E2L-LSE).
> For LMCF the trick to E2L is to first solve more edges U and D edges in the transition phase (giving you more lookahead time to plan E2L), then choose a flow that minimizes regrips and rotations during E2L; and this is done by making decisions during lookahead and choosing alternate E2L algorithms (or choosing a different pair to solve) based on the current state of the cube; by knowing multiple E2L algs for each case you can choose one that does not require a regrip or rotation leading into the next pair or LSE. Most E2L algorithms solve UL-UR plus optionally E slice edges or D-slice edges. For Skis-LR, the problem is targeting the four E edges will not be ergonomic at all; you will instead more likely solve UL+UR plus either FR+FL or BR+BL, then do an x/x' and finish with LSE. The reason I feel LMCF still holds an advantage because it doesn't place any constraints on which edges are solved, maximizing luck and maximizing freedom to solve easier pairs and triplets. I have (long ago) tried LMCF variants that solve additional D layer edges during the corners solve, making variants similar to Skis-LR. The most obvious choice is to solve the BD edge during EG, since almost all EG algorithms do not affect the BD edge; to be fair, the vast majority of EG algorithms do not affect the DL or DR edges either; so in fact you could start with Skis-EG and make it much easier to form the skis on the 1st step. From there my personal preference would be to solve the L/R edges in an unconstrained fashion using the E2L pairs, triplets and quadruplet algorithms (recent advances in LMCF means that triplets are now the most commonly solved with the occasional quadruplet on luckier solves). Of course in LMCF, LSE is made significantly more complicated by the fact that you can end up with the last six edges where you have M-slices edges unsolved and two edges on the R face that are unsolved (with L face fully solved), or vice versa, and this configuration requires Waterman LSE algorithms which were very poor in their 1988 form (in terms of TPS and ergonomics), and I have recalculated/regenerated all the Waterman LSE algorithms now for way faster TPS and ergonomics, and in a previous post I showed that with the improved Waterman algorithms, in most cases the 'bad' LSE case where two edges are unsolved on the R face (or L face) often ends up faster than the Roux situation, because in the Roux situation you are finishing with 2-gen MU, whereas in the Waterman LSE case the algs are 3-gen RMU with lots of RU and very few M (some are even 2-gen rRU).
> 
> Over the last few years LMCF speed potential has greatly increased. However I am still realistic and Roux and ZBRoux, in my opinion, still hold a very slight advantage; however I do not believe their advantage will last long since LMCF still is fairly undeveloped and even in a fairly undeveloped state it is almost as fast and ergonomic as Roux and ZBRoux which are in my opinion the currently fastest methods.
> ...


Thanks for that LMCF rant we needed......
(these people would appreciate it LMCF thread)

About the parts talking about Skis, you can do LR completely intuitively by making edge pairs. You can learn “algorithms” to solve some cases more efficiently, like R U M’ U’ R’ instead of x M2 U’ M’ U2 M’ U’ (they solve the same case).
Solving UL UR BL BR may be more efficient, but you’d be solving pieces that don’t share the correct colors so you’d have less choices to do, and LSE would have the wrong color scheme (relative to Skis) so you would have to be color neutral which many people aren’t and won’t be, though it is a cool idea, good job for thinking of that.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 6, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> In the LR stage you never solve particular edges first. If you see example solves, I’m sure it just solves whatever is easiest. In LR you don’t really care about Left/Right colors.
> 
> MAY 5TH EDIT: AHHH I MISUNDERSTOOD- yes solving UL UR BL BR could be better but then your color scheme is wrong for LSE and most people are only white/yellow neutral, so this would only be considered if you’re color neutral. (are you?)
> Or FB centers?


yeah, I thought about that. You could get used to 2 extra colors for LSE, and I don’t think it would be that hard. I’m not CN, only Y/W CN, but I do think it’s possible. It would be harder for me to blockbuild on say, blue than it would be to do LSE.


----------



## efattah (May 8, 2019)

LMCF LSE is much more complicated than Roux LSE and one of the reason is exactly as people mentioned, that you have cases where the L/R colors are misaligned; doing L2 or R2 means that you can still technically do Roux LSE but if you do a quarter turn on L or R the color recognition becomes basically impossible; this is why LMCF LSE works very differently than Roux LSE so that it doesn't depend on the L-R colors being equal or opposite. In LMCF if you have the case where the remaining unsolved edges are the M-slice plus UL+UR, then you must convert the cube to a case where one of UL or UR contains either of the UL or UR edges in any permutation or orientation, then you solve UL+UR+orient midges in one step.

In 'bad' LMCF LSE cases, both UL and UR contain edges from the M-Slice. In this case it takes typically a 3-move U-M-U style combo to push a random UL/UR edge from the M-slice into any of their UL/UR slots in any orientation/permutation, then use one of the LMCF algorithms to finish. In this fashion the system is invariant of the L/R color alignment. Of course LMCF LSE also allows for the even more weird situation where the unsolved edges are UR+FR+Midges or UL+FL+Midges.


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 12, 2019)

I made a flowchart of my current method for solving corners. It's basically the two-look Petrus corner method (permute then orient) but solving in one look 40% of the time using a 3-cycle commutator. I use it for Roux and 4x4.



https://imgur.com/a/5LBfqlZ


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 12, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Thanks for that LMCF rant we needed......
> (we don't care, these people would appreciate it LMCF thread)


That's rather rude. He just gave you a whole bunch of feedback on your method, and you dismissed it as a bunch of self promotion (Which he deserves, by the way. The amount of work he's put into that method is staggering.)


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 12, 2019)

dudefaceguy said:


> I made a flowchart of my current method for solving corners. It's basically the two-look Petrus corner method (permute then orient) but solving in one look 40% of the time using a 3-cycle commutator. I use it for Roux and 4x4.
> 
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/5LBfqlZ



Cool, I couldn’t say I’ve seen and idea like this! Flowcharts are very useful btw! I kinda want to play around with it, but I might need help on what ‘Eve’ is or how to do a pure twist commutator... :/


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 12, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Cool, I couldn’t say I’ve seen and idea like this! Flowcharts are very useful btw! I kinda want to play around with it, but I might need help on what ‘Eve’ is or how to do a pure twist commutator... :/



Eve is one of Lars Petrus's algorithms demonstrated here: https://lar5.com/cube/yE.html
I perform it as: R U2 L' U R' U' L R U2 R'
I actually find it very intuitive and fun to perform.

I don't know if there are other corner twist commutators, but the one I use is, for example, U[R D R' D' R D R']. I'm sure you know a shorter algorithm for this case.

Petrus uses double Sune for two twisted corners, which is the same number of moves as a corner twist commutator. I'm faster with the commutator though.

I like using Petrus corners for Roux because it's a two-look method that uses only 3 algorithms, all of which are very intuituve and easy to execute. I actually discovered Niklas on my own while using Heise, and used it for months before realizing that it was a famous algorithm. 

I don't see much point in orienting first and then permuting for Roux corners - this seems like a carryover from CFOP. If you're solving the whole last layer, orient/permute makes sense, but permute/orient can solve corners in two looks with fewer cases to recognize. You can also force second-look skips pretty often if you understand what the algorithms are doing. Since I never learned beginners method or CFOP, Petrus corners seem like a good choice for Roux.

Fun fact: Lars Petrus's Allan algorithm, which is used to solve edges after corners are solved, is just a conjugate of the 4-move commutator that is usually used to solve the last 3 edges in Roux.


----------



## MethodNeutral (May 14, 2019)

When I first joined the forum I thought up this method (which should've been in this thread anyway) by adding CP to the beginning of ZZ. It wasn't really that effective because CP was done after EO and sometimes certain pieces would get stuck which made for awkward slice turns (I talked about this in the thread I linked).

Applying the initial CP step to Roux could be achievable though. The steps would be like this:

1. Place DL corners and DR corners. The pairs can be swapped as long as they're on their respective sides.
2. Permute corners (max 5 moves HTM, only 2 algs)
3. Sort left block pieces stuck in right block position
4. Solve left block using <L, M, U>
5. Solve right block using <R, M, U>
6. CMLL with only 7 algs (because CP was done earlier. 1/27 chance of skip)
7. LSE

The linked post talks about how steps 1&2 work. Step 3 is greatly simplified because of tricks like u L u' or D M D'. The rest is fairly standard, you lost some efficiency because you can't do F moves during first block but this is a 7 alg speedsolving method. Also, putting CP first means it can often be done in inspection, I've had some lucky solves already where I can cancel into the CP alg. I'm not sure if having 2-gen CMLL all the time is preferable for Roux since I use ZZ but let me know. I also considered the possibility of learning how to orient edges while doing 2-gen CMLL, but I think this has too many algs to be useful.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 14, 2019)

Briggs 2 is basically a better version of what you're suggesting. You could also do ZBRoux but with CP.


----------



## White KB (May 14, 2019)

One idea I have is a "mixed-up" method called RouxFOP, or more accurately RouxMOP.
It's a mix of Roux and CFOP, and you could do it if you're trying to get into either, or if you just want to use the method itself.
1. Solving blocks, like in Roux.
2. Solving remaining cross edges (and centers, as the case may be) using "M" slice, (hence the 'M" in RouxMOP) using a set of algs
3. Solving OLL
4. Solving PLL

An advanced way of doing this would be combining Steps 2 & 3, in "OLLy Cross" (I'm still working on the name)
Does this sound like a good method?


----------



## Thom S. (May 14, 2019)

White KB said:


> Does this sound like a good method?


No, but it sounds like the most commonly proposed method there is


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 14, 2019)

White KB said:


> One idea I have is a "mixed-up" method called RouxFOP, or more accurately RouxMOP.
> It's a mix of Roux and CFOP, and you could do it if you're trying to get into either, or if you just want to use the method itself.
> 1. Solving blocks, like in Roux.
> 2. Solving remaining cross edges (and centers, as the case may be) using "M" slice, (hence the 'M" in RouxMOP) using a set of algs
> ...


I use a roux mop when I spill delicious buttery sauces.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 14, 2019)

White KB said:


> One idea I have is a "mixed-up" method called RouxFOP, or more accurately RouxMOP.
> It's a mix of Roux and CFOP, and you could do it if you're trying to get into either, or if you just want to use the method itself.
> 1. Solving blocks, like in Roux.
> 2. Solving remaining cross edges (and centers, as the case may be) using "M" slice, (hence the 'M" in RouxMOP) using a set of algs
> ...


This is literally the most common method proposed, and it's a bad one. It is more moves and more time, so it's not good. We've all thought of this at one time or another though. The best version of this method (which is actually good) is ZBRoux, but it has 0 advantage over normal roux for 12 times the number of algs. Keep on thinking of ideas though!


----------



## efattah (May 15, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is literally the most common method proposed, and it's a bad one. It is more moves and more time, so it's not good. We've all thought of this at one time or another though. The best version of this method (which is actually good) is ZBRoux, but it has 0 advantage over normal roux for 12 times the number of algs. Keep on thinking of ideas though!



After F2B, ordinary Roux has:
1. CMLL
2. Orient Edges
3. Solve UL+UR
4. Permute Midges
(4 steps)
in the advanced case of EOLR, the last three steps would be: CMLL + EOLR + Permute Midges (3 steps)
After F2B, ZBRoux does:
1. EO-DF-DB
2. ZBLL

So ZBRoux uses 2 steps, instead of either 3 or 4 for Roux. Since ZBLL recognition is nearly eliminated by identifying the ZBLL case during EO-DF-DB, you can't argue that large algorithm set recognition would make it slower than Roux. In fact, both steps of ZBRoux (EO-DF-DB and ZBLL) are fully algorithmic for maximum TPS. In basic roux, there is some degree of intuitive solving in LSE.
For these reasons I still believe ZBRoux does have an advantage over regular Roux, but (1) the advantage is fairly small for a large increase in memorization & drills, and (2) ZBRoux is fairly prone to errors and unreliability, as stalling on a ZBLL case ruins the whole solve, which is not likely to happen in regular Roux.
Still, with sufficient drills, I think ZBRoux has the advantage. Has anyone done a movecount comparison for Roux vs. ZBRoux?


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 15, 2019)

@efattah I agree that ZBRoux is pretty decent, unlike doing Roux Blocks then OLL and PLL xD
As for movecounts, I think it’s around:
11 CMLL
9 EOLR
6 Permute M
= 26?
10 EO-DFDB
15 ZBLL
= 25?
Know that ZBLL will be _way_ longer (atleast 3-4 moves) than CMLL on average, and EO-DFDB will be just a bit longer than EOLR.

My numbers are probably off, so pls don’t kill me, if someone wants to find the true value they can test it with real solves (if you know ZBLL...)

Also another point for ZBRoux is that there’s less pause before execution compared to ZBLL in ZZ, because you can see your COLL case while doing EO-DFDB because M moves don’t mess up corners, so you can focus on your edges (If you track your epll during eo-dfdb, it is possible to have no pause before zbll).


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 15, 2019)

They actually have exactly the same movecount, and breaking LSE into 3 steps is kinda wrong, because it's completely pauseless. It's more like 3 half looks. Instead, think of it like this: CMLL is about 0.9 seconds and LSE is about 1.5. EODFDB is about 0.8 seconds, ZBLL is about 1.6. And no, I'm not picking arbitrary numbers, I'm using realistic ones. EODFDB is just over half of LSE (EOLR but a bit more), and ZBLL is CMLL plus 4c pretty much. If you get rid of all ZBLL recog time, I think it's pretty realistic to have an average execution time of a set of 493 algs to be 1.6. So ZBRoux is exactly the same as standard roux, just with a lot more practice required.


----------



## Thom S. (May 15, 2019)

efattah said:


> Has anyone done a movecount comparison for Roux vs. ZB


Shiv3r made a Post some time ago (even in this Thread, I think) about having 300 Solves each with Jabari's ZBLLs and EOLR+(His own?)CMLLs and coming to the Conclusion that ZBroux uses 0.3 moves more on average


----------



## Imam Alam (May 15, 2019)

bismillaahir raHmaanir raHeem


```
Lars Petrus said:

The basic problem with the layer method is big, and obvious once you realize it.
When you have completed the first layer, you can do nothing without breaking it up.
So you break it, do something useful, then restore it.
Break it, do something, restore it.
Again and again.
In a good solution you do something useful all the time.
The first layer is in the way of the solution, not a part of it!

(https://lar5.com/cube/)
```


.
.

*New Method Proposal

Method Name: 2GB (2-Generator Blockbuilding)*


Spoiler



Similar to: RUP/PRUM/RUPM method by Tsung-Yen Wu, also Heise



.
.

*Method Overview*



Spoiler: General Information



Proposer: Imam Tanvin Alam
Proposed: 15th May, 2019
Variants: Lossless Solving Method (once a block is built, it is never broken, not even momentarily)
No. Steps: 2 major though lots of flexibility, depends on variant
No. Algs: 1~4 semi-intuitive commutator type 2-gen triggers, avg 6 HTM/STM (~5 additional semi-intuitive 2-gen algs for advanced)
Avg Moves: ~48-61 HTM/STM (depending on variant)
Purpose: Experimental (Speedsolving, Fewest Moves, One-Handed Solving possible)

Pros and Cons: no LL algs, blockbuilding until solved





Spoiler: Main Theme



this is a method that reduces the 3x3x3 cube to a 2-gen state (through blockbuilding), then proceeds to solve the rest as 2-gen (again, through blockbuilding)

the main difference between this method and all other blockbuilding methods (except Heise) is that this method utilizes blockbuilding techniques all the way through


Spoiler



Petrus, Roux and other blockbuilding methods (except Heise) resort to LL algorithms at one point or another

but this method (2GB) uses intuitive blockbuilding techniques throughout the solve, from start to finish



the main difference between this method and all other 2-gen methods is that this method is less dependent on predetermined/memorized Last Layer algorithms


Spoiler



Petrus uses OLL & PLL, or least Sune/Niklas, etc.

ZZ uses OCELL & CPLL, or TSLE & TTLL, or other LL algs

more recent 2GR methods (like Teoidus 2GR, Noah NCPB/NCPB 2.0, ZZ C2GR, Briggs/LEOR/YruRU) use 2GLL, or ZBLL, or other LL algs

but with this method (2GB) it is possible to solve the cube without using any LL algorithms



another unique feature of this method is that the cube may be solved in a "lossless" manner with it, i.e. once a block is built, it is never broken (not even momentarily) until the entire cube is solved


Spoiler



most methods frequently break what is built in previous steps (at least for a few moves) to make progress, e.g. the CFOP cross is broken every time an F2L pair is inserted

as for blockbuilding methods, even Petrus (momentarily) breaks previously built blocks to solve EO, and even Heise breaks previously built blocks while solving the last few corners with commutators

but this method (2GB) can be implemented in such a way that it does not require previously built blocks to be broken at any point in the solve






.
.

*General Structure

1. Blockbuild to 2-Gen
2. Blockbuild as 2-Gen*





Spoiler: Reduce to 2-Gen



do EO, do CP, and build a 3x2x2 block (in any order)



Spoiler: How To



this is pretty straightforward, and knowledge of other methods would be useful during this step

build a Petrus style 3x2x2 block at LD, and perform EO and CP at the very beginning of the solve, or while blockbuilding, or immediately after the 3x2x2 block is completed

EO and CP may be done separately, i.e. it is acceptable to do EO at the beginning and CP after the entire 3x2x2 block, or CP after a 3x1x1 block and EO after a 3x2x1 block, or in any other sequence

the sequence of performing the 3 substeps (block, CP, EO) is quite flexible, the only thing that matters is that all 3 substeps are done after this step

(see fundamental techniques for more information)








Spoiler: Solve as 2-Gen



only using <R, U> moves, build 4 corner-edge pairs, and adjust CO, then permute last 2 layers



Spoiler: How To



first, build 4 corner-edge pairs, and do CO L4C while building the 3rd pair

(example 4 pairs are LFU-FU, LBU-BU, DFR-FR and DBR-BR, but there are other options available)

(while building the 3rd pair, make sure L3C have the same orientation when permuted correctly)

then permute all pieces (4 pairs, 3 edges, 2 corners)

(the final substep is to solve the R and U layers, by permuting the 4 pairs along with L2C and L3E)

(see fundamental techniques for more information)






.
.

*Algorithms List*



Spoiler: Overview



for the 4 algorithms, the average alg length is 6.00 HTM


Spoiler: Calculation



(7 + 7 + 5 + 5 = 24 HTM; 24/4 = 6.00 HTM)



all of these are semi-intuitive commutator type 2-gen algs





Spoiler: Basic Algs



trigger 1 (CO): 7 HTM
R U R2 (U') R2 U R = [R U: R2][R': U]

trigger 2 (3rd edge): 7 HTM
R (U2 R2 U2 R2 U2) R = [R: [U2 R2 U2, z' y2]]

trigger 3 (3rd pair): 5 HTM
R (U2 R2 U2) R = [R: [U2, R2]]

trigger 4 (permute all): 5 HTM
R U (R2) U' R' = [R U: R2]



Spoiler: Make it More Intuitive



note that trigger 1 is actually an extension of trigger 4 (permute the pairs with trigger 4, then put the DBR-BR pair back to its original location), and that trigger 3 is actually a truncated version of trigger 2

i.e. these 4 algs may be considered to be only 2 algs (trigger 1 for corners/pairs permutation, and trigger 2 for edges permutation)

going further, it may be possible to make the entire second step (Blockbuild as 2-Gen) more intuitive by thinking of it as simply "moving the blocks around" (for details, see "Alternative Algs & Recognition" in "Advanced CO" under "Improvements & Alternatives")








Spoiler: CO Recognition



depending on how many corners are oriented on the U layer, the algorithm (trigger 1 and inverse) needs to be applied 1~2 times (avg 1.63 times)


Spoiler



(0*1 + 1*4 + 1*4 + 2*2 + 2*4 + 2*4 + 2*4 + 2*4 = 44 times; 44/27 = 1.63 times)



the flowchart diagram below shows the cases and an easy scheme for recognition



an easier recognition scheme would be to only use the simplified diagram on the right, where the algorithm (trigger 1) is used exclusively, without any inverse or mirror, however this results in higher move count, since the alg would need to be applied 1~3 times (avg 2.00 times)


Spoiler



(0*1 + 1*4 + 2*4 + 3*2 + 3*4 + 2*4 + 2*4 + 2*4 = 54 times; 54/27 = 2.00 times)



trigger 1 replaces RD edge with RU edge, which is sometimes helpful for the next substep (capture the 3rd pair edge)

using only trigger 1 and its mirror (and setup moves), the following algorithms may be constructed:



so, the basic alg (trigger 1) and its mirror gives us a CO alg set of 2 algs (avg 11.77 HTM)


Spoiler



(0*1 + 7*4 + 7*4 + 15*2 + 13*4 + 15*4 + 15*4 + 15*4 = 318 HTM; 318/27 = 11.77 HTM)



(see "Advanced CO" under "Improvements & Alternatives" for more information on CO)





Spoiler: Permute Everything



to swap two pairs, use this commutator:


```
X  Y  (X2) Y' X'

where
X = R/R'/U/U'
Y = U/U'/R/R'
```


this simple 5-move 2-gen commutator is essentially its own mirror


Spoiler: How the Commutator Works 



X = do a 90 degree turn of any one layer (e.g. R/R'/U/U') to bring one pair at the intersection of the two layers

Y = do a 90 degree turn of the other layer (U/U'/R/R') to remove one pair from the intersection, and at the same time bring another pair at the intersection

X2 = now swap two pairs on the first layer with a 180 degree turn (R2/U2)

Y' = place the swapped pair on the second layer with a 90 degree turn backwards (U'/U/R'/R)

X' = put all 4 pairs back to parallel positions with a backwards 90 degree turn of the first layer (R'/R/U'/U)



notice that this commutator affects 2 pairs, 2 opposite edges, and 2 adjacent corners


Spoiler: What This Commutator Does



this commutator does the following:

1. swaps two opposite edges on one layer (they are located in parallel with the pairs, on the layer that gets turned for the first move of the commutator)

2. swaps and twists two adjacent corners at the intersection of the two layers

3. swaps two opposite pairs, one from each layer (the first move of the commutator takes the corners at the intersection either towards F layer or towards B layer, and the two pairs on that side get swapped)



there are 4 possible versions of this commutator


Spoiler: Versions of the Commutator



the 4 versions are as below:


```
a. R  U  (R2) U' R'   B layer pairs swapped, R layer edges swapped, R-U intersection corners swapped and twisted

b. U' R' (U2) R  U    B layer pairs swapped, U layer edges swapped, R-U intersection corners swapped and twisted

c. R' U' (R2) U  R    F layer pairs swapped, R layer edges swapped, R-U intersection corners swapped and twisted

d. U  R  (U2) R' U'   F layer pairs swapped, U layer edges swapped, R-U intersection corners swapped and twisted
```




different versions, or combination of them, need to be applied for different situations


Spoiler: Which Version to Choose



let us suppose the cube is in the "2:2" situation (LBU-BU & DBR-BR pairs swapped, URF-URB corners swapped and twisted, RU-RD edges swapped)

so the first move of the commutator should be of the R layer (not U layer), since the swapped edges are on that layer

also, the first move should be a clockwise turn R (not R'), since this move connects one swapped corner (at URF) with a pair (at LBU-BU), resulting in a 3x1x1 block at UB

(notice that U' also connects the corner at URF with the pair at DBR-BR, but we are not choosing U' since the U layer does not have a swapped edge pair)


Spoiler



(R2 is not allowed for the first move, because then the next move U/U2/U' would break a pair)



for the second move, the only available option is to turn the U layer (not the R layer), since R layer was turned immediately before this move

the second move should be a clockwise turn U (not U'/U2), since this move connects the newly built 3x1x1 block with the 2 edges (at FR-RB), resulting in a 3x2x1 block on the R layer


Spoiler



(U'/U2 are not allowed for the second move, otherwise the next move R/R2/R' would break a pair)



for the third move, which must be an R* (R/R2/R') turn, the only available option is an R2, to connect the other swapped corner (at DRB) with a pair (at LFU-FU), resulting in a 3x1x1 block at UF

the fourth move must be a U' turn, resulting in a 3x3x1 block on the R layer

and finally, the fifth move must be a R' turn, thus solving the cube

therefore, the chosen version of the commutator becomes: R U (R2) U' R'



applying this commutator 1~2 times is enough, or 3 times in rare situations (e.g. swapped edges at LU-RD)


Spoiler: Which Combination to Use






Spoiler: For 2:2



2 pairs are swapped, 2 corners are swapped, 2 edges are swapped

if the 2 edges are on the same layer (i.e. RU-UL or DR-RU), then apply the commutator once, as described above

if the 2 edges are not on the same layer (i.e. UL-RD), then 3 commutators are required: simply do any version of the commutator once to turn it into one of the other cases described below





Spoiler: For 4:0



EP 3-cycle is required (DR>RU>UL or LU>UR>RD)

in other words, two 2-swaps are needed (e.g. DR>RU>UL could be solved by first swapping RU-UL with one commutator, and then swapping DR-RU with another commutator)

so the commutator needs to be applied twice, and they must be different versions, one version starting with one layer (e.g. U layer) and the other version starting with the other layer (R layer)


Spoiler



(same version would only affect the same two edges twice)



but the pairs (and the corners) are already solved, that means the same 2 pairs need to be involved in both versions of the commutator, so that they get swapped with one commutator and then get swapped back with the other

so the second commutator needs to start with the opposite rotational direction (e.g. if the first commutator starts with anticlockwise U', then the second commutator must start with clockwise R, and not with anticlockwise R')





Spoiler: For 0:4 (EP Done)



all 4 pairs are swapped

that means the commutator needs to be applied twice, once to swap the F layer pairs, and again to swap the B layer pairs

and they must be different versions of the commutator, since they need to affect different pairs

but L2C and L3E are already solved, so both versions of the commutator must start with turns of the same layer (e.g. both first and second commutators may start with R layer), so that the two edges on that layer get swapped and then swapped back to their original locations

because the two versions need to affect two different sets of pairs, and they must start with the same layer, the second commutator has to start with the opposite rotational direction (e.g. if the first commutator starts with anticlockwise U', then the second commutator must start with clockwise U)





Spoiler: For 0:4 (EP Required)



all 4 pairs are swapped

so the commutator needs to be applied twice, once to swap the F layer pairs, and again to swap the B layer pairs

but L2C is already solved, that means they need to be swapped twice to be solved again

also, all 3 edges need to be cycled (DR>RU>UL or LU>UR>RD), so two 2-swaps are needed (e.g. DR>RU>UL could be solved by first swapping RU-UL with the first commutator, and then swapping DR-RU with the second commutator)

so the two commutators need to be different versions, one version starting with one layer (e.g. U layer) and the other version starting with the other layer (R layer)


Spoiler



(same version would only affect the same two edges twice)



because the two commutators need to affect two different sets of pairs, and they must start with different layers, the second commutator must start with the same rotational direction (e.g. if the first commutator starts with anticlockwise U', then the second commutator must start with anticlockwise R', and not with clockwise R)









.
.

*Fundamental Techniques*



Spoiler: Reducing to 2-Gen



there are many other ways of achieving this, some of them are outlined below:



Spoiler: Petrus Style



- build a 3x2x2 block

- perform EO (Petrus style)

- perform CP with D' R (U) R' D or L U' (R') U L'





Spoiler: ZZ Style



- perform EO (ZZ/Thistlethwaite style), optional EOLine at DF-DB (ZZ style) or at LF-LB (SSC style)

- perform CP (HSC/Morozov/Benek style), optional 3x1x1 block at LD

- expand to a 3x2x2 block





Spoiler: Wu RUPM Style



- build a 3x2x2 block

- perform EO & CP together





Spoiler: Wu PRUM Style



- build a 2x2x2 block at LDB

- perform EO & CP together

- expand to a 3x2x2 block





Spoiler: Noah NCPB Style



- build a 2x2x2 block at LDB

- perform CP

- expand to a 3x2x2 block

- perform EO (Petrus style)





Spoiler: Noah NCPB2/ZZ C2GR Style



- perform CP while building a 3x2x1 block

- expand to a 3x2x2 block while performing EO





Spoiler: Teoidus 2GR Style



- perform EO while building a 2x1x1 block at LD

- perform CP while extending to a 3x1x1 block

- expand to a 3x2x2 block





Spoiler: Briggs/LEOR/YruRU Style



- perform CP while building a 3x1x1 block

- extend to a 3x2x1 block

- perform EO (Roux style)

- expand to a 3x2x2 block





Spoiler: Briggs2 Style



- build a 2x2x1 block

- perform CP while extending to a 3x2x1 block

- perform EO (Roux style)

- expand to a 3x2x2 block








Spoiler: Pairs Selection



the 4 pairs can be chosen in many ways, but note that 2 of these pairs need to be "towards" pairs and the other 2 need to be "away" pairs, as shown below:



whether a pair is considered a "towards" pair or an "away" pair depends on how they fit into the intersection of the R & U layers, as shown above

for ease of understanding, the most symmetric version has been chosen here, since it is the easiest in terms of blockbuilding and recognition (more options are discussed in "Alternative Pairs" under "Improvements & Alternatives")



that means for the 1st pair we have 2 choices (yellow or green), the 2nd pair must be the remaining RD pair (green or yellow), then for the 3rd pair we have 2 choices (cyan or magenta), and the 4th pair must be the remaining U layer pair (magenta or cyan)





Spoiler: 1st Pair & 2nd Pair



for the 1st pair, simply connect the target corner with its corresponding edge with <R, U> moves


Spoiler



this is similar to 3rd/4th F2L pair in CFOP/ZZ/Petrus, but easier, since the cross piece at RD does not matter and the R layer is free to move



then build the 2nd pair with <R, U> moves, while preserving the 1st pair


Spoiler



once again, this is similar to 3rd/4th F2L pair in CFOP/ZZ/Petrus, but easier, since the cross piece at RD does not matter

the only difference with last time is that this time the 1st pair needs to be preserved








Spoiler: CO & 3rd Pair



the 3rd pair is harder than the other pairs, mainly because CO must be done along with this pair

using <R, U> moves, place the 1st & 2nd pairs at RD locations


Spoiler



(the 2 corners should be adjacent to each other, but the 2 pairs should be parallel to each other, not perpendicular)



now the U layer is free to move

inspect the orientation of the 4 corners on the free layer


Spoiler



these 4 corners are: 2 target corners for the 3rd pair and 4th pair, and the last 2 corners that do not form any blocks until the final substep



perform CO L4C with trigger 1 and its mirror

place the chosen 3rd pair edge at RD location (i.e. between the 1st and 2nd pairs) with trigger 2 or its mirror

now build the 3rd pair with trigger 3 or its mirror, while preserving the first 2 pairs





Spoiler: 4th Pair & Permuting Last 2 Layers



the 4th pair is quite straight forward: simply build the pair with <R, U> moves (trigger 3 or its mirror in particular), while preserving the first 3 pairs

now on to the last substep (permuting the last 2 layers):

using <R, U> moves, place any 2 pairs at RD locations and the other 2 pairs at UL locations (permutation of the pairs does not matter), each couple of pairs should be parallel to each other


Spoiler: How To



achieving this state is quite easy, requiring only 1~2 turns

if one layer (e.g. U layer) has 3 pairs, move the 2 parallel pairs out of the intersection of the two layers with U* (U/U') if needed

this would also put the other 2 pairs in parallel on the other layer (R layer), simply do a single turn R* (R/R') to place all 4 pairs at RD and UL locations



now inspect the permutation of all pieces on R and U layers

there are 9 pieces to consider: 4 corner-edge pairs, 3 edges, 2 corners

at this point, L2C can only be in 1 of 2 states (either solved, or swapped and twisted) & L3E can only be in 1 of 2 states (either solved, or requiring an EP 3-cycle/2-swap), so recognition is very easy


Spoiler: Possible Situations



4 situations possible, excluding the solved state



Spoiler: 2:2



- two opposite pairs are solved (on F/B layer) and the other two opposite pairs are swapped (on B/F layer)
- L2C is swapped and twisted
- any 2 edges are swapped (UL-UR or RU-RD or LU-RD)





Spoiler: 4:0



- all 4 pairs are solved
- L2C is solved
- EP 3-cycle is required (DR>RU>UL or LU>UR>RD)





Spoiler: 0:4, EP done



- all 4 pairs are swapped
- L2C is solved
- L3E is solved





Spoiler: 0:4, EP required



- all 4 pairs are swapped
- L2C is solved
- EP 3-cycle is required (DR>RU>UL or LU>UR>RD)



(if L3E is solved but L2C is not solved, then a mistake was made in a previous substep)



finally, permute the 4 pairs with <R, U> moves (trigger 4 and its mirrors in particular) until the entire cube is solved



.
.

*Example Solve*



Spoiler: 2-Gen Scramble



qqTimer Scramble (generated on 15th May, 2019):

U' R' U2 R U2 R U2 R' U R' U R' U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U2 R2 U' R U





Spoiler: 2-Gen Solution



live solve 34 HTM/STM, reconstruction 30 HTM/STM:

R' U2 R' U2 R U' R2 U' (R' R') U' R2 U R2 (U' R' R U2) R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R U2 R2 U2 R' U R' U R U'



Spoiler: Explanation





```
R' U2 // 1st pair
R' U2 R // 2nd pair
U' R2 U' R' // permute to RD
R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' // (partial) CO
R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R // capture 3rd edge
U2 // setup
R U2 R2 U2 // 3rd pair
R' U R' U // 4th pair
R U' // permute everything (skip)
```






Spoiler: Simulation



to see a simulation of the solve, paste the scramble and the solution here:

https://alg.cubing.net/

paste the scramble under "setup" and the solution or the explanation under "moves"








Spoiler: Comments



- optimal 1st step is 18 ~ 27 moves, so it is humanly possible within 30 moves with practice


Spoiler: Calculation



calculation 1: optimal 3x2x2 block is 8~9 moves, optimal CP+EO is 10~15 moves
references:
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/optimal-2x2x3-humanly-possible.13578/
https://presleygit.github.io/ru_eng.html

calculation 2: optimal EOline is 6~7 moves (6.127 QTM), optimal 3x2x1 block is 9~10 moves (9.69 QTM), CP is 8~10 moves (QTM)
references:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080612111837/http://www.speedcubing.com.pl/nooks_zz.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20120923050702/http://qblog.be/2010/04/zzf2l-move-count-analysis-part-2/
https://presleygit.github.io/ru_eng.html



- optimal 2nd step is 20 moves or less


Spoiler: Calculation



optimal <R, U> 2-gen solve is 20 moves max, and ~16 moves avg
reference:
http://forum.cubeman.org/text/fullcube.txt



- so if the 2nd step can be consistently done in 30~40 moves, then total move count is within acceptable range (<70 moves)

- this solve had a skip, which is not unusual, almost every solve ends up having one or two small substep skips (and more familiarity and knowledge about the method usually means higher chances of a skip)

- this solve utilizes some advanced techniques such as Advanced CO and advanced EP (see "Improvements & Alternatives")



.
.

*Improvements & Alternatives*



Spoiler: Advanced CO






Spoiler: Partial CO



sometimes CO L4C does not need to be completed, simply orienting the target corner for the 3rd pair and making sure that the L3C have the same orientation as one another is enough

in other words, there is no need for the L3C to always "look" oriented after this CO substep, rather they need to be oriented correctly only when they are permuted to their correct locations later on

i.e. there are 3 acceptable situations when all corners are permuted correctly:

a. target corner is oriented, all 3 of 3 remaining corners are also oriented correctly
b. target corner is oriented, all 3 of 3 remaining corners are twisted clockwise
c. target corner is oriented, all 3 of 3 remaining corners are twisted anticlockwise

again, this means that the corners would not always "look" oriented during the solve, even after CO substep is done (see example solve)

note that with this approach, there is a 1/3 probability of a CO skip, and for the rest of the cases applying the CO alg just once is enough, i.e. the CO is only applied avg 0.66 times per solve, and CO step movecount goes down to avg 7.00 HTM per solve





Spoiler: Alternative Algs & Recognition



there are 4 ways to permute the first 2 pairs while influencing CO L4C

i.e. there are 4 ways to move the 2 pairs from RD locations to UL locations, or vice versa:


```
a. R U2 R2 U' -- U R2 U2 R'

b. R' U2 R2 U -- U' R2 U2 R

c. R U R' U R' U' -- U R U' R U' R'

d. R' U' R U' R U -- U' R' U R' U R
```


each of the above options twist 2 adjacent corners in opposite directions


```
effects
                                          clockwise anticlockwise

a   R U2 R2 U'       =   [R U2, z' y2]         URF   URB

a'  U R2 U2 R'       =   [U R2, z' y2]         URB   URF

b   R' U2 R2 U       =   [R' U2, z' y2]        URF   URB

b'  U' R2 U2 R       =   [U' R2, z' y2]        URB   URF

c   R U R' U R' U'   =   [[R: U], z' y2]       ULF   URF

c'  U R U' R U' R'   =   [[U: R], z' y2]       URB   DRB

d   R' U' R U' R U   =   [[R': U'], z' y2]     URB   ULB

d'  U' R' U R' U R   =   [[U': R'], z' y2]     DRF   URF
```


any 2 adjacent corners can be chosen to be twisted, simply by rotating the free layer immediately before permuting the 2 pairs



Spoiler: Special Case 1 (free R layer)



only knowing and using options (a) and (b) is usually enough: they are shorter, more symmetric, and they only affect the 2 corners at the intersection of R and U layers

with the 1st and 2nd pairs at RD locations, do either (a) or (b) to move the 2 pairs to UL locations while twisting the 2 corners at the intersection

then do a single R* (R/R2/R') move (this replaces 1 or 2 corners at the intersection)

then do either (a') or (b') to move the 2 pairs to RD locations while twisting the 2 corners at the intersection

there are 8 possible combinations, as given below:


```
R U2 R2 U' (R) U' R2 U2 R   <=>   R U2 R2 U' (R') U' R2 U2 R

R U2 R2 U' (R) U R2 U2 R'   <=>   R U2 R2 U' (R') U R2 U2 R'

R' U2 R2 U (R) U' R2 U2 R   <=>   R' U2 R2 U (R') U' R2 U2 R

R' U2 R2 U (R) U R2 U2 R'   <=>   R' U2 R2 U (R') U R2 U2 R'
```


each pair of algs use the same move sequence, except for a single move right in the middle

this is a set of 9 HTM CO algs that are easy to understand, remember, and apply

note that these algs replace the RD edge with UR edge, just like the basic alg (trigger 1) does

below is an alternative flowchart diagram showing an easy scheme for recognition:




although recognition would be different for this alg set, the advantage of knowing this would be to eliminate the need to practice mirror cases and simply remember to choose a single move R* (R/R2/R')





Spoiler: Special Case 2 (sune)



combining a 4 move long sequence with a 6 move long sequence results in another set of CO algs

a special subset of this set is when several moves get canceled out:


```
(R U2 R2 U') (U R U' R U' R')   =>   (R U2 R') U' (R U' R')

(R' U2 R2 U) (U' R' U R' U R)   =>   (R' U2 R) U (R' U R)

(R U R' U R' U') (U R2 U2 R')   =>   (R U R') U (R U2 R')

(R' U' R U' R U) (U' R2 U2 R)   =>   (R' U' R) U' (R' U2 R)
```


this results in 7 HTM CO algs known as sune/antisune etc

note that these algs preserve the RD edge unlike the basic alg (trigger 1), so this alg set could be used as an alternative to trigger 1 when a suitable target edge is already at the RD location





Spoiler: Special Case 3 (EP control)



once again, combining a 4 move long sequence with a 6 move long sequence results in another set of CO algs

another special subset of this set is when the RD edge is replaced with UL edge:


```
(R' U' R U' R U) (U R2 U2 R')   =>   R' U' R U' R U2 R2 U2 R'
(R U R' U R' U') (U' R2 U2 R)   =>   R U R' U R' U2 R2 U2 R
```


this is a set of 9 HTM CO algs that influences EP L3E in a different way








Spoiler: Optimization



the basic alg (trigger 1) and its mirror gives us a CO alg set of 2 algs (avg 11.77 HTM)

this could be extended so that each of the 7 possible CO cases are considered individually:



the above is an optimal 2-Gen OCLL alg set (disregarding RD edge) consisting of 7 algs 7~15 HTM each (avg 10.30 HTM)


Spoiler



(0*1 + 7*4 + 7*4 + 11*2 + 9*4 + 13*4 + 13*4 + 15*4 = 278 HTM; 278/27 = 10.30 HTM)



this is only ~1.5 HTM shorter on average, however this may have other benefits such as more control over edge permutation



knowing some (or all) of the above techniques should enable better control over CO L4C, and thus result in lower move count and higher solving speed





Spoiler: Alternative Pairs



sometimes there are obvious shortcuts towards the end, e.g. 1 or 2 ready-made pairs are already there, although they are not the same pairs as planned

in these cases it is a good idea to utilize those pairs

so once this extended approach is adopted, there are quite a few added options



Spoiler: Parallel Pairs (3rd-4th)



for ease of recognition, the 3rd and 4th pairs should have 2 colors in common, as shown below:



so for the 1st pair we have 2 choices (yellow or green), the 2nd pair must be the remaining RD pair (green or yellow), then for the 3rd pair we have 4 choices as shown below (cyan or magenta), and the 4th pair must be the remaining U layer pair (magenta or cyan)

of course, choosing one the other 3 options would require a single U* (U/U2/U') move at the very end of the solve (not to mention slightly harder recognition)

with this approach, there are 8 options for the 3rd pair after CO, with 4 corners and 4 edges to choose from, and any one of these 4 edges can be chosen (for the 3rd pair) at this point

out of the 5 remaining edges, there are 4 target edges (i.e. all available edges are suitable, except for the edge this a D sticker), so there is a 4 out of 5 probability that a suitable edge is already at RD location and trigger 2 would not be required





Spoiler: Inverted Pairs (1st-2nd)



another easy option is to start with UFR-FR and UBR-BR pairs as 1st and 2nd pairs (CO may be done in terms of opposite faces U and D):



simply do R2 after CO and proceed with 3rd and 4th pairs





Spoiler: Start with U Pairs (1st-2nd)



another option is to start building LFU-FU and LBU-BU pairs as 1st and 2nd pairs (CO may be done in terms of R face instead of U face):



to make recognition easy, the cube may be rotated (z x2) after building the 1st and 2nd pairs





Spoiler: Tangent Pairs (3rd-4th)



we can go one step further and consider 3rd and 4th pairs that are not parallel to each other (see the 4 cases below):



obviously edge permutation and pair permutation approach would need to be revised if these pairs are allowed (either by making it more intuitive or by learning algorithms for more cases)


Spoiler: Make it More Intuitive



tangent pairs on the U layer essentially means there are two diagonally opposite corners (instead of two adjacent corners) that are not part of any block yet, and there are two adjacent edges (instead of two opposite edges) that are not part of any block yet

the 3rd and 4th pairs can still be built with the basic algs (algs 1 ~ 4)

if no shortcut is taken (i.e. not using any moves other than <R, U> and not breaking any of the 4 pairs), then the way to permute the last 3 edges is to do the following:

1. do a U* (U/U2/U') move so that one of the two pairs is in the intersection, and the edge with the D layer sticker is next to it (i.e. either at UF location or at UB location)

2. if the pair at intersection is a "towards" pair (i.e. it is at URF location) then do R' U' R U R U R U' R' and if the pair at intersection is an "away" pair (i.e. it is at URB location) then do R U R' U' R' U' R' U R



of course recognition would be quite difficult for this approach





start with the basic pairs, then experiment with inverted pairs and parallel 3rd-4th pairs, and try starting with the UL pairs, and leave tangent pairs on the R layer for later

there are even more advanced options available (the 4 pairs may be chosen in 63 unique ways), but the options shown above are the ones that are relatively easier to master





Spoiler: Advanced EP



this is related to "Alternative Pairs"

in fact these 2 ideas (Advanced EP and Alternative Pairs) may be considered as one and the same (the only difference is whether we allow ourselves to break the 1st and 2nd pairs for a couple of moves or not)

there are situations where it might be a good idea to break the 1st and 2nd pairs momentarily

(e.g. the 4th pair is not made yet, but all corners are solved, and only 3 or 4 edges need to be cycled)

full advantage should be taken of these situations


Spoiler: How To



if CO L4C is fully (not partially) done after the 1st and 2nd pairs, the corners are essentially solved, all that is left is EP L5E

1 of those 5 edges has a D sticker, rest of them have U stickers

possible cases:

a. any 2 opposite U layer edges are solved (i. e. two 3x1x1 blocks are formed on the U layer) - edges 3 cycle needed, simply do M' U2 M (U*) after setup moves and cube rotations

b. any 2 opposite U layer edges are swapped on U layer - with a single U* (U/U2/U') move place them at UF-UB locations, then swap them using trigger 2 (now we have situation a)

c. any 2 adjacent U layer edges are solved - edges 3 cycle needed, do M' U2 M (U*) after setup moves and cube rotations

d. D layer edge is solved - any EPLL alg may be used (Z-perm, H-perm, U-perm)

e. 4-cycle or 5-cycle required - solve with commutators, or with trigger 2 (look at the edge at RD location, bring its correct location at RU location with a single U* (U/U2/U') move, apply trigger 2; repeat as many times as necessary until case a/b/c/d is achieved)








Spoiler: Merging Substeps



move count may be reduced by focusing on lookahead and merging of successive substeps

e.g.

- be comfortable with achieving CP and EO in many different ways before, while, or after building the 3x2x2 block and its subset blocks

- try making the 1st and 2nd pairs simultaneously

- influence CO L4C while permuting the 1st and 2nd pairs to RD locations, or at least force an easy case

- anticipate the CO case and bypass CO when possible, and go straight to the 3rd pair

- utilize different ways of doing CO to capture a suitable edge between the RD pairs (hint: some edges give better results than others)

- try making the 3rd and 4th pairs simultaneously

- start permuting all pieces while building the 4th pair, or at least force an easy case



.
.

*Variants & Optimization*



Spoiler: Lossless Solving Method



"Lossless" simply means that once a block is built, it is never broken, not even momentarily, until the entire cube is solved


Spoiler: Lossless Variant 1



- EO (ZZ/Thistlethwaite style)

- line (D line or L line)

- CP using <R, U, L, D> (HSC/Morozov/Benek style)

- 3x2x2 block (E edges with <E> move, M edges <M> move)

- 2 pairs (RD pairs)

- CO L4C

- 2 pairs (UL pairs)

- permute all (EP, others)





Spoiler: Lossless Variant 2



- CP (HSC/Morozov/Benek style)

- 3x2x1 block (S edge with <S> move, E edges with <E> move)

- EO (Roux style)

- 3x2x2 block (M edges with <M> move)

- 2 pairs (RD pairs)

- CO L4C

- 2 pairs (UL pairs)

- permute all (EP, others)





Spoiler: Lossless Variant 3



- EO & 2x1x1 (Teoidus 2GR Style)

- CP & 3x1x1 (Teoidus 2GR Style)

- 3x2x1 block (E edges with <E> move)

- 3x2x2 block (M edges with <M> move)

- 2 pairs (RD pairs)

- CO L4C

- 2 pairs (UL pairs)

- permute all (EP, others)





Spoiler: Lossless Variant 4



- EO (ZZ/Thistlethwaite style)

- CP using <R, U, L, D> (HSC/Morozov/Benek style)

- 3x2x1 block (S edge with <S> move, E edges with <E> move)

- 3x2x2 block (M edges with <M> move)

- 2 pairs (RD pairs)

- CO L4C

- 2 pairs (UL pairs)

- permute all (EP, others)








Spoiler: Optimization for Mirror Cube



- 3x2x2 block (Petrus style)

- EO (Petrus style)

- 2 pairs (RD pairs)

- CO L4C

- CP (place the 2 pairs at RD and place the swapped corners at the intersection, then do L U' R' U L', then do U' R to send the 2 pairs back to RD)

- 2 pairs (UL pairs)

- permute all (EP, others)



.
.

*Why This Method*



Spoiler



solving as fast as possible is not my goal, nor winning competitions, rather my main goal is to solve the 3x3x3 cube with more understanding, and rely less on rote memorization (also solving in fun, novel and elegant ways in the meantime)

I prefer methods that require some intuitiveness (or simplified versions of the popular methods), they should be aesthetically pleasing, and should have significantly different step(s) compared to more popular methods

I like my methods to have relatively few (<10) algs with relatively low (<70) move count STM/HTM, the algs should be easy to understand and easy to implement, so shorter and simpler algorithms are preferred (and ergonomic if possible, preferably 2-gen)



rationale behind proposing this method (and similar methods by other proposers):

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ubstep-concept-idea-thread.40975/post-1315558

.
.


```
Ryan Heise said:

Once we have managed to join pieces together to form blocks, we then treat those blocks as single units.
We move them around like they are one piece, and we try not to break them up.

(https://www.ryanheise.com/cube/block_units.html)
```


subHaanakallaahumma wa biHamdika ashhadu an laa ilaaha illaa anta astaghfiruka wa atoobu ilaika


----------



## White KB (May 16, 2019)

Ok that makes sense. I still use CFOP over my new method, and I'm not switching anytime soon...


----------



## efattah (May 17, 2019)

Thom S. said:


> Shiv3r made a Post some time ago (even in this Thread, I think) about having 300 Solves each with Jabari's ZBLLs and EOLR+(His own?)CMLLs and coming to the Conclusion that ZBroux uses 0.3 moves more on average



This may be true, but it neglects the critical factor of what 'gen' those moves are. The MU finish of Roux has a really nice aspect that it is ultra-stable and extremely consistent, fingertrick errors happen very rarely, so reliability is a huge plus, but TPS on MU is poor. ZBRoux uses MU for EO-DF-DB and various different gen algs for the last layer, but if you look at the movecounts listed above, ZBRoux has fewer MU moves (around 10) vs. 15 for regular Roux.
To give a real world example, LMCF can finish (sometimes) with pure-MU L6E if UL/UR are the last unsolved edges, but in the case where UR+FR are unsolved, the LSE algs are RrUM instead of MU, and although it takes 0.5 extra moves to resolve that case (on average), TPS is significantly higher.

In the case of Roux vs. ZBRoux, the two methods are so close I don't think any technical analysis can 'resolve' which is better, it would ultimately take a group of people each devoted to their respected version and many years, to see which comes ahead.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 21, 2019)

*New FMC Method,
Woowy’s Thistlewaite Reduction*
1. EO + CP + HTO 2x2x3
2. 2-Gen HTO Redux
3. Half-Turn-Only Finish

Example Solve-
Scr: B2 D2 U2 L' B2 R' B2 L' F2 D2 L' R' U F' D' U' R F2 U F2
L’ U’ R2 F’ U’ B2 L2 R’ D U2 L’ U L // Step 1 (ew 13 moves)
R’ U’ R2 U R’ U2 R2 U’ R U R U R U' R' U' R2 U’ // Step 2 (lol a U-Perm)
Rw2 R2 U2 Rw2 R2 U2 B2 U2 B2 // Step 3

This example solve is just meant to show you what the steps do. This is more of a proof of concept of Half-Turn-Only/Thustlewaite Reduction, and NOT an example of efficiency, as I didn’t try the same way as I would in a FMC attempt.

To explain 2-Gen HTO Redux a little more, it includes orienting six corners, positioning two corners, and placing seven edges into their correct slices.
- Also, 2-Gen HTO Redux doesn’t have to be 2-gen, obviously if you see a super easy solution that has L or D moves in it then of course use that, but remember, moves that aren’t RU can mess up EO, or even more problematic, CP. The second step doesn’t need you to keep track as many things as with the whole of HTO Reduction, which makes finding solutions so much faster, which is important in FMC (1 hour limit).

Why Half-Turn-Only Reduction instead of just Kociemba Phase 1?
- Half-Turn-Only state is easy to find an optimal or near-optimal solution, unlike Kociemba Phase 2.
On average HTO is 9 HTM away, while Phase 2 is much more, and it’s almost impossible to get optimal or near-optimal results for Kociemba Phase 2.
In the example solve above, it was blinding-ly easy to see an efficient solution (9 HTM). If I tried the scramble more, I could solve the other steps differently to influence/cause the HTO step to be very short, perhaps well under 9.

That’s about it for right now, what are your thoughts on this?


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 21, 2019)

Seems good, but I have no idea how it works, so a bitt more info would be great to allow me and others to test it out!


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 21, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Seems good, but I have no idea how it works, so a bitt more info would be great to allow me and others to test it out!


Really? I thought I explained enough, but ok here’s more:
- The goal of the first two steps is to reduce to a half-turn-only state.
- This method breaks it down into two evenly manageable steps as nicely as possible.
- The first step solves EO and CP and a 2x2x3 block on the left that looks like HTO state. Basically a real EOCP2x2x3 but the block just has to be in HTO instead of solved.
- This causes the second step to be simple enough that you can focus on everything remaining, and 2-gen also makes it more simple (of course you can use other moves to be more efficient but then you’d have to worry about solving/preserving more things).
- In order for half-turn-only to be possible, the edges have to be in their correct slices (MES) and the corners have to be in a specific way (hard to explain). What I mean is if you’ve ever grabbed a 2x2 then you realized even though a diagonal swap has opposite colors on every side, it’s not possible to solve half-turn-only, so to figure out what opposite colors corner states are allowed, do half turns on a 2x2.
- This means that during step 2, you make sure that two corners (just do DRF and DRB) and in the correct position and the other four will always fall into place because CP was “solved” during step 1.
- The point of this method is to make something new never done before that I know has potential in FMC, so if you don’t understand this it’s just because you’ve never seen anything like it.
- I’ll do some FMC example solves of this soon (today? no promises tho) to hopefully show what needs to be shown.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 23, 2019)

TL;DR My last 3 posts on this thread aren't worth much

Woowy's Thistlewaite Reduction FMC Example Solve
Scr: U F' B' U L2 U2 F' D L2 F2 R D2 B2 D2 R F2 L' F2 L B2
(z2 y')
F2 U2 F' D' L2 // EO HTO2x2x2
F2 U' R2 L' U L // ->2x2x3 CP [STEP 1 DONE]
R U2 R U R U'
R2 U' R U2 R' U2
.....
.....
nope

I've concluded that Woowy's Thistlewaite Reduction is not all that great. By doing some testing, I've seen the best way to get yo Half-Turn-Only is most likely Kociemba Phase 1 -> Reduce to HTO. For right now this method should probably be forgotten.

Next method I'm trying to make is a reliable way to do Kociemba Phase 2 efficiently- I want to improve how we do FMC!


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 23, 2019)

Speaking of Kociemba, how can I learn to do conjugates reliably? You were talking about them as useful for CO in Kociemba but I still don’t really understand how to make a setup move so that it will twist certain corners. Is it more of a trial and error thing, or what? I’m confused.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 23, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Speaking of Kociemba, how can I learn to do conjugates reliably? You were talking about them as useful for CO in Kociemba but I still don’t really understand how to make a setup move so that it will twist certain corners. Is it more of a trial and error thing, or what? I’m confused.


I actually don’t use whatever you’re talking about very often because it would add around 7 moves to my Phase 1 solution which is a lot, so really don’t worry about it.
But a similar idea, where you do a setup move to twist 4 corners and move 4 edges is a lot more useful.
- Doing a quarter R move twists 4 corners just like how a quarter F move flips 4 edges.
Example here-
Scr: D2 B2 R2 F' R2 D2 B' D2 F' L' D B2 D F' L2 B R' U'
(z')
U L2 F' U F2 B' // Phase 1 except 4Edges4Corners
L2 F2 D R' // Setup to Single Move, Phase 1 Finish

Sorry if I went off-topic there... so how can you learn to do conjugates reliably? I don't know honestly I'm sorry...


Also I have an idea of how to reliably think about Kociemba Phase 2, but I need to test it before I post, so stay tuned or whatever!
Edit: HTO Reduction might be it...


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 24, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I actually don’t use whatever you’re talking about very often because it would add around 7 moves to my Phase 1 solution which is a lot, so really don’t worry about it.
> But a similar idea, where you do a setup move to twist 4 corners and move 4 edges is a lot more useful.
> - Doing a quarter R move twists 4 corners just like how a quarter F move flips 4 edges.
> Example here-
> ...


Plz just tell me now! I won’t have internet for like 4 days and I’d like to know it before then lol so I can do more FMC


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 24, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Plz just tell me now! I won’t have internet for like 4 days and I’d like to know it before then lol so I can do more FMC


My idea for Phase 2? Well first I need to figure it out if it’s a waste of time or not.
For the meantime, do Half-Turn-Only Reduction, because it’s extremely useful and has even gotten me a 19 and a 20(I got yesterday, it’s also 17stm). HTO Reduction might actually be THE reliable 2-step way of doing Phase 2, only time will tell.
If you want to know more about it, search up Thistlewaite (it’s a computer algorithm that does this) and maybe look in the FMC Thread about it.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (May 24, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> My idea for Phase 2? Well first I need to figure it out if it’s a waste of time or not.
> For the meantime, do Half-Turn-Only Reduction, because it’s extremely useful and has even gotten me a 19 and a 20(I got yesterday, it’s also 17stm). HTO Reduction might actually be THE reliable 2-step way of doing Phase 2, only time will tell.
> If you want to know more about it, search up Thistlewaite (it’s a computer algorithm that does this) and maybe look in the FMC Thread about it. (if you’re interesting in FMC you should probably know of that thread)


I have multiple posts in the FMC thread.

Oh, and also, could you explain your HTO redux method a bit more? I don’t understand what CP means or how to do it, and how do I make and HTO 2x2x3? I’ll search up Thistlethwaite.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 25, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I have multiple posts in the FMC thread.


Sorry about that. I guess didn’t recognize you :/ (profile pic change?).


ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Oh, and also, could you explain your HTO redux method a bit more? I don’t understand what CP means or how to do it, and how do I make and HTO 2x2x3? I’ll search up Thistlethwaite.


I’d think I’ve explained a lot, but here we go-
My HTO Reduction method (I named it Woowy’s Thistlewaite Reduction lol) is not particularly useful right now, so you could honestly forget about it you wanted to.

Anyway, CP stands for Corner Permutation (just like CO or EP or EO), but in this case you’re not actually solving the permutation of the corners (in some other methods you don’t as well), in this you’re placing the corners such that it can be reduced to half-turn-only state using only R and U moves. Yeah. How? One way is to pray for a skip, it’s a 1/6 chance. Of course that’s not the only way

For the HTO 2x2x3 part, it’s like a real 2x2x3 except it can just be opposite colors there. Think of a real 2x2x3 as a 2x2x3 section of a solved cube, then think of an HTO 2x2x3 as a 2x2x3 section of a half-turn-only state. Or it’s just opposite colors in this case, but know that doesn’t quite hold true for the whole. As for how to do it, you just match up blocks, that’s kind of it (not much to explain really).

~New method idea~
"Woowy's R U F Redux"
Steps of this method:
Reduce to [R,U,F] = 2x2x2 Block
Reduce to [R,U,F2] = Edge Orientation
Reduce to [R2,U,F2] = Domino Reduction
Reduce to [R2,U2,F2] = Half-Turn-Only Reduction
Reduce to [] (solved) = HTO Finish


Spoiler: Example Solve + Li'l talk about it



Scr: L2 D2 R2 F2 U' L2 D' L2 U' F2 D2 B R2 B' L U' F' L B' D'
R U L U' B D' //
U F2 R' F //
R2 U' R2 L' U L U' R //
U2 F2 U R2 U2 R2 U' F2 U' F2 U' //
R2 F2 R2 U2 R2 //
34 HTM
Spent like no time looking for this, maybe this is the way to get <40 FMC with minimal effort?
(for FMC): 2x2x2 ~5 , EO ~5 , DR ~8 , HTOR ~10 , Finish ~7 = ~35 moves
Is this good for speedsolving? NO, but I did make a speedsolving method in the past that is EXTREMELY similar to this, called 2OP https://bit.ly/2JFZdDx


----------



## presley (May 25, 2019)

I developed a similar method from the method I posted before.
But I only wrote the Tradition Chinese version article of the new developing method.
Temporarily call it PRUM method and use the idea of mirror reflection.

The step of new developing method are
Step 1, build 2 pairs.
Step 2, retain 2 pairs and into <R, U>.
Step 3, build the 3rd pair.
Step 4, build the 4th pair.
Step 5, extend one pair to 2x2x1 block then end game.

The detail I wrote it on the below website
https://presleygit.github.io/

I also made some video to explain this method roughly
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgMFuE1ngI-fP2qOoEUjR_A3rtH0-5Bsg

Hope you like it.


----------



## Etotheipi (May 26, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Sorry about that. I guess didn’t recognize you :/ (profile pic change?).
> 
> I’d think I’ve explained a lot, but here we go-
> My HTO Reduction method (I named it Woowy’s Thistlewaite Reduction lol) is not particularly useful right now, so you could honestly forget about it you wanted to.
> ...


I dont do FMC at all, but i tried this anyway, but i really struggled with the HTOR, could you give me some pointers?


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 26, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> I dont do FMC at all, but i tried this anyway, but i really struggled with the HTOR, could you give me some pointers?


Which method? I'll assume my R U F Redux method for now. Just know that it's not very useful for speedsolving, and I've made a speedsolving method with very similar steps called 2OP.
-Half-Turn-Only Reduction is definitely the hardest step, so don’t worry if you can’t do it. Let’s start with a 2x2 cube. Apply only half turns on it to familiarize yourself with all the possible corner patterns. Notice that its does not simply mean opposite colors on all faces (but that is a requirement to be HTO possible). To be HTO possible, there has to be four identical looking pairs (I sometimes call it quadruplets but I'm not sure if that makes any sense). They all have the same pattern. If there are three "opposite" pairs and one "solved" pair then it's not HTO possible, if there are four "opposite" pairs then it is.
-Now practice on a 2x2. Solve CO, then do Half-Turn-Only Reduction. Then move it over to this 3x3 method step HTOR, and ignore edges for now. Once you get the hang of that, then you can worry about edges.
-Edges are simpler, if it’s opposite colors, it’s reduced to HTO. If they're in their correct slices (and oriented), they're HTO possible. So the WG-edge for example, could be in four spots, solved, UB, DB, and DF.
-You can practice more by doing a R2 U F2 scramble, then just fix the edges. Then scramble it and just fix the corners. Then scramble and try to fix both. It’ll probably be too hard (it’s okay) so to do this in smaller steps, mix it up with R2 U2 F2 moves and then do like 3 moves to mess up HTOR and try to understand how to reverse it, Example: R2 U2 R2 F2 U’ R2 U HTOR: U’ R2 U, and see how it works, and maybe increase the moves to 5 or 6 once you totally understand everything so far.
This idea of starting with just a few moves away and working your way up is actually a practice technique applicable to more than just this.
I have no idea if you need all that, but good luck!


----------



## Etotheipi (May 27, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Which method? I'll assume my R U F Redux method for now. Just know that it's not very useful for speedsolving, and I've made a speedsolving method with very similar steps called 2OP.
> -Half-Turn-Only Reduction is definitely the hardest step, so don’t worry if you can’t do it. Let’s start with a 2x2 cube. Apply only half turns on it to familiarize yourself with all the possible corner patterns. Notice that its does not simply mean opposite colors on all faces (but that is a requirement to be HTO possible). To be HTO possible, there has to be four identical looking pairs (I sometimes call it quadruplets but I'm not sure if that makes any sense). They all have the same pattern. If there are three "opposite" pairs and one "solved" pair then it's not HTO possible, if there are four "opposite" pairs then it is.
> -Now practice on a 2x2. Solve CO, then do Half-Turn-Only Reduction. Then move it over to this 3x3 method step HTOR, and ignore edges for now. Once you get the hang of that, then you can worry about edges.
> -Edges are simpler, if it’s opposite colors, it’s reduced to HTO. If they're in their correct slices (and oriented), they're HTO possible. So the WG-edge for example, could be in four spots, solved, UB, DB, and DF.
> ...


Thanks! I'll practice this a bit.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 27, 2019)

*New Skewb Method - Sky Method*

1. Build a TriBlock at UB (avg ~5? moves)
2. Centers + Corner Permutation (5 algs, intuitive, avg. 6 moves)
3. Orient Last 4 Corners (5 algorithms)

The goal of this method is to try to utilize the R' L R L' trigger, similar to how Sarah's method utilizes the Sledgehammer. I will name R' L R L' Sky move and L R' L' R A-Sky, unless there is already a name for this, then please tell me. I personally think that Sky move is exactly as fast as sledgehammer, and sometimes faster, because you have to do a little regrip before every sledge, but that is not the case with Sky. To prove my point with real life testing (more ppl should do this!), I can do triple Sky in 1.10 seconds but triple Sledge is 1.80 at best. I'm not sure why there hasn't been a method made around this move, probably because it doesn't preserve a layer/face like Sledgehammer and everyone's biased towards faces (not a joke).

Another goal of this method is to have a low alg count, which it does at only 10, but also can also become faster by combing steps/adding algsets (see advanced).

For this post, scrambles are in WCA notation while everything else, solutions and algorithms, are in rubikskewb notation (unless otherwise stated).
***However*, *z and z' rotations will be around DF/UB corners instead.
Sky = r' l r l' A-Sky = l r' l' r

*Algorithms and Example Solves*
~Algorithms~
_If you ever don’t know how to hold the cube before you start it, apply inverse of algorithm to see._
Centers + CP Cases:
CP Only= Sky Sky Sky
C Only, CW= A-Sky A-Sky
C Only, CCW= Sky Sky
CP+CW C= Sky
CP+CCW C= A-Sky
1.5 Sky’s on avg for CP+Centers (incl solved+prob)
CO Cases:
Peanut= r' B' r b' r' B r B' b B -or- (z***) Sky Sky z A-Sky A-Sky
Sune= (z') A-Sky z A-Sky z A-Sky
A-Sune= (z) Sky z' Sky z' Sky
4-Twist, middle CW= F l' B' F' l' F r F' B l' r' -or- Sky alg?
4-Twist, middle CCW= B' l' r F' l' B r' F r l' r' -or- Sky alg?
Algorithms on a sheet w/pictures(yay!) can be found here.
I will try to improve the algorithms over time.
- It is possible to have *every algorithm* (even all of L7P) to be *Sky/A-Sky combos*, I just haven't figured them out yet.

So the 4-twist algs are currently the equivalent of bad NS algs from Sarah's....

~Example Solves~
Scramble: L' R B' R' U L B' R'
(y)
r' F L' f' L' (y') r' // TriBlock
Sky Sky Sky // C+CP
(z) r' B' r b' r' B r B' b B // Peanut

Scramble: R' U R U R' U B' L' U
(y x y')
f' r F' // TriBlock
A-sky z2^ Sky Sky Sky // L7P
3 normal moves + 16 moves in sky triggers = 19
(^rubikskewb z2)
This is kind of?(not rly) an example of why Sky is as good as Sarah's

More example solves coming soon

A random tip for building your TriBlock is to think about it as 3 center/corner pairs that you join together, OR just focus on 2/3 of it then think of the last pair. Thinking about it as 3 centers around 1 corner -> Expand won't work, because the other corners that part of the full TriBlock will be always be twisted, due to the nature of Skewb corner tetrads.

*Variations*
If you think building a full TriBlock is too difficult, then you might like Twisty Sky:
1. TriBlock minus 1 corner
2. Fix corner + CP (7 algs)
3. Centers + Orient L4C (~30 algs)
Was thinking on 2) Fix corner + centers 3) Last 4 Corners, but I think it's worse.
Combining the 2nd and 3rd steps of Sky to make a 2-step method is Advanced Sky Method:
1. TriBlock, same as normal
2. L7P (~90 cases)
Still easier to learn than Sarah’s advanced, because they are both a both series of Sledge/Sky triggers, but this is 90 vs. 130 cases.
I will have an algsheet here for all L7P cases.
- Just realize I purposefully split L7P into 2 parts for the Normal Sky Method in the most even (+best?) way possible, it’s only 10 algs. Any other 2-step way either has 30+ algs or weird recog.

I should add a explanation/tutorial video soon, but can't promise anything right now- (video link once I do it)

Also I should actually TEST IF THIS IDEA IS GOOD before throwing it out there? I know, I know, it can be annoying to just have someone post a stupid 3x3 method idea they came up with in 1 minute that has zero potential or usefulness, but I think this is different.

I believe this will be quite revolutionary to Skewb solving, what are your thoughts?


----------



## DesertWolf (Jun 2, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> *New Skewb Method - Sky Method*
> 
> 1. Build a TriBlock at UB (avg ~5? moves)
> 
> I believe this will be quite revolutionary to Skewb solving, what are your thoughts?


I can't fully understand the TriBlock. What exactly are we creating?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 2, 2019)

DesertWolf said:


> I can't fully understand the TriBlock. What exactly are we creating?


Read more than the first two lines and you’ll easily figure it out.
Just to tell you, its the block that is preserved when you apply the Sky move, r’ l r l’.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 2, 2019)

i'm impressed at your ability to find new ways to solve cubes


----------



## DesertWolf (Jun 2, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Read more than the first two lines and you’ll easily figure it out.
> 
> It’s the block that is preserved when you apply the Sky move, r’ l r l’.


I see it now. Like on the second example solve i must've done a mistake cause i couldn't seem to get it. Also yes i went through more then the first two lines. anyway now that i have a better grasp of the method here's my opinion (doesn't have to be correct, it's an opinion): The biggest issue i see with it is recognition. Not to say it's bad but it's not as good as Sarah's advanced IMO. The way the TriBlock is built would be the reason. Obviously with the advanced version that is effectively fixed as one looking then becomes an option. Before i talk though about the advanced version i'll just say that i definitely see potential for the method and i think it can bring someone to very good times with low alg counts which is always good hehe. Now obviously if someone would want to be world class then advanced would be required. The question is how does it compare to Sarah's advanced? What worries me mainly are some of the algs. Yes doing a Sky alg is fast but the way some of them combine can be quite weird (taking those with more than 1/2 (if you include initial rotation) rotation as an example) . Also those that arn't solvable with a combination of sky's we'd have to wait and see how good that alg would compare to the current as some i feel arn't as good ergonomically as some of the non sledge and hedge sarah's advanced cases. Finally, it's a method definitely worth exploring but no real judgement which isn't only based on opinions can be made till someone actually goes through and starts actively practicing the method.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 2, 2019)

DesertWolf said:


> I see it now. Like on the second example solve i must've done a mistake cause i couldn't seem to get it. Also yes i went through more then the first two lines. anyway now that i have a better grasp of the method here's my opinion (doesn't have to be correct, it's an opinion): The biggest issue i see with it is recognition. Not to say it's bad but it's not as good as Sarah's advanced IMO. The way the TriBlock is built would be the reason. Obviously with the advanced version that is effectively fixed as one looking then becomes an option. Before i talk though about the advanced version i'll just say that i definitely see potential for the method and i think it can bring someone to very good times with low alg counts which is always good hehe. Now obviously if someone would want to be world class then advanced would be required. The question is how does it compare to Sarah's advanced? What worries me mainly are some of the algs. Yes doing a Sky alg is fast but the way some of them combine can be quite weird (taking those with more than 1/2 (if you include initial rotation) rotation as an example) . Also those that arn't solvable with a combination of sky's we'd have to wait and see how good that alg would compare to the current as some i feel arn't as good ergonomically as some of the non sledge and hedge sarah's advanced cases. Finally, it's a method definitely worth exploring but no real judgement which isn't only based on opinions can be made till someone actually goes through and starts actively practicing the method.


Thanks for your feedback! I appreciate that you actually look into it consider it and give me constructive criticism, unlike some people.
I do agree with you that Sarah’s still has an edge over Sky, so I don’t think this method will become very popular.

At this current moment it’s hard to tell how good it is, and yeah, I probably should’ve made more L7P algorithms and more example solves before posting that, once I work on this method more and do a bunch of test solves I’ll give you an update.


----------



## Cogman09 (Jun 3, 2019)

I have an idea for a new method and need feedback

Steps:
Cross
F2l-1
Orient edges
insert last f2l pair and solve Oll with one algorithm (the corner and edge do not need to be paired up)
Pll

would this be somewhat viable?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 3, 2019)

1) This belongs in New Method / Idea Thread
2) This is literally Winter Variation (Edit: ZZ-C OLS)
Winter variation is a useful set, don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely viable, it’s just not a new idea :/
Edit: Wait I’m sorry! You said it doesn’t have to be paired up, which would be ZZ-C OLS which has around 500 algorithms.
Just by the way, last slot methods have been explored and are now basically wrung dry, but know that there are plenty of other kinds of ideas that the “rag is still full”!


----------



## Hazel (Jun 3, 2019)

At this point, virtually every last slot+last layer method has been proposed and has either been turned into an alg set or deemed inviable. What you proposed is just using after the first 3 slots to force a Winter Variation case, which is slower than just inserting the slot and doing OLL regularly. Don't let this stop you from striving to look for new, good methods though


----------



## dudefaceguy (Jun 3, 2019)

Anybody here know of alternative 2-look CMLL methods? I've refined the permutation-first Petrus variant that I posted a few weeks ago. Here's a new flowchart:


https://imgur.com/a/1O19Ytb


I can't find anything else besides orient-first methods that use 9 algorithms. I don't care if the other methods are good or fast - I just want to know if they exist because I'm a nerd.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 3, 2019)

dudefaceguy said:


> Anybody here know of alternative 2-look CMLL methods? I've refined the permutation-first Petrus variant that I posted a few weeks ago. Here's a new flowchart:
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/1O19Ytb
> ...


2-look CMLL methods include:
-Orient -> Permute (9 algs), most popular and by far the fastest
-Permute -> Orient (9 algs), using R’ D’ R D instead of algs makes a nice beginner method
-?????
-None other?
-I could think of one like Two Corners -> Other Two Corners (~5-10 algs) but it probably has no use

There’s a lot less options for 2-look CMLL, then say, L5Corners ( CMLL + last slot corner), which you can easily manipulate pieces with R U R’ or stuff like that.
So basically orient-permute and permute-orient are your only options for 2-look CMLL, sadly


----------



## Imam Alam (Jun 8, 2019)

dudefaceguy said:


> Anybody here know of alternative 2-look CMLL methods?
> 
> (stuff)
> 
> I don't care if the other methods are good or fast - I just want to know if they exist because I'm a nerd.





WoowyBaby said:


> (stuff)
> 
> So basically orient-permute and permute-orient are your only options for 2-look CMLL, sadly



or maybe you can solve corners directly?

- with a repeated trigger and its mirror and inverse (8355 style), although this is not very efficient

- with two corner 3-cycles (Heise style), but this may have parity since edges are not solved yet *(could someone please confirm this parity? does it require something like an N-perm in some cases as I suspect?)*


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 10, 2019)

I came up with a new last layer subset. In it you orient the edges and permute the corners with one alg. I call it KALL. In a solve you get F2L -1, Winter Variation, KALL, and EPLL. It is similar to COLL, but it only has 15 algs compared to COLL’s 42. I might use it in my speedsolves as an alternative to OLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. I hope that some of you will find this subset useful


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 10, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I came up with a new last layer subset. In it you orient the edges and permute the corners with one alg. I call it KALL. In a solve you get F2L -1, Winter Variation, KALL, and EPLL. It is similar to COLL, but it only has 15 algs compared to COLL’s 42. I might use it in my speedsolves as an alternative to OLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. I hope that some of you will find this subset useful


The main problem I see with this is that it’s redundant. WV usually is used when your edges are already all oriented, and you do EO after WV. Why don’t you just do EOF2L-1, COLL, and EPLL? That’s 3 steps compared to your 2 steps, and honestly not too many more algs once you factor in WV (27 algs). Well, you might say, hey, why don’t I just mix WV and KALL together? Well that’s called OLLCP, and it’s kinda useful, but not quite as good I think for recog as ZBLL (correct me if I’m wrong). Decent idea, and although it is fewer algs to learn, I don’t think it’s faster and COLLs tend to be really fast anyway.

Oh right. I use roux. Why am I even arguing?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 10, 2019)

Faster than CFOP method:

1. 2x2x2 Block
2. Finish Cross
3. Last Three F2L Pairs
4. Normal OLL + PLL
(If you really want the quickest CFOP variant you'd end with ZBLS & ZBLL but it's a lot of effort to learn and maintain so that's why many people don't)

I have literally proven this to be better with real solves*. You might be able to say this is worse in theory, but not in practice.

- Lookahead is easier because pieces aren't trapped in the back, you can literally see every piece when 2x2x2 is solved.
- Average movecount is lower, 2x2x2 is 6 and Finish Cross is 5, (11 total), while Cross is 6.5? and 1st Pair is 7? (13.5 total) although I'm not sure so don't call me disingenuous or whatever.
- Ergonomics are arguably the same.
- Lookahead is doubley ahead because Finish Cross doesn't use that much brainpower meaning you can really see what your next pair will be.
- Transitioning to this / Learning this is pretty easy because only the beginning differs from normal CFOP, just practice building 2x2 Blocks and you'll be good.

If you can already plan Cross + 1 in inspection then this might not really benefit you, and doing this every single time might not be smart so "only" do it most of the time. *If you have difficult blocks or an easy cross, do normal CFOP.

Example, Scramble: U2 B2 D2 U R2 D F2 R2 F2 L' U2 B' U' B2 F' U R' F L'
(x2)
U' F L2 F2 L // 2x2x2 Block (5 moves)
R2 F' U' F2 R2 // Finish Cross (5 moves)
D R' U' R D' // Pair
U' L' U2 L R' U' R // Pair
F U F' // Pair
R2 D R' U R D' R2 F' U F R U' R' // LL
- Rotationless and still awesome

Try it out! What is your experience with this?


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 10, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Faster than CFOP method:
> 
> 1. 2x2x2 Block
> 2. Finish Cross
> ...


I’m sure it’s faster, and I will do a few solves, but come on Woowy Baby! That’s normal stuff! We expect more from you! At least have like an EO2x2x2 in there somewhere lol (JK about all this)

But no seriously this looks pretty cool. Some ideas from my method tinkering mind: 2x2x2 in the back left, then EO (you could mix the first two), then finish cross (you could also mix steps 2 and 3), then f2l, then ll with cross solved.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jun 10, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Faster than CFOP method:
> 
> 1. 2x2x2 Block
> 2. Finish Cross
> ...


The problem I see with this is that it's literally just forcing XCross. If there is a nice case for this, an advanced CFOP solver will use it, but if there's not, they won't. I imagine that in the cases that it's not nice, regular CFOP would be faster, and an advanced CFOP solver will solve it as such.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 10, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> The problem I see with this is that it's literally just forcing XCross. If there is a nice case for this, an advanced CFOP solver will use it, but if there's not, they won't. I imagine that in the cases that it's not nice, regular CFOP would be faster, and an advanced CFOP solver will solve it as such.


Right right. I said in my post to only use it most of time, because of course, if you have an easy cross or difficult blocks then use standard CFOP.
My conclusion is people should be neutral-ish between this start and normal CFOP.

On a side note, this also reminds me of Jayden McNeill’s video on Option Select, and it’s not smart to do the same thing all the time, so he said doing ZBLS&ZBLL is the best as your primary system of LSLL (aka it is the fastest single method) but if you have an easy case from another set you’d want to know that too

“Just forcing XCross”? False, lookahead differs. 


ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I’m sure it’s faster, and I will do a few solves, but come on Woowy Baby! That’s normal stuff! We expect more from you! At least have like an EO2x2x2 in there somewhere lol (JK about all this)
> 
> But no seriously this looks pretty cool. Some ideas from my method tinkering mind: 2x2x2 in the back left, then EO (you could mix the first two), then finish cross (you could also mix steps 2 and 3), then f2l, then ll with cross solved.


Yes EO2x2x2 how could I forget xD

I’ll think about it!
2x2x2, EOCross, 3 F2L Pairs, LL. Ok.
My thoughts are that EO recognition is too slow, so this could only be faster if you predict atleast some of your EO in inspection, BUT, I will test this out before putting your idea down, because F2L w/ EO is in fact slightly better and the option of doing ZBLL for 1 look last layer is much better than 2LLL. Of course I don’t know full ZBLL and I might not know the tricks you can do with EO-done F2L, but I’ll get back to you after I test this a little, I do think it has potentional!


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 10, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> The main problem I see with this is that it’s redundant. WV usually is used when your edges are already all oriented, and you do EO after WV. Why don’t you just do EOF2L-1, COLL, and EPLL? That’s 3 steps compared to your 2 steps, and honestly not too many more algs once you factor in WV (27 algs). Well, you might say, hey, why don’t I just mix WV and KALL together? Well that’s called OLLCP, and it’s kinda useful, but not quite as good I think for recog as ZBLL (correct me if I’m wrong). Decent idea, and although it is fewer algs to learn, I don’t think it’s faster and COLLs tend to be really fast anyway.
> 
> Oh right. I use roux. Why am I even arguing?


I created this method as a fewer algorithm easy to learn last layer subset. WV is really easy to learn; you can learn it in a day. If you still don’t want to learn WV, than you can do CO after F2L. KALL is easy to recognize; I think easier than COLL. I have experience with COLL, because I used it for a long time. I think your idea about EOF2L is good, but EO recognition is deadly(I used to use ZZ). You might be able to use this in Roux as a subset of CMLLEO(I know Kian doesn’t like it). Btw, 5 of the 15 algs you probably already know - Jb perm, Y perm, OLL 20, OLL 28, and OLL 57, so 10 algs for a ll subset is pretty low. Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 10, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I came up with a new last layer subset. In it you orient the edges and permute the corners with one alg. I call it KALL. In a solve you get F2L -1, Winter Variation, KALL, and EPLL. It is similar to COLL, but it only has 15 algs compared to COLL’s 42. I might use it in my speedsolves as an alternative to OLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL. I hope that some of you will find this subset useful


The biggest problem with this: it's bad. If you wanna do it from every slot, it is 27*4=108 algs for just WV alone, and the algs for WV aren't great for even FR. You also do 4 looks: make the pair, insert the pair+WV, KALL, EPLL compared to 3 for solve pair, OLL, PLL, which is also less algs for slot neutrality. I just don't see how this is worth it. Yeah, if you skip CO, this is probably worth it, but otherwise don't main it. If you really want a low alg count 2 look last layer, ZZ-R is the lowest by far without something complex (such as CP).



WoowyBaby said:


> Faster than CFOP method:
> 
> 1. 2x2x2 Block
> 2. Finish Cross
> ...


This is literally CFOP with XCross. So yes, it's good, but not new. And on the 2x2x2 then EO thing, that is also a thing that people are working on (although it's more EOCross/EOLine/EOArrow(3/4Cross) +1 pair.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 10, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> The biggest problem with this: it's bad. If you wanna do it from every slot, it is 27*4=108 algs for just WV alone, and the algs for WV aren't great for even FR. You also do 4 looks: make the pair, insert the pair+WV, KALL, EPLL compared to 3 for solve pair, OLL, PLL, which is also less algs for slot neutrality. I just don't see how this is worth it. Yeah, if you skip CO, this is probably worth it, but otherwise don't main it. If you really want a low alg count 2 look last layer, ZZ-R is the lowest by far without something complex (such as CP).
> 
> 
> This is literally CFOP with XCross. So yes, it's good, but not new. And on the 2x2x2 then EO thing, that is also a thing that people are working on (although it's more EOCross/EOLine/EOArrow(3/4Cross) +1 pair.


Yeah, I’m not surprised that it’s not new. I just hadn’t heard of it before, so I thought I’d propose it.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jun 11, 2019)

Skewb Method: Zim Method

1. Ranzha Block
2. Another Ranzha Block adjacently next to the 1st ranzha block
3. Align all centers correctly by 1 move.
4. (You can be lucky or unlucky.)
4a. Pure CLL (lucky)
4b. Permute all corners (idk algs)
5b. Orient all corners (idk algs)

or

1. Two Ranzha blocks opposite of each other
2. Last Layer


Skewb Method: Anti-Ranzha

1. Anti-Ranzha Block (Same as Ranzha block, but one of the center is the opposite color.)
2. Welder's Mask (to finish first layer)
3. Last Layer (Mostly 2-3 sledges)


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 11, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Well, you might say, hey, why don’t I just mix WV and KALL together? Well that’s called OLLCP, and it’s kinda useful, but not quite as good I think for recognition as ZBLL (correct me if I’m wrong).


WV is while inserting the last slot, so it would not be OLLCP. It is a good idea, but it probably has a lot of cases to learn. It could be a good alternative to ZBLS/ZBLL, though.



PapaSmurf said:


> The biggest problem with this: it's bad. If you wanna do it from every slot, it is 27*4=108 algs for just WV alone, and the algs for WV aren't great for even FR. You also do 4 looks: make the pair, insert the pair+WV, KALL, EPLL compared to 3 for solve pair, OLL, PLL, which is also less algs for slot neutrality. I just don't see how this is worth it. Yeah, if you skip CO, this is probably worth it, but otherwise don't main it. If you really want a low alg count 2 look last layer, ZZ-R is the lowest by far without something complex (such as CP).


This is not meant as a main method. It is meant to give you more options for your last layer. Also, coll has 4 looks; solve pair, VHLS, COLL, EPLL. You could do ZBLS, but couldn’t you do the same thing but orienting the corners instead? I understand this method is suboptimal for some cases, and I’m not saying to use this instead of OLL/COLL; I’m just proposing a low alg count subset. 7 of the algs are Y/J perm with a setup move/s. They are easy to learn, and fast to execute.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 11, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> WV is while inserting the last slot, so it would not be OLLCP. It is a good idea, but it probably has a lot of cases to learn. It could be a good alternative to ZBLS/ZBLL, though.


My apologies about that, but still, KALL just seems unnecessary. Why would you learn that when you can learn COLL and not only have a better and more useful algset under your belt, but also have something that can be transferred over to say, 2x2 (and yes, I know some COLLs are crap for 2x2, but it still can be used, while KALL would not be useful). COLLs can be quite fast, and personally, while I think KALL has some potential, you would get yourself into a rut, being lazy about learning something like COLL because you have something that is kind of a replacement for it.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 12, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> This is not meant as a main method. It is meant to give you more options for your last layer. Also, coll has 4 looks; solve pair, VHLS, COLL, EPLL. You could do ZBLS, but couldn’t you do the same thing but orienting the corners instead? I understand this method is suboptimal for some cases, and I’m not saying to use this instead of OLL/COLL; I’m just proposing a low alg count subset. 7 of the algs are Y/J perm with a setup move/s. They are easy to learn, and fast to execute.


When I say COLL, I mean the every 1/8 times it comes up. And there are better ways for a 4 look lsll: last slot, 2 look OLL, PLL, which is 31 algorithms and slot neutral.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Jun 12, 2019)

You may wonder what LRBW stands for. Well it stands for:

Like Roux, But Worse

Because that's what this method is. It's like roux, but worse.

Steps:
1. Solve a "4" shape. Like this:





2. Solve the E slice.
3. Solve the last slot.
4. CMLL.
5. LSE.


----------



## Skewbed (Jun 12, 2019)

I've thought about this before, it is pretty similar to hexagonal francisco.

I guess it should be called octagonal francisco due to the shape.

Could be better than Roux, it allows for different ways to solve corners after E slice: Commutators maybe.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Jun 12, 2019)

Skewbed said:


> it is pretty similar to hexagonal francisco.


That's where I got the idea, I saw hexagonal francisco and I thought "maybe this could be less of a meme if we removed the DB edge and did LSE instead


----------



## dudefaceguy (Jun 16, 2019)

Imam Alam said:


> or maybe you can solve corners directly?
> 
> - with a repeated trigger and its mirror and inverse (8355 style), although this is not very efficient
> 
> - with two corner 3-cycles (Heise style), but this may have parity since edges are not solved yet *(could someone please confirm this parity? does it require something like an N-perm in some cases as I suspect?)*


I came up with a commutator-only CMLL method that I describe in my 4x4 method here: 
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/intuitive-4x4-method-with-parity-avoidance.73049/

It includes an explanation and solution for odd corner parity.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 19, 2019)

Is there a 2x2 method in which you solve a face while doing OLL, and than do PBL? If so please tell me. Thank you


----------



## efattah (Jun 19, 2019)

The Gan 356i smart cube has great potential in rapidly examining move counts in speed solves vs. slower solves, but at the moment the device is hindered by very poor software that can't detect or calculate M/M2 moves correctly. Once they fix the software it will be an awesome tool in the arsenal for new method development. Reconstructing solves manually is very time consuming, and how many times have we asked such questions as what has lower moves, Roux or ZBRoux? If top cubers had 356i cubes with proper software, the questions would already be answered.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 19, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Is there a 2x2 method in which you solve a face while doing OLL, and than do PBL? If so please tell me. Thank you


Well for Ortega, you make a face, then do OLL, then do PBL, but you're asking for a method that you make two opposite faces simultaneously?
Sorry to say, but nothing like that exists. The only closest thing that kind of? does that is Guimond.

In Guimond if you predict your seperation then you can get two opposite faces in ~7 moves, one-looked in inspection, and then you end your solve with PBL. Although this probably isn't exactly what you're thinking.

Here's some examples of doing both faces at once then ending with PBL-

Scramble: F U R' F2 U R' F' R' U2
(x y)
R' U' R U2 R' U2 R2 // Both Faces
D' R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 // PBL

Scramble: F' U' R' F R' U R U' R
(y2)
U R' U R' // Both Faces
D' L D' L F2 L' D L' // PBL

Is this the general idea you have? I'm still not quite sure.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 19, 2019)

What about solving a flipped f2l pair and then fixing it during OLL?

U F' U2 L' B L2 // CROSS
U R U' R' U2 R' U R // P1
U2 R U' R' // P2
U' L U L' U2 y' // P3
R U R' L' U2 L U' L' U' L // P4
d2 U2 R2 U R U' R2 U R F R F' R' // OLL2F
L' U' L F L' U' L U L F' L2 U L // PLL

Or PLL + 2flip?

z2 B2 L U F' U L // CROSS
U' L' U2 L U' L' U L // P1
U R U' R' L U2 L' // P2
R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 // P3+P4
r U R' U' M U R U' R' // OLL
U L D2 B' D B D2 F R2 F R D' F2 L' // PLL2F


----------



## Wish Lin (Jun 20, 2019)

How about a NS 2.0 Alg set with one corner in the bottom twisted? Kind of like 2x2’s TCLL set.


----------



## efattah (Jun 20, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> How about a NS 2.0 Alg set with one corner in the bottom twisted? Kind of like 2x2’s TCLL set.



These suggestions are vaguely similar to what I proposed a long time ago for Roux solvers to solve the FR pair with the edge flipped then use Waterman Set 3 to finish L6E which will flip the edge during L6E.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 20, 2019)

whats is ns 2.0?


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 20, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Is there a 2x2 method in which you solve a face while doing OLL, and than do PBL? If so please tell me. Thank you


 Kind of. It’s called HD


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 20, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Well for Ortega, you make a face, then do OLL, then do PBL, but you're asking for a method that you make two opposite faces simultaneously?
> Sorry to say, but nothing like that exists. The only closest thing that kind of? does that is Guimond.
> 
> In Guimond if you predict your seperation then you can get two opposite faces in ~7 moves, one-looked in inspection, and then you end your solve with PBL. Although this probably isn't exactly what you're thinking.
> ...


Yay!!
I just wanted to make sure this method was new before claiming it as my own. I will call it KFF, FF being first face. In it you simultaneously orient the corners and solve the first face, than you do PBL. BTW, that was what I meant.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 20, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Kind of. It’s called HD


In HD, you solve 3/4 of a face, orient the corners, and than permute everything(different from PBL.)


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 20, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Yay!!
> I just wanted to make sure this method was new before claiming it as my own. I will call it KFF, FF being first face. In it you simultaneously orient the corners and solve the first face, than you do PBL. BTW, that was what I meant.


Whoa there, not so fast. How are you getting to the oriented corners stage and solve the first face? Both of those things together are pretty much impossible to do intuitively. If you’re going to post something to the thread, you should at least do a few example solves for yourself to make sure it works, provide in depth details for how to solve with the method on your post, and probably include an example solve or two.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 20, 2019)

Example Solves For KFF

Scramble: U’ R F U’ F2 R’ U F’
KFF: x’ z’ R U R2 U’ R2 U2 R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 U2 R
PBL: U R2 U’ B2 U2 R2 U R2 U2

Scramble: R F2 R’ F’ R’ U R2 F2 R’ U’
KFF: R’ U’ R2 U R’ U’ R’ F R F’
PBL: D’ R’ U R’ F’ R U R’ U’ R’ F R2 U’ R’ U’ R2


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jun 20, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Example Solves For KFF
> 
> Scramble: U’ R F U’ F2 R’ U F’
> KFF: x’ z’ R U R2 U’ R2 U2 R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 U2 R
> ...


It’s certainly an interesting idea, but it’s really just Ortega with two intuitive faces, something that would at least be hard for me to inspect in 15 seconds. I like that there is a skipped step, but it doesn’t seem as efficient as CLL+ or HD-G (in the 12-15 move range) so if you were trying to go for world class times with this method I’m not sure it’d work.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jun 20, 2019)

Just curious, is there any documentation on skewb tcll? I've been thinking about it for a while and know a couple full TCLL algs and made and intermediate version that orients the twisted corner and puts the correct center on the U face.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 23, 2019)

efattah said:


> The Gan 356i smart cube has great potential in rapidly examining move counts in speed solves vs. slower solves, but at the moment the device is hindered by very poor software that can't detect or calculate M/M2 moves correctly. Once they fix the software it will be an awesome tool in the arsenal for new method development. Reconstructing solves manually is very time consuming, and how many times have we asked such questions as what has lower moves, Roux or ZBRoux? If top cubers had 356i cubes with proper software, the questions would already be answered.


The thing with ZBRoux is that by all accounts it is equal to Roux, just with so much more effort. You need to learn 493 algs and learn ZBLL recog and from multiple angles. Even when that is mastered, someone doing Roux could optimise in so many other ways.
TL;DR, ZBRoux isn't worth it, so we don't need software to help us answer these questions. Although the features are nice, that is very true.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jun 24, 2019)

An interesting ZZ variant I recently came up with: After F2L-1, orient last five corners. Then you are left with PLL + one F2L pair.

OL5C (Orientation of Last 5 Corners) only has 23 cases (same as CLS when the corner is inserted). The algs can all be 2-gen and it's similar to TSLE with handpicked good cases. Some are from WV, others are insertions cancelling into backsune, etc.

PLL+FR has 453 cases as far as I've calculated, but this includes PLL. It also includes TTLL. Recognition would be by recognizing CP, then recognizing the F2L case, and finally looking at 2 edges similar to ZBLL (but the two edges are always by an oriented corner).

This method is essentially an extension of ZZ-CT by simplifying TSLE and expanding TTLL. This allows for a faster orientation step and a similar permutation step with more cases. It has the same number of looks as ZBLL, but with easier recognition. However, its downfall is that it is not slot neutral. While decreasing F2L efficiency, this also means either FR or BL should be left open, because using FL or BR would require mirroring algs.

For now, I've genned algs for a 2-look permutation step: first the F2L pair + corners (35 cases), then EPLL. This could also be 2-looked by solving L5C (6 cases) then L5E (18+EPLL), and I'm sure there are other ways.

Let me know what you think or if I should post an example solve!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 24, 2019)

In terms of alg count it's better than ZZ, but we already know that WLL (the set where the corner is solved) has bad algs. It also isn't slot neutral, which is a massive drawback when compared to ZZ-A. It does have a similar movecount though, which is one advantage. 
Basically, I don't see how it's worth it over ZZ-A.


----------



## Angry_Mob (Jun 25, 2019)

New 2x2 thing? 

This is a method for people who are learning or want to know CLL.
It's essentially using sunes to set up cases, but imo treating it as an alg gives it merit.

*The Steps*

1. Layer - just like CLL and LBL

2. Use a sune or anti-sune to set up a case w/ no corners oriented. These sets (Pi + H) have the easiest recognition imo, there are only 10 algs and almost all of them are good. It's good to treat each case in this step like an algorithm, even though there are only two. 
Here are the angles (starting angles are from here http://www.cyotheking.com/ortega )
*S* - U' (AS)
*AS* - U2 (S)
*U* - U (AS)
*T* - U' (S)
*L *- U (AS or S)
Personally, I prefer backsune, but you can figure that out yourself  

3. CLL - only 10 cases show up. It is impossible to skip this step which kind of sucks.

Overall I think this is pretty good because of its reasonable alg count, easy recognition and low move count (at least compared to LBL)
I don't know if this is 100% better than LBL, but it has its advantages.

Example solves (LBL vs this)

1.
Scramble:
U' F U' R' U' R U2 R' U2

LBL:
x
F R U2 R' //
R U R' U' R' F R F' //
U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' //
U' //

27 moves

This:
x
F R U2 R' //
U' R U R' U R U2 R'//
U' F R' F' R U2 R U R' U R U2 R' //

25 moves

2. 
Scramble: 
R U' F R' U F R2 F U' R'

LBL: 
x2
F' R' U' R2 //
U2 R U R' U' R' F R F' //
U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' //

31 moves (although there are shorter Y- perms)

This:
x2
F' R' U' R2 //
U R U R' U R U2 R' //
R' F R F' R U' R' U' R U' R' //

23 moves


----------



## Hazel (Jun 25, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> New 2x2 thing?
> 
> This is a method for people who are learning or want to know CLL.
> It's essentially using sunes to set up cases, but imo treating it as an alg gives it merit.
> ...


Why not simply influence last layer while solving the first layer to force an H or Pi CLL case? It's hard to do every solve, but it would be much more efficient than tacking on 7-8 moves every solve.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jun 27, 2019)

@OreKehStrah and @Wish Lin I’m sure many people have proposed it and I even think people have the algorithms for it and are using it right now!
I just did a super quick search and here’s what I found-
Link to Skewb Algs Google Sheet
Skewb TCLL for you!

@Filipe Teixeira Flipped OLL/PLL? Eh, not really feeling it. You’d have to change the way you think about the last pair but not the first three, and an extra 54 or 22 algorithms isn’t great. I do see how it can be useful some of the time, but for some reason or another I just don’t think people would use it.

@Angry_Mob I like that idea! It sounds smart and you probably thought about it a little bit unlike some other ideas here lol. I do have to agree that Pi and H and the easiest CLL sets to recognize, and Sunes are for sure the fastest way to change your LL. This method is even faster than LBL!
But, this is no match for full CLL, so you should only use this temporarily as a transition to full CLL, which btw is a lot easier to learn than I thought, so if you don’t know it I’d recommend learning it


----------



## Wish Lin (Jun 27, 2019)

I seriously believe @Angry_Mob ’s method can be a match with full CLL on some worse cases! Sune or antisune’s permutation effect on the last layer is definite, so the last layer can be one one-looked. Seems familiar, huh? It’s just full CLL with longer algs!


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 27, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> What about solving a flipped f2l pair and then fixing it during OLL?


OLS-FE.



Filipe Teixeira said:


> Or PLL + 2flip?


Algs will probably be terrible. Also, both of these suffer from not being slot-neutral unless you want to learn four variants of the same alg (or do extra rotations, like the y2 you have in your first sample solve).


----------



## Wish Lin (Jun 27, 2019)

Aerma said:


> Why not simply influence last layer while solving the first layer to force an H or Pi CLL case? It's hard to do every solve, but it would be much more efficient than tacking on 7-8 moves every solve.


I thought about that as well, but that will require some 2x2 version of VLS, and you also have to take the observation time into acoount, so...... Just use EG, less algs.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jun 27, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> New 2x2 thing?
> 
> This is a method for people who are learning or want to know CLL.
> It's essentially using sunes to set up cases, but imo treating it as an alg gives it merit.
> ...


With @Angry_Mob 's agreement, I come up with an almost identical idea with this: Instead of reducing to and Pi or H case, this reduce it to a Sune /Antisune case. CLL algs for those two cases are much shorter.

Method PDF:


----------



## Wish Lin (Jun 27, 2019)

Wish Lin said:


> With @Angry_Mob 's agreement, I come up with an almost identical idea with this: Instead of reducing to and Pi or H case, this reduce it to a Sune /Antisune case. CLL algs for those two cases are much shorter.


Example solves(using @Angry_Mob 's SC):

LBL v.s. His method v.s. My method

*1.*
Scramble:
U' F U' R' U' R U2 R' U2

LBL:
*27 moves*

His:
*25 moves*

Mine:
x F R U2 R' // FL
R U R' U R U2 R'// Reduce
F' L F L' U2 L' U2 L U2 // CLL+AUF
*20 Moves*

*2. *
Scramble: 
R U' F R' U F R2 F U' R'

LBL: 
*31 moves*(although there are shorter Y- perms)

His:
*23 moves*

Mine:
x2
F' R' U' R2 // FL
L' U' L U' L' U2 L// Reduce
L' U2 L U2 L F' L' F U2// CLL+AUF
*20 moves*(or 13 moves if you cancel the solution which is just a lefty T OLL)

Hope this method can be useful!


----------



## Imam Alam (Jul 2, 2019)

I kept adding more and more details to my previous posts in this thread (in order to avoid double or triple posts), so much so that after about 2 months those posts have now become huge, with spoilers inside spoilers (spoiler-ception lol)

so I thought I should make this post and settle this thing once and for all, for the benefit of those users who had a look earlier and missed the details added later

below are links to those said posts, and a list of new information added:

.
.

1. collection of methods
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/post-1315558


Spoiler



added 3 new methods (ZZ, Petrus, sandwich)
sorted methods list (again)
clarified potential confusion in algorithms list
did general tidying up
added relevant quotes from famous cubing figures



2. new method proposal (HSC)
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/post-1315749


Spoiler



added further details on how to implement the method (further instructions)
added fundamental techniques section
added more details on algorithms (especially CO) along with flowcharts and diagrams
added ways to optimize for various purposes
described more variants
added relevant quotes from famous cubing figures



3. new method proposal (2GB)
https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/post-1318959


Spoiler



added basic description of the method and how to implement it (basic instructions)
added further details on how to implement the method (further instructions)
added fundamental techniques section
added example solve
added further details on algorithms (especially CO) along with flowcharts and diagrams
added ways to improve the method and make it more efficient
described ways to optimize for unique lossless variant (once a block is built, it is never broken -- not even momentarily -- until the entire cube is solved)
added relevant quotes from famous cubing figures



hopefully this would not be considered as undesirable bumping (or shameless self promotion) lol


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 2, 2019)

I'm not sure if I've ever proposed this method on this thread before, but I might as well do it now. The method utilises CP during FB just as Briggs 1 and 2 both use and is similar to Roux, but the main thing about this method is that to know it in its entirety you need 28 <RU> algorithms, with one of the algorithms simply being an R and the longest being 11 moves. The steps are as follows:

1. CPFB, 9 moves
2. Triplet at DR. This consists of an E slice edge being placed at DR with 2 corners orientated relative to it, 5 moves.
3. Orientation belt. This is where the algs come in (they require the other E slice edge to be orientated on U), 9 moves.
4. SB while preserving orientation. This uses <R2MU>, 8 moves.
5. LSE, exactly the same as Roux, 13 moves.

Average movecount≈44. Please tell me if any of my numbers are incorrect. 
You can find the algs here. 
In terms of speedsolving viability, it's a solid maybe. I don't see anyone getting fast with it or bothering to learn it and I also don't see people pushing it to its limit, but I like it.


----------



## efattah (Jul 8, 2019)

I have generated, tested and optimized the algorithms for twisty ortega to resolve an extremely irritating case for 2x2 & LMCF where you have a T-case on the D-face and want to orient the D face and U face. In color neutral ortega you can usually find an easy face to make on D, but it is hard to be color neutral in LMCF and when forced to create a face from this situation it takes 5-6 moves just to get the face, where it actually takes only 6.71 moves to go from this situation to orienting *both* faces.

Run the inverse of each alg on a solved cube to clearly see which case it solves. I originally created the top 8 algorithms for each case, learned them all, timed them over a hundred reps, and chose the best one. All are easily sub-1.

U-case L2 F R2 B' R2 [5] 
T-case R' U2 R2 U' R2 [5]
Sune-case R' F D F' R U' R [7]
Antisune-case R B' U' R' U' R B' [7] 
H-case R U' R U' R B' R' U R [9]
Pi-case R' U' R U' R U' R2 [7] 
L-case R B U' B2 R' U R [7] 

Average 6.71 moves


----------



## Hazel (Jul 8, 2019)

efattah said:


> I have generated, tested and optimized the algorithms for twisty ortega to resolve an extremely irritating case for 2x2 & LMCF where you have a T-case on the D-face and want to orient the D face and U face. In color neutral ortega you can usually find an easy face to make on D, but it is hard to be color neutral in LMCF and when forced to create a face from this situation it takes 5-6 moves just to get the face, where it actually takes only 6.71 moves to go from this situation to orienting *both* faces.
> 
> Run the inverse of each alg on a solved cube to clearly see which case it solves. I originally created the top 8 algorithms for each case, learned them all, timed them over a hundred reps, and chose the best one. All are easily sub-1.
> 
> ...


These look useful for 2x2, thanks for making them!


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Jul 14, 2019)

Not sure if a method like this already exists, but here's an idea for a 3x3 method I came up with:
1. Solve the corners and align the centers (if not already aligned)
2. Put all the edges that belong in the E slice in there, not worrying about orientation or permutation
3. Permute E slice edges
4. Solve top and bottom layer edges
5. Orient E slice edges


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 14, 2019)

that method is invented 3 times a second


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Jul 14, 2019)

I have been experimenting trying to solve a 3x3 one side at a time, like most of us did when we first tried to solve the cube. I did a couple solves and I now average sub 1:30 with a 45.76 single. It's an interesting method. Terrible, but interesting.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 14, 2019)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> I have been experimenting trying to solve a 3x3 one side at a time, like most of us did when we first tried to solve the cube. I did a couple solves and I now average sub 1:30 with a 45.76 single. It's an interesting method. Terrible, but interesting.


That's why it's called the fail method


----------



## Electrical (Jul 19, 2019)

I just had a random thought. What if there was a method for 2x2 where you orient all the pieces in one algorithm (opposite faces solved), then permute all the pieces in one algorithm? This is basically the Ortega method with step 1 and 2 combined. Does a method like this already exist? Or would it just be too complicated?


----------



## efattah (Jul 19, 2019)

It has been thought of before, but it has two problems:
1. Recognition on step 2 is really really bad and hard
2. There are a huge number of cases for step 2 and the algorithms aren't friendly

Having said that, it might be worth a fresh look, and see if you can create a recognition method; probably the orientation algorithm would have to avoid changing the permutation of the pieces in order to 1-look the solution. But that will increase the length of the algorithm.


----------



## Wish Lin (Jul 19, 2019)

I support @efattah 's post. This method an be really good* if and only if there are good, pure OBL algs* so that one look is possible, or else this could no way stack up against other methods because it will be slower and with a higher alg count(Ortega for example)

But if you do have pure OBL and this would probably be the easiest method to learn one looking out there.


----------



## Billabob (Jul 19, 2019)

As far as I know this idea has not been explored much due to the problems listed above. There is a wiki page on it: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Guimond_Method

You might find the external links useful.


----------



## ezings (Jul 20, 2019)

I believe that this is the closest thing to it https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/SOAP_Method


----------



## Lpell (Jul 20, 2019)

A few days ago ,i a site with algs for 2 gen WV,so if you are using 2GR you will remain with EPLL.But i have an idea:if we phase the edges (to have less cases) without inserting the slot,we can use algs to permute the edges and orient corners with LS and get LL skip!


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 20, 2019)

efattah said:


> It has been thought of before, but it has two problems:
> 1. Recognition on step 2 is really really bad and hard
> 2. There are a huge number of cases for step 2 and the algorithms aren't friendly
> 
> Having said that, it might be worth a fresh look, and see if you can create a recognition method; probably the orientation algorithm would have to avoid changing the permutation of the pieces in order to 1-look the solution. But that will increase the length of the algorithm.


you mean step 1 right? step 2 is just pbl


----------



## Hazel (Jul 20, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> you mean step 1 right? step 2 is just pbl


They aren't talking about Ortega.. as I understand it, step one is orienting the pieces in such a way that the U and D faces have only yellow and white, and step two is solving everything else. Step two has significantly worse recognition and *many* more algorithms than Ortega's PBL, and the algs would probably be worse too... step one's recognition would only consist of recognizing the equivalent of OLL on the U and D faces which isn't hard at all.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 20, 2019)

Aerma said:


> They aren't talking about Ortega.. as I understand it, step one is orienting the pieces in such a way that the U and D faces have only yellow and white, and step two is solving everything else. Step two has significantly worse recognition and *many* more algorithms than Ortega's PBL, and the algs would probably be worse too... step one's recognition would only consist of recognizing the equivalent of OLL on the U and D faces which isn't hard at all.


so that includes separation?


----------



## Hazel (Jul 20, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> so that includes separation?


For step 2 recognition? Well you have both white and yellow edges on both layers, so you would have to recognize the specific orientation case (ie. what patter of white/yellow on the top and what pattern on the bottom) as well as permutation. For the number of cases (600+ if I'm not mistaken) learning all of that would be extremely difficult. So to answer your question, I think yes.
(White/yellow can be replaced by green/blue or orange/red, I just used this for clarity)


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 20, 2019)

Aerma said:


> For step 2 recognition? Well you have both white and yellow edges on both layers, so you would have to recognize the specific orientation case (ie. what patter of white/yellow on the top and what pattern on the bottom) as well as permutation. For the number of cases (600+ if I'm not mistaken) learning all of that would be extremely difficult. So to answer your question, I think yes.
> (White/yellow can be replaced by green/blue or orange/red, I just used this for clarity)


edges?


----------



## Hazel (Jul 20, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> edges?


corners*


----------



## Hazel (Jul 29, 2019)

If anyone finds it useful, I just finished making all 19 L8EO algorithms! https://www.mirazel.com/cubing/pcms/eo
I'm steadily increasing the number of resources for the PCMS method on that website. I know PCMS isn't the best method, but it's the most fun one out there imo


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 30, 2019)

nice, Miranda!


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jul 30, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> I'm not sure if I've ever proposed this method on this thread before, but I might as well do it now. The method utilises CP during FB just as Briggs 1 and 2 both use and is similar to Roux, but the main thing about this method is that to know it in its entirety you need 28 <RU> algorithms, with one of the algorithms simply being an R and the longest being 11 moves. The steps are as follows:
> 
> 1. CPFB, 9 moves
> 2. Triplet at DR. This consists of an E slice edge being placed at DR with 2 corners orientated relative to it, 5 moves.
> ...


I think I’ll learn it at some point and see how it is, thanks!


----------



## Anthem (Aug 1, 2019)

Does anyone know a website were u could make like Ortega algs 4 3x3


----------



## Anthem (Aug 1, 2019)

so like oll but with some yellow edges in the middle layer


----------



## Anthem (Aug 1, 2019)

and pbl 4 3x3 , just an idea


----------



## efattah (Aug 1, 2019)

The Ortega method already exists for 3x3 and there is a website for it. Also you can look in the LMCF document which is a superset of the ortega method. It's not what you're thinking though.


----------



## Anthem (Aug 1, 2019)

thank you can you give me the website


----------



## Anthem (Aug 1, 2019)

but i am talking about the whole face including gedges


----------



## WoowyBaby (Aug 1, 2019)

@Anthem Can you please use only 1 or 2 posts instead of 5? You know you can put more than a sentence into one post, and if you forgot to say something you can just edit your post and add it. I really hope I'm not sounding rude 

As with your 3x3 Ortega idea, I'm just not sure what you're trying to say, tbh I don't think anyone does, if you want to explain it more that'd be great.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 1, 2019)

@WoowyBaby I think he means like you solve one side and then do an alg to get the opposite side and then do an alg to solve the rest?
@Anthem If my interpretation of your method is correct, the number of algorithms would be ridiculously high, far too many for a human to be capable of. I image the algs for that OLL step would also be pretty poor... if you still want to be able to generate algorithms, look into the program Cube Explorer.


----------



## Anthem (Aug 2, 2019)

THANK YOU exactly, but I don't think it would be much more than full zbll


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 3, 2019)

For PLL there are 44 cases including 'parity'. For PBL there are (44^2)/2 cases (divided by 2 as you can't have parity on only one layer). That is 968 algorithms. ZBLL is 493.
To explain the parity bit, there are 44 ways to arrange the PLL pieces if you take them out of the cube and put them in again (as you can have 2 pieces swapped unlike normally). On the U layer for every PLL case on D you can have one of 44 PLLs. That means that you have 44^2 PLLs, but remember that this is just taking the pieces out, so you have to divide by 2 to take that into account. What it seems that you're suggesting is that but with 4 extra edges, so it is definitely not humanly viable. PBL is stretching it.


----------



## Anthem (Aug 4, 2019)

Ok thanks, but could there be 2 or 4 look pbl to make sure there are less algs


----------



## Skewbed (Aug 4, 2019)

Anthem said:


> Ok thanks, but could there be 2 or 4 look pbl to make sure there are less algs



For 2 look PBL, you could do PLL+Parity, then rotate to the other side and do PLL.

What method would this be for? Domino reduction? Belt?


----------



## Anthem (Aug 4, 2019)

Basically you solve the first layer unpermuted an then the last layer with oll than pbl so somewhat like Ortega for 3x3


----------



## Skewbed (Aug 4, 2019)

Anthem said:


> Basically you solve the first layer unpermuted an then the last layer with oll than pbl so somewhat like Ortega for 3x3


In that case, to reduce the algs, you can solve the first layer into a valid PLL to not have parity.

CFOP is better though.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 4, 2019)

Just look at SSC for the best way to get to the "PBL" state, then do CP then EP.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 4, 2019)

so I noticed that when you have the T oll and the last slot is 3 move insert, the wv looks like the T itself. And it's possible to predict coll by looking at the top stickers and one sticker on the D layer.

what about predicting coll before the 3 move insert?

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F-_r_U_R-_U-_r-_F_R&alg=R_U_R-


----------



## Hazel (Aug 5, 2019)

Anthem said:


> Basically you solve the first layer unpermuted an then the last layer with oll than pbl so somewhat like Ortega for 3x3


Let's do the math - 22 PLL states on top (counting solved) time 22 PLL states on the bottom. Then there's also the E layer to be solved. With EO being solved, there's 12 states I believe. Without EO necessarily being solved, I believe there's ~96. All together that's 46464 cases and algorithms for the PBL step. Multiply that by two if you solve the first side without making sure there's no parity, or just do M2 U2 M2 before PBL. Either way, it isn't possible. People have enough trouble learning a few hundred for ZBLL, imagine _over fourty-six thousand._


----------



## Hazel (Aug 5, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> so I noticed that when you have the T oll and the last slot is 3 move insert, the wv looks like the T itself. And it's possible to predict coll by looking at the top stickers and one sticker on the D layer.
> 
> what about predicting coll before the 3 move insert?
> 
> https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F-_r_U_R-_U-_r-_F_R&alg=R_U_R-


(sorry for the double post!)

Possible? Yes. Easy? Sort of. Better than insertion + regular COLL? Probably not worth the effort. I'd love to be proven wrong though, as always when I'm pessimistic about something


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 5, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> so I noticed that when you have the T oll and the last slot is 3 move insert, the wv looks like the T itself. And it's possible to predict coll by looking at the top stickers and one sticker on the D layer.
> 
> what about predicting coll before the 3 move insert?
> 
> https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F-_r_U_R-_U-_r-_F_R&alg=R_U_R-


Kian Mansour has a video on predicting CMLL before finishing second block, which is a really similar idea.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 5, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> Kian Mansour has a video on predicting CMLL before finishing second block, which is a really similar idea.


weird video... too much thinking
my idea was to learn each pattern just like coll recognition, not tracking where each piece goes


----------



## Skewbed (Aug 5, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> weird video... too much thinking
> my idea was to learn each pattern just like coll recognition, not tracking where each piece goes


That would be a lot of cases, just like how OLL grows into to VLS.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 5, 2019)

Skewbed said:


> That would be a lot of cases, just like how OLL grows into to VLS.


yeah but maybe learning some cases could led straight into coll


----------



## Trouxso (Aug 6, 2019)

Here is my new Roux variant. I call in SBC. there are two parts, SBC and SBC Prime. SBC Prime is where it would normally insert as R U' R', and SBC is where it would be inserted as R U R' there are 324 algs, 162 for each. I have already genned the algs for SBC Prime. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...fSlY6pju7IQw3yeskzTtLQMXIQ/edit#gid=162417223


----------



## WoowyBaby (Aug 7, 2019)

Method Goal: To create the best edges-first method. Edges-first is generally really terrible, but today I'm making it good.

*-Method Steps-*
#1- EO on 2 axis. Can also be thought of orienting edges on one axis and placing the E layer edges. If you’re going for speed, try to plan this whole step in inspection.
#2- Finish edges. Solve the edges using domino (R2 L2 U D F2 B2) moves. A really helpful tip is to form edge pairs on the U/D layers, it makes easy to finish from there, and also don’t forget about the middle layer.
#3- Solve corners w/ 4 comms. Solve corners in the easiest order, don’t try to make a layer or solve specific pieces or anything like that. Try to solve 2 corners per commutator, and then solve the last 3 corners with one.
It’s important to note that it sometimes only requires 3 comms and others it can take 5, just 4 is by far the most common.

*-Example Solve-*
Scramble: L' D2 L2 D2 F2 L2 R2 D' R2 F2 L2 F2 B' D' B2 U2 B' U2 L' U2 F
(y')
R' U D' F L' D2 L // EO on 2 axis (7)
E' L2 D R2 D2 R2 // Finish edges (6)
x' L D L' U' L D' L' U // 1st Comm (8)
x2 R' D' R U R' D R // 2nd Comm (7)
L D' L' U' L D L' // 3rd Comm (7)
B2 R' U R D R' U' R D' B2 // 4th Comm (10)

Edges in 13
Corners in 32
= only 45 moves! (more efficient than many other methods!)

Also- No algorithms!

-----

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Aug 7, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> What are your thoughts on this?



It's better than most edges first methods, and it's quite unique. I like it, but I'm quite inexperienced with EO-based methods such as ZZ and DR, so I don't know if it really is as good as I think it is.


----------



## Julianek (Aug 10, 2019)

Im genius!
Why everyone is solving Cfop with cross at the begening if you can solve first 2 blocks just like in Roux (Im Roux solver so thats why I came up with this solution). It gives you lot of efficiency because of free M slice and makes the solve rotationless (lot of cool-roux pairing tricks). Then before the last layer you solve front and back cross edges, and you can use this step to solve U layer edges (propably slightly longer EOLR from roux). Then just COLL and cube is solved 
Number of moves=FB 8~10+SB 16~19 + 1LL6E I bet something like~15 + COLL ~10=49~54 (Kian daud thet he solves cube in 60 moves on average) 
. It's genius isn' it?


----------



## SM cubing (Aug 10, 2019)

no, just do cfop or roux


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Aug 10, 2019)

Julianek said:


> Im genius!
> Why everyone is solving Cfop with cross at the begening if you can solve first 2 blocks just like in Roux (Im Roux solver so thats why I came up with this solution). It gives you lot of efficiency because of free M slice and makes the solve rotationless (lot of cool-roux pairing tricks). Then before the last layer you solve front and back cross edges, and you can use this step to solve U layer edges (propably slightly longer EOLR from roux). Then just COLL and cube is solved
> Number of moves=FB 8~10+SB 16~19 + 1LL6E I bet something like~15 + COLL ~10=49~54 (Kian daud thet he solves cube in 60 moves on average)
> . It's genius isn' it?


This is one of the most (if not the most) commonly proposed methods. It's just a worse version of Roux and CFOP. It's not worth doing at all.


----------



## Julianek (Aug 10, 2019)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> This is one of the most (if not the most) commonly proposed methods. It's just a worse version of Roux and CFOP. It's not worth doing at all.


Ah really  hmm. But why is it worse than CFOP? It gives you rotationless slove and lowers the move count.


----------



## SM cubing (Aug 10, 2019)

it doesnt lower the move count. its more inefficient than cross+f2l ESPECIALLY with fingertricks as M moves arent that great, and if you like them than just use roux


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 21, 2019)

Lol i solve roux that way...
F2b
Cll
Eo
Df / db
Epll <M, U>


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 22, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Lol i solve roux that way...
> F2b
> Cll
> Eo
> ...


The problem with that is, every EPLL is actually a conjugate to a 4C (last step of L6E) case, so that will always take more moves.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 22, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> The problem with that is, every EPLL is actually a conjugate to a 4C (last step of L6E) case, so that will always take more moves.


Yeah I know it's more moves, but I solve faster that way than proper LSE.
but I do plan to practice actual LSE any day soon


----------



## Grr Parity (Aug 23, 2019)

Is it possible to get some kind of 2x2 TEG?
(EG but the side has a misoriented corner)


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 23, 2019)

Grr Parity said:


> Is it possible to get some kind of 2x2 TEG?
> (EG but the side has a misoriented corner)


Is it _possible_? Sure.

Would it be _useful_? You count the number of cases and decide if you want to learn that many algs.


----------



## Grr Parity (Aug 23, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Is it _possible_? Sure.
> 
> Would it be _useful_? You count the number of cases and decide if you want to learn that many algs.


Imean , once we have all the algs, that could be after E.G. For top 2x2 solvers


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 23, 2019)

Grr Parity said:


> Imean , once we have all the algs, that could be after E.G. For top 2x2 solvers


Considering it's would only be marginally more efficient than EG and there are an order of magnitude more algs (putting it in the ballpark of 1LLL), I highly doubt it would even be faster than what 2x2 solvers do nowadays.

If someone wants to learn it, then they can do what jabari does with 1LLL and gen as they go


----------



## Grr Parity (Aug 23, 2019)

shadowslice e said:


> Considering it's would only be marginally more efficient than EG and there are an order of magnitude more algs (putting it in the ballpark of 1LLL), I highly doubt it would even be faster than what 2x2 solvers do nowadays.
> 
> If someone wants to learn it, then they can do what jabari does with 1LLL and gen as they go


yeah maybe TEG isn't worth it


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 23, 2019)

TEG is an interesting one. When you're sub 3, it's probably not worth it, but when you're sub 1.8 it possibly is. If you're going to optimise 2x2 to the level of a very good human you'd learn CLL>EG-1>EG-2>LEG>TCLL>TEG-2>L5C. At this point there are 829 algorithms. TEG-1 is another 344 algs. Possible but hard and it would make you very good at 2x2. You could learn the sets in another order, but I think that this way is the most worthwhile. I guess you can learn it before L5C, but imo L5C is more worthwhile.


----------



## aerocube (Aug 23, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> TEG is an interesting one. When you're sub 3, it's probably not worth it, but when you're sub 1.8 it possibly is. If you're going to optimise 2x2 to the level of a very good human you'd learn CLL>EG-1>EG-2>LEG>TCLL>TEG-2>L5C. At this point there are 829 algorithms. TEG-1 is another 344 algs. Possible but hard and it would make you very good at 2x2. You could learn the sets in another order, but I think that this way is the most worthwhile. I guess you can learn it before L5C, but imo L5C is more worthwhile.


isn't this the future of 2x2 WRs anyway
once you can one look and see a lot of solutions in inspection,the next thing you're gonna have to do is learn more and more algs
imo 2x2 is gonna become more and more algorithmic the lower WRs go as EG must have a limit


----------



## Grr Parity (Aug 23, 2019)

aerocube said:


> isn't this the future of 2x2 WRs anyway
> once you can one look and see a lot of solutions in inspection,the next thing you're gonna have to do is learn more and more algs
> imo 2x2 is gonna become more and more algorithmic the lower WRs go as EG must have a limit


If EG has a limit it’s probably EG+CLL+L5C+LEG+TCLL+TEG


----------



## aerocube (Aug 23, 2019)

Grr Parity said:


> If EG has a limit it’s probably EG+CLL+L5C+LEG+TCLL+TEG


i was talking about basic EG (i.e EG-1,EG-2,CLL)
idk if anyone has learnt L5C,i think some people have learnt TCLL and TEG + LEG
EDIT: is this like L5C?


----------



## Iwannaganx (Aug 23, 2019)

Just want to point out, in the top post you said "AUF m turns" or something like that. AUF m slice turns. Adjust U face m turns.
  !!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 23, 2019)

aerocube said:


> EDIT: is this like L5C?


Yeah, that's L5C. The 2x2 algs would be super short and super useful. You could instead do 2-gen reduction on 2x2 and learn full 2GL6C. It is entirely possible and could spice up the 2x2 meta.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 28, 2019)

the explode method

get the crube
thwor it in the W A L L


----------



## White KB (Aug 31, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> the explode method
> 
> get the crube
> thwor it in the W A L L


laughing so hard right now...


----------



## White KB (Aug 31, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> the explode method
> 
> get the crube
> thwor it in the W A L L


also what's thwor? 
Wait it's for megaminx...
T Cross (2 edges)
H Cross (3 edges)
W Cross (4 edges)
O Cross (All edges in the cross)
Repeat 5 edges at a time and forget corners... nobody needs them

or maybe it's
Throw your megaminx at the wall
Help Feliks regain his self-confidence in megaminx so he can go to worlds
WR from Feliks
Oh the agony
Reduction to F2L over and over again


----------



## pascal france (Aug 31, 2019)

Hello,
*I am french, excuse my english *

I have been a fan of Rubik's Cube for quite some time.
Not being a champion, I tried to develop an original method simpler than CFOP Fridrich but still performing !
I would like to make it known on your continent and the English-speaking countries.
I give you the link of my site, it would be nice to give me your opinion and to know my technique.

https://pascal3x3x3.pagesperso-orange.fr/index10.html
https://pascal3x3x3.pagesperso-orange.fr/index13.html

My method is very simple, based on CFOP, with a ZZ or Petrus edge orientation phase at the same time as the F2L (no waste of time)
She is :
at 3/4 intuitive !
effortlessly allows resolution in less than 30 seconds, and in 20 seconds or less, for those who have excellent vision of the cube and perfect gestures !
very few algorithms to know, only 13 !
total resolution in about fifty movements !

Thank you Best regards
Pascal
from France


----------



## Grr Parity (Sep 1, 2019)

pascal france said:


> Hello,
> *I am french, excuse my english *
> 
> I have been a fan of Rubik's Cube for quite some time.
> ...


That sounds great! However there should be two more algorithms to orient the corners (summits)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 1, 2019)

This is simply VH but worse. It's nice to see you've put effort into it, but unfortunately it isn't original. Keep on trying though, as you could eventually come up with a method that is completely unique.


----------



## pascal france (Sep 2, 2019)

Grr Parity said:


> That sounds great! However there should be two more algorithms to orient the corners (summits)



Hello,
No no ... at the end of the intuitive phase, that is to say after doing the cross + all the F2L, we end up with the yellow cross oriented and placed following 2 diagrams.
And to finish it just has to steer the Summits in 5 algorithms (instead of 57 OLL normally) and put everything in 8 PLL (instead of 21 normally)


----------



## pascal france (Sep 2, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is simply VH but worse. It's nice to see you've put effort into it, but unfortunately it isn't original. Keep on trying though, as you could eventually come up with a method that is completely unique.



Hello
in VH one obtains an oriented cross (as in ZZ)
I have a cross oriented AND PLACE following 2 shemas which limits the OLL to 5 instead of 57 and the PLL to 8 instead of 21 and especially in much much simpler


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 2, 2019)

pascal france said:


> Hello
> in VH one obtains an oriented cross (as in ZZ)
> I have a cross oriented AND PLACE following 2 shemas which limits the OLL to 5 instead of 57 and the PLL to 8 instead of 21 and especially in much much simpler


It's still not that great and again, has been thought of before. It's much easier and more beneficial to learn more algorithms and be fast than find a low alg method that pretends to be fast. That doesn't mean don't find new methods, but methods that aim to limit algs are generally slower (exception: Roux).


----------



## pascal france (Sep 2, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> It's still not that great and again, has been thought of before. It's much easier and more beneficial to learn more algorithms and be fast than find a low alg method that pretends to be fast. That doesn't mean don't find new methods, but methods that aim to limit algs are generally slower (exception: Roux).




My method is not to compete with CFOP Fridrich, ZZ or Roux, I do not have this claim, it is not adapted to the competition.
It's just a simple way to solve the Rubik in 30 seconds without difficulty (less than 20 seconds when you're good), in about fifty movements, and without learning many algorithms
I'm too old to learn a lot of formulas and I do not have the agility of fingers or reflexes anymore


----------



## Angry_Mob (Sep 3, 2019)

I'm not sure if this is useful, but I came up with a new way of doing SB + CMLL in Roux.

Imagine you have a cube with solved blocks. When you do R2 U2 R2 U2 R2, the second block will have what is basically an equator flip on Square-1. In this method, you will solve SB into that state, then do an algorithm so solve CMLL and flip the equator. 

Solving SB is super easy, you simply make each pair with only one color matching in each pair, and insert the pair based on where the corner goes.

There are a few ways to solve CMLL + equator flip. The easiest is to solve CMLL, but cancel into R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 at the end. This works really well, but I've almost finished generating unique algorithms for this step. Most of them are garbage, but some of them are pretty good. Examples: R' U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R, R U' R' U R U' R D R D' R D R2 D' and R U2 R' U2 F2 D R D' R' F2 R2 U' R'. Most of the time canceling into R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 works better though.

Obviously this wouldn't be used every solve, as it would add on average 4 moves to each solve, but I think it's useful if you already have a pseudo-pair solved, or a free pair. 


Spoiler:  Example solve



R2 B2 F2 D2 L2 U' R2 F D2 B L' B L2 R' D R' D2 B (FB solved)

U r' U' r U R U M U r U' R' //Psuedo-SB
R U2 R' U' R U' R U2 R2 U2 R2 //CMLL +equator flip


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 4, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> I'm not sure if this is useful, but I came up with a new way of doing SB + CMLL in Roux.
> 
> Imagine you have a cube with solved blocks. When you do R2 U2 R2 U2 R2, the second block will have what is basically an equator flip on Square-1. In this method, you will solve SB into that state, then do an algorithm so solve CMLL and flip the equator.
> 
> ...


That's a pretty interesting idea. As it is now, I don't think it's worth it, but if you take the idea bit further, you could have it so that you solve SB, but each edge can be in any of the three positions. Then, when it comes to CMLL, You do one of six algs to solve corners and SB at the same time. I might check that out some more.


----------



## Angry_Mob (Sep 4, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> That's a pretty interesting idea. As it is now, I don't think it's worth it, but if you take the idea bit further, you could have it so that you solve SB, but each edge can be in any of the three positions. Then, when it comes to CMLL, You do one of six algs to solve corners and SB at the same time. I might check that out some more.


I like the idea of solving SB in one of six ways, but it would make CMLL + SB have a ton of algorithms (43 x 5 = 216 (excluding CMLL)). Maybe since the 2G algs are by far the best one I've genned so far, doing CPFB would be useful? that would bring it down to 40 algs, which is super reasonable imo.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 4, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> I like the idea of solving SB in one of six ways, but it would make CMLL + SB have a ton of algorithms (43 x 5 = 216 (excluding CMLL)). Maybe since the 2G algs are by far the best one I've genned so far, doing CPFB would be useful? that would bring it down to 40 algs, which is super reasonable imo.


The problem there is that CPFB is really difficult. I have my doubts as to whether or not anyone could get to the point where they could consistently plan it in inspection. At any rate, I don't really think ~250 algs is really that far-fetched. This would definitely be a pretty advanced technique, and that kind of alg count isn't far off from what an advanced 2x2 or CFOP solver would use. And that's not even taking into account the people that learn ZBLL. I think what really would make or break the idea is whether or not the algs are comparable to normal CMLL algs. I kinda get the feeling that they would be a bit worse, especially considering what you said about the opposite-swap algs you've genned so far.


----------



## Angry_Mob (Sep 4, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> The problem there is that CPFB is really difficult. I have my doubts as to whether or not anyone could get to the point where they could consistently plan it in inspection. At any rate, I don't really think ~250 algs is really that far-fetched. This would definitely be a pretty advanced technique, and that kind of alg count isn't far off from what an advanced 2x2 or CFOP solver would use. And that's not even taking into account the people that learn ZBLL. I think what really would make or break the idea is whether or not the algs are comparable to normal CMLL algs. I kinda get the feeling that they would be a bit worse, especially considering what you said about the opposite-swap algs you've genned so far.


Yeah, I was worried that most of the algs would be garbage. So far only about 7 of my R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 algs are any good. I'll try making algs for the whole set, but chances are they'll be much slower then CMLL (then again, I probably don't have the best judgement on what's good and I'm not spending a ton of time on each alg)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 4, 2019)

CPFB is definitely possible, it just brings 0 advantage to anything except maybe OH. And I also think that the concept will bring about some bad algs from overturning etc, and normal SB will be better. But prove me wrong.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 4, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> CPFB is definitely possible, it just brings 0 advantage to anything except maybe OH. And I also think that the concept will bring about some bad algs from overturning etc, and normal SB will be better. But prove me wrong.


Yeah, I think that the fact that SB is solved makes it more likely that the CMLL algs will be better in a similar way to how having cross solved helps F2L to be done with a more neutral wrist position.


----------



## efattah (Sep 5, 2019)

This is sort of what I have been saying for a long time, the Roux variant where the FR edge is solved in a disoriented state, then you use Waterman Set 3 to solve L6E (Set 3 solves UL+UR while flipping FR). The Set 3 subset is only 16 algorithms; unless you allow the BR edge to be solved disoriented where you end up at 32 algorithms, and if you allow DR edge to be solved disoriented it is 48 algorithms (these algs are already generated for a different purpose).


----------



## White KB (Sep 6, 2019)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> This is one of the most (if not the most) commonly proposed methods. It's just a worse version of Roux and CFOP. It's not worth doing at all.


I came up with that too, but someone else had come up with it as well.


----------



## White KB (Sep 6, 2019)

2x2 method:
pair up 2 corners or find a pair (only the bottom color has to match)
use 1 (extremely efficient) alg to solve the rest of the first layer
then CLL and you're done
it would possibly aid people who don't want to learn EG-1 or EG-2, and the algs would be very short (2-4 moves, except for some special cases)
I'm calling it the BL (Bruce Layer) subset (my last name is Bruce, after all).
Let me know what you think, or if someone else has come up with it, or ways it can improve.*

*besides the name. **
**unless someone else has already come up with it. you can change it then.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 6, 2019)

White KB said:


> 2x2 method:
> pair up 2 corners or find a pair (only the bottom color has to match)
> use 1 (extremely efficient) alg to solve the rest of the first layer
> then CLL and you're done
> ...


I think that the case count would be too high. With your bar, there are 3 different CP cases (solved, opposite, and adjacent). Then there are 6*5 permutation cases and 3*3 orientation cases for the other two corners, leaving you with an upper bound of 810 cases. There would be some repeated cases, but not many, I wouldn't think.


----------



## White KB (Sep 6, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> I think that the case count would be too high. With your bar, there are 3 different CP cases (solved, opposite, and adjacent). Then there are 6*5 permutation cases and 3*3 orientation cases for the other two corners, leaving you with an upper bound of 810 cases. There would be some repeated cases, but not many, I wouldn't think.


Ok, that sounds cool. I wasn't sure how to calculate it, so you saved me a lot of work. Thanks!
And looking at the case count, it seems huge, but most of the cases would be almost intuitive. You would only have to put in real brain power for a small percentage of them, and realize that a lot of them would be intuitive. It could work, if one cared to put in the time to practice.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 6, 2019)

It also seems highly useless. EG would be so much better, and the algs are easy anyway. If you were dedicated, you could learn them in a week per set. (EG-1 in a week, EG-2 in a week etc.) So just do EG if you want to be fast. Or another method (2GR possibly).


----------



## efattah (Sep 6, 2019)

White KB's proposal is not useless. In fact it echoes something that I have been wanting to do for some time. Making efficient faces (even for EG) is not always intuitive; I wish someone would generate a table of all the common cases and the fastest solution that is finger friendly. Rough guess is there are around 50 cases to make the 1st face. I have personally generated some of the most irritating ones to find the fastest solution; top 2x2 solvers would already know every single one of them, no algo generator would be needed, someone would just need to draw diagrams of the 50 cases and a top 2x2 solver could fill in the blanks. Kind of like that 2x2 CLL efficient 1st layer thread except for EG.

Even better would be the same table with a 1-look column that shows how the LL corners are affected and reorganized by the face solution.


----------



## Zeke Mackay (Sep 7, 2019)

This is a message to everyone interested in making a method or who is about to post a method: Stop making RouxFOP


----------



## SM cubing (Sep 7, 2019)

Zeke Mackay said:


> This is a message to everyone interested in making a method or who is about to post a method: Stop making RouxFOP


THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!


----------



## WoowyBaby (Sep 8, 2019)

I'd like to propose a new method challenge:

Create the worst method you can think of! I'll be really interested to see what you guys make up!

But, I do need to set some basic rules so the methods aren't infinite or impossible:
- If you end up breaking progress of previous steps you must restore it in the same step that you break it.
- Maximum of 12 steps are allowed(sorry about your crazy ideas w/ 100 steps).

"Score" is judged by the average (stepwise optimal) movecount.
Good luck!!


----------



## White KB (Sep 8, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I'd like to propose a new method challenge:
> 
> Create the worst method you can think of! I'll be really interested to see what you guys make up!
> 
> ...


A very inefficient method for big cubes (not sure if you could accurately determine average move count, but it would be very inefficient):
LBL (based on a tutorial I actually saw once)
1: Solve the yellow center (pfft, who needs to be CN, even if you have an easy white face) one piece at a time, just using the slice turn Niklas every time.
2: Pair one yellow edge at a time, one piece at a time, where the unsolved edge is on the left, the piece you need is on the right, and x represents the number of layers you have to turn to match it: xU L' U L xU'.
3: Once you have done that, place the edges in their respective places (in odd-layered cubes, use centers to determine that, in even-numbered cubes, remember the color scheme).
4: form 2nd layer for centers (somehow)
5: insert proper edges into the second layer, breaking an edge or two if necessary (e.g. blue-orange being paired with blue-red)
6: form 3rd layer centers (somehow) but it's a little bit easier.
7: pair necessary pieces to their respective edges.
8: After this it depends on the N in NxNxN, but for 4x4, skip to step 9, and for 5x5 and up, pretty much keep repeating steps 6 and 7, except with the proper layer, until everything except the last layer edges and corners are done, and replace corners when necessary.
9: pair last layer edges by displacing the two front-middle edges, then pairing ALL the white edges, then replacing those F2L pairs.
10: for 5x5, 7x7, 9x9, 11x11, etc. just solve the last layer with beginner's method (orient edges, permute edges, permute corners, orient corners), then once you're done, skip to 'step "12"'
11: for even-numbered 'N's, pretty much do step 10, but for PLL parity do r2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2, where a lowercase letter represents a slice turn, and for OLL parity (this is the least efficient algorithm I know) do r2 B2 U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' B2 r2. then just solve with beginner's method for everything else.
"12" (not really a step). You're done! Yay...


----------



## Lpell (Sep 12, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I'd like to propose a new method challenge:
> 
> Create the worst method you can think of! I'll be really interested to see what you guys make up!
> 
> ...


1.Orient white corners on bottom(5 moves)
2.Orient white edges on bottom(6 moves)
3.Permute bottom layer(10 moves)
4.Use Salvia algorithms for the E layer(15 moves)
5.Orient U corners(7-10 moves)
6.Orient U edges(7-10 moves)
7.Use M' U2 M to solve edges(15 moves)
8.Use A(b) perm turning U layer randomly to solve corners(10-15 moves)
Total:around 78 moves


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 12, 2019)

1. Permute all the D layer corners however you please, centres don't have to be solved. 
2. Permute the U layer corners. Same again with centres. 
3. Solve the centres. 
4. Permute the D layer edges. 
5. Permute the E slice edges. 
6. Permute the U layer edges. 
7. Twist the D corners so that they are ready for a supertwist, with algs that preserve edge permutation. 
8. Same as step 7 but for U corners. 
9. Flip all the D edges with algs that preserve corner permutation. 
10. Step 9 but for E edges. 
11. Step 10 but for U edges. 
12. Perform a supertwist then a super flip to solve the cube. Alternatively, you could do a superflip them a supertwist.


----------



## efattah (Sep 13, 2019)

The worst method isn't a fake method, it's a real method, and it's the method I used to solve the 3x3 in 1981 without any algorithms when I was 6 years old:
1. Solve the top corners
2. Solve the top edges
3. In an effort to solve the bottom corners with no algorithms, break off one of the top corners and put it back in a different way
4. Check that the bottom corners are solved; if not, repeat step 3 slightly differently
< now bottom corners are solved >
5. Rotate Z/Z' so the bottom corners are now on the R-face and solve R-edges with keyhole
6. Permute m-slices edges
7. Now m-slice edges are solved but disoriented. Since we don't know any algorithms, we need to get a skip on M-slice orientation. Break off a pair of edges UL+UR and re-solve them in a different way. 
8. Permute m-slices edges
9. M-slice edge orientation skip (keep going back to step 7 if m-slice edges are not oriented)

This method has an average movecount probably around 1350 or so. There are 42 possible cases for the bottom corners and trying to solve them at random with step 3+4 takes around an hour at slow TPS, requiring around 150 iterations since you will accidentally repeat the same sequence many times. 150 iterations x around 8 moves = 1200 moves plus the rest of the solve including 100 moves for the M-slice orientation skip step, around 1350 moves.


----------



## icestrike (Sep 15, 2019)

Im not sure if this has been said here before (i don't feel like going through 200+ pages) But I propose something for those solves where it is much easier to keep a cross edge flipped than it is to orient it. 
So this will be a set of algs that orient the last layer, but also fix the cross edge. Cross edge is by default held in front, but by doing D moves can set up the cube into the right position to do the alg.

I'm sorry if this has been proposed already, but I really like this idea, as I think it has less algs than full oll. But, I haven't done the math(s) to see. And I can see some potential in it, as long as all the algs aren't terrible. I have two algs, but those are probably the best ones. One of them is a seven move M U alg, and the other is just a setup to F sexy F'. I'm thinking many algs will be just setup into an oll.


----------



## icestrike (Sep 15, 2019)

icestrike said:


> Im not sure if this has been said here before (i don't feel like going through 200+ pages) But I propose something for those solves where it is much easier to keep a cross edge flipped than it is to orient it.
> So this will be a set of algs that orient the last layer, but also fix the cross edge. Cross edge is by default held in front, but by doing D moves can set up the cube into the right position to do the alg.
> 
> I'm sorry if this has been proposed already, but I really like this idea, as I think it has less algs than full oll. But, I haven't done the math(s) to see. And I can see some potential in it, as long as all the algs aren't terrible. I have two algs, but those are probably the best ones. One of them is a seven move M U alg, and the other is just a setup to F sexy F'. I'm thinking many algs will be just setup into an oll.



oh I just realized this section is dead


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 15, 2019)

I think it should have the same number of algs as OLL, although just solve the cross correctly. With full CN it would make this kinda redundant.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 18, 2019)

This is a serious idea that uses aspects of M-CELL and Zipper. I've called it Z-CELL (Zipper-CELL) temporarily, but that's not for certain at all.


Spoiler: Steps






Spoiler: First Block



1x2x3 block on the left, exactly the same as Roux. Average movecount of 7 and definitely speedsolving viable.





Spoiler: SBsqr



A 1x2x2 at RDB, just like Roux SB but only the back square. Average movecount of 6.8 which is imo achieveable, but if not, low 7s is definitely in human expectations.





Spoiler: DFDB



Solve DFDB and also all the centres. 5.6 average movecount and very easy to do optimally.





Spoiler: L5C



You solve the last 5 corners. Unfortunately there's an alg count of 614 algs, but fortunately an average movecount of about 10 (I dunno exactly because speed optimal algs don't exist. HARCS says 9.623 over 1000 solves). That is fortunate as the number of moves you have to learn is 6140. ZBLL is (14.5*493=)7148.5 moves, so technically it is less info than ZBLL. From what I can gather, recog should be fine.





Spoiler: L5E



This is where you finish the cube. The step has an average movecount of 11.09 ATM according to Justin Taylor's algs and has an alg count of 245. Apparently all the algs are good, as is the recog.








Spoiler: Stats



From the movecounts given (and AUFs) the method averages 7+7+5.6+10(?)+11.09+2.25=42.94. The first 3 steps are definitely speedsolving viable, as is the last one. L5C is a lot of cases to be going through at once, but again I think that it should be fine. It is also easier to lookahead from DFDB to this step than other non algorithmic to algorithmic steps as its majority slices. There are also 859 algs, but you need to memorise less info than ZB.



With this method, if you can get good at the blockbuilding first half but you also like algs, this method works well. It has a very low movecount and most likely a decent TPS. Any thoughts are welcome.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Sep 18, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is a serious idea that uses aspects of M-CELL and Zipper. I've called it Z-CELL (Zipper-CELL) temporarily, but that's not for certain at all.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Steps
> ...


I like it but I am never going to learn it bc I hate algs


----------



## efattah (Sep 19, 2019)

I like Z-cell but I would change it to skip the DFDB step; this will decrease significantly the number of moves for L5C because those edges don't need to be maintained. Then you end up with L7E which you can solve very efficiently with LMCF algorithms. In my opinion this modification to Z-CELL would significantly increase the efficiency.
Actually this could be an awesome method!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 19, 2019)

I thought about Roux but with L5C and L7E and it's only marginally better than CMLL->LSE unless you can somehow come up with a good way to do L7E that averages similar to LSE. Also, with the "decrease significantly thing", it's like 0.5 moves iirc, but maybe a little bit more. Anyway, this way of doing things is just using a modified SSF2L to end with the best LSL for CFOP.


----------



## efattah (Sep 19, 2019)

L5C with a free M-slice is way more efficient than CMLL.
L7E is only slightly longer than L6E. In L7E, all you need is one of UL, UR, or FR to be random filled with an L/R edge which happens on most solves. In that case L7E is actually Waterman L6E which takes the same number of moves as Roux L6E except in most cases has higher TPS because RrUM has faster TPS than MU.

For Roux you would have to solve the last FR pair, THEN do CMLL which is a bad way to solve corners because it must preserve the M-slice. For Z-CELL, you SKIP the last FR pair AND save several moves on the corners solve, and then lose maybe 1.5 moves on average on L7E, the net result is a fairly large savings and an increased use of luck as well.

Taking a wild guess
Roux last pair: 5 moves
CMLL: 11.5 moves
L6E w/EOLR: 15 moves
Total: 31.5 moves

Z-cell w/L7E approach:
Last pair: 0 moves (skip)
L5C: 10 moves
L7E: 17 moves
Total: 27 moves (saves 4.5 moves over Roux with no loss of ergonomics or lookahead)

With Z-Cell, you would be able to look ahead to the L5C case as you are solving the back right pair, reducing recognition time.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 19, 2019)

efattah said:


> L5C with a free M-slice is way more efficient than CMLL.


Doubt it's way more efficient.


efattah said:


> L7E is only slightly longer than L6E. In L7E, all you need is one of UL, UR, or FR to be random filled with an L/R edge which happens on most solves. In that case L7E is actually Waterman L6E which takes the same number of moves as Roux L6E except in most cases has higher TPS because RrUM has faster TPS than MU.


I also doubt that RUMr has a higher tps than MU. Have you seen some Roux solvers lately?


efattah said:


> For Roux you would have to solve the last FR pair, THEN do CMLL which is a bad way to solve corners because it must preserve the M-slice. For Z-CELL, you SKIP the last FR pair AND save several moves on the corners solve, and then lose maybe 1.5 moves on average on L7E, the net result is a fairly large savings and an increased use of luck as well.
> 
> Taking a wild guess
> Roux last pair: 5 moves
> ...


It's more like: Roux - 7.5, 10.5, 11, which is 29. And the second method you just described is Roux just with more algs. Even if you did save the 4.5 moves, it would still be as efficient as Z-CELL.



efattah said:


> With Z-Cell, you would be able to look ahead to the L5C case as you are solving the back right pair, reducing recognition time.


That's harder than doing it during DFDB. Basically, you described an advanced version of Roux that has no advantage over Z-CELL. I do think that FB, SBsqr, L5C, L7E should be explored, it's just that no one has found a good way to do L7E. Not waterroux or other ideas. The best IMO is to solve EO+one U edge then do conjugated L6EP, but that still is probably bad.


----------



## efattah (Sep 19, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Doubt it's way more efficient.
> 
> I also doubt that RUMr has a higher tps than MU. Have you seen some Roux solvers lately?
> 
> ...



I disagree that L6E-EOLR can be done in 11 moves on average, but even if it could, consider that in L7E, solving the FR edge directly never takes more than 7 moves. Solving FR directly then doing L6E is the dumbest and worst possible L7E method, but by that simple analysis it takes no more than 7 extra moves vs. Roux L6E-EOLR. Around 200 L5C algorithms have already been generated for 2x2 and are in active use, and they are a lot shorter than CLL/EG1 algorithms; but again even if you assumed the most skeptical possible scenario and assumed that L5C takes the same number of moves as CMLL, then as far as STM moves, the only difference between Z-cell and Roux would be that Roux takes 7.5 moves for the last pair while Z-Cell skips the last pair and solves FR in 7 moves or less; so even in the most skeptical of all possible scenarios, Z-cell takes 0.5 moves less, and in reality it would do a lot better.

The best method thus far to solve L7E is just the latest unpublished LMCF method of doing it. I'd be happy to bet anyone $100 on 50 scrambles that Z-cell with L7E takes 1.5 moves or less than Roux finishing the same solve.

One of the problems of L7E is the way we use to count the moves. Roux in general frequently has cases where you do [M'R'] or [MR] or [M2R] or [M2R'] at the same time. If you count M-R combos as one move for the entirety of the Roux solve, with a fictional 'STMR' metric, then L7E suddenly looks way more appealing because L7E heavily relies upon the [M'R'] or [MR] single move. 

I didn't invent Z-cell, I'm just supporting a good idea that someone has put forward which is the best idea I have seen in years.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Sep 19, 2019)

Don't these discussions around "Z-Cell" remind me of the steps of 42 method:
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/42 

I'm not familiar enough with either, but wanted to throw out that comment.


----------



## efattah (Sep 19, 2019)

There are similarities with '42 Method' for sure.

I would throw out that some time ago there was discussion about the possibility of any method being sub-40 average movecount for a human. With Z-cell, you could, theoretically, increase the L5C algorithm count from 600 to around 3000. In this fashion I mean that you would inject M/M' moves and or transpose R to r and vice versa, like Waterman did with his advanced variant. Waterman's method was to inject M/M' or R->r during CLL, to affect the edges during the corner solve and solve 1 edge in the process. Roux now does similar thing with multiple CMLL's to affect edge orientation and avoid the 6-flip.

With Mega-Z-Cell, you would inject M/M' or R->r during the L5C algorithm to solve the FR edge at the same time as the corners. In this fashion the last Roux slot is essentially skipped with no added moves. I believe that would result in a sub-40 movecount speed solving method even though it would have 3000 algs. Jabari knows around 3000 algs for 1LLL, so not impossible. The drawback (not insignificant), is that with that method you would not be able to avoid 6-flips on L6E.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 19, 2019)

efattah said:


> I disagree that L6E-EOLR can be done in 11 moves on average, but even if it could, consider that in L7E, solving the FR edge directly never takes more than 7 moves. Solving FR directly then doing L6E is the dumbest and worst possible L7E method, but by that simple analysis it takes no more than 7 extra moves vs. Roux L6E-EOLR. Around 200 L5C algorithms have already been generated for 2x2 and are in active use, and they are a lot shorter than CLL/EG1 algorithms; but again even if you assumed the most skeptical possible scenario and assumed that L5C takes the same number of moves as CMLL, then as far as STM moves, the only difference between Z-cell and Roux would be that Roux takes 7.5 moves for the last pair while Z-Cell skips the last pair and solves FR in 7 moves or less; so even in the most skeptical of all possible scenarios, Z-cell takes 0.5 moves less, and in reality it would do a lot better.
> 
> The best method thus far to solve L7E is just the latest unpublished LMCF method of doing it. I'd be happy to bet anyone $100 on 50 scrambles that Z-cell with L7E takes 1.5 moves or less than Roux finishing the same solve.
> 
> ...


2 things. Firstly, Z-CELL is the method described by me. What you're describing is an advanced form of Roux which would take off if L7E became viable, so call it the right thing. Secondly, please document your L7E idea properly because it could change Roux if it is good. If it isn't let's try to find a good one. Once we have (if we have to) we can then compare Z-CELL to this Roux variant. Also, thanks for the compliment! It's something that I've had in my head for a while. 

Also, the 3000 alg idea isn't practical at all imo. The >800 algs is already pushing it.


----------



## efattah (Sep 19, 2019)

I really like the idea of mixing in L5C with Roux. The method I use for L7E in the latest LMCF still isn't optimal, and so I was thinking about L7E skips and I think there is an option to force L7E skips without 3,000 algorithms.

Consider this modification to Z-cell:
1. When generating the 614 L5C algorithms, choose variants where the FR edge is dislocated/disrupted; this should not add any moves to the average since in almost every case the FR edge will be disrupted
2. For each of the 614 L5C algorithms, memorize the effect that it has on the FR edge; more specifically, memorize the starting location of the edge which ends up in the FR slot after the L5C algorithm (location + orientation)
3. Now solve first block, and back right corner.
4. We are now at the L5C step. Having looked ahead during solving of the back right 2x2 block, you know where the FR-destined edge is (in one of 7 possible locations); now use M/U moves to place that edge in the correct location such that it gets automatically solved by the L5C algorithm. According to my calculations the average number of moves this will take is about 4, with no case taking more than 5; however there is a 1 in 7 chance the FR edge is already in the FR slot which is a case we cannot easily resolve without learning another 614 algorithms
5. Do the L5C algorithm; now in 6 of 7 cases, you skip the FR edge
6. Finish with Roux L6E-EOLR

Using this method, 6/7 (85%) of the time we skip the FR edge and go directly to L6E. 1 in 6 (14%) we need to solve the FR edge after L5C. It is of course possible to learn 3 sets of L5C algorithms to deal with that 1 in 6 chance, but probably not worth it for most people.

So using this method, almost every solve you skip the last roux slot (7.5 moves average according to PapaSmurf), and that step is 'replaced' with pre-location the FR edge into the correct location such that it is automatically solved by the L5C algorithm, and that step takes around 4 moves average, so we dropped the move count by 3.5. 

For the extremist who is willing to learn 1800 algorithms, you learn 3 variants of each L5C algorithm, the two additional variants deal with the case where the FR edge is already in the FR slot and oriented, the other case is where the FR edge is already in the FR slot and disoriented. While few people would learn all 1800 algorithms, those cases are crazy awesome, because if you knew the 1800 algorithms, then if the FR edge is in the FR slot (oriented or disoriented), you now get a full last-slot skip, since you do not need to pre-locate the FR edge and it is solved by the L5C algorithm variant. So in that case, you save a full 7.5 moves over Roux (plus, possibly an extra move and a half based on L5C taking slightly less than CMLL).


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 20, 2019)

efattah said:


> I really like the idea of mixing in L5C with Roux. The method I use for L7E in the latest LMCF still isn't optimal, and so I was thinking about L7E skips and I think there is an option to force L7E skips without 3,000 algorithms.


Carry on... (although I think we should look at L7E in general)


efattah said:


> Consider this modification to Z-cell:


 It isn't a modification to Z-CELL, it's a modification to Roux with L5C, but anyway.


efattah said:


> 1. When generating the 614 L5C algorithms, choose variants where the FR edge is dislocated/disrupted; this should not add any moves to the average since in almost every case the FR edge will be disrupted
> 2. For each of the 614 L5C algorithms, memorize the effect that it has on the FR edge; more specifically, memorize the starting location of the edge which ends up in the FR slot after the L5C algorithm (location + orientation)
> 3. Now solve first block, and back right corner.
> 4. We are now at the L5C step. Having looked ahead during solving of the back right 2x2 block, you know where the FR-destined edge is (in one of 7 possible locations); now use M/U moves to place that edge in the correct location such that it gets automatically solved by the L5C algorithm. According to my calculations the average number of moves this will take is about 4, with no case taking more than 5; however there is a 1 in 7 chance the FR edge is already in the FR slot which is a case we cannot easily resolve without learning another 614 algorithms
> ...


With current movecounts that gives 7+7+10.75 (ish)+4+12(ish)=40.75 which is very very good. If you go the other route and get a movecount of 15 or less for L7E then you have 7+7+10.75 (ish)+15=39.75 which is revelutionary tbh.


----------



## CubeBlazer (Sep 24, 2019)

Instead of just making the final steps DFDB L5C L5E, you could have a variant like Zipper-b with a EODFB, then finish with Zipper-b LSLL. Not sure if it's any more optimal though.


----------



## efattah (Sep 24, 2019)

For the record I will name the variant I suggested Roux-LSS (=Roux, Last Slot Skip). Just to re-iterate:
- FB
- Back right 2x2
- Pre-locate FR edge for L5C algorithm
- Execute L5C algorithm which auto-solves last slot because FR edge was pre-located
- L6E

According to the 2x2 L5C thread there are 486 cases for L5C including CLL, TCLL+, TCLL-. I'm not sure where the number 614 came from, or which is correct.

CubeBlazer's Zibber-b LSLL variant sounds promising but I'm not that familiar with Zipper-b.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 24, 2019)

Zipper is where you solve F2L minus an edge, then you either do CFRLL (CLL ignoring the FR edge) then L5E, or you do OLLCP then L5EP. 
EO solved L5C will be less efficient than without EO solved then L5EP is equal to L5E in terms of movecount. 
For 614: there are 2 sets of L5C: corner in slot and corner out of slot. Alg count for corner in slot is (43*3=)129. For corner out of slot, there are 27 orientations for every orientation of the D corner, so that's (27*3=)81. For each of those cases there are 6 CPs, so (81*6=)486. Then add 129 and 486 together to get 615. One of those is the solved case, so 614.


----------



## CubeBlazer (Sep 24, 2019)

For Roux-LSS, it's not just TCLL. It literally would be my other method which I'm genning algs for (haven't got a name yet;


Spoiler: Method Description



The steps are:
Cross
F2L-1
COLS(LS+CO
CPELL(COALL
I'm genning COLS, Manchot already has a site with CPELL


COLS alone has around 1100 algs, while with Roux-LSS, that adds another 2 cases to deal with, which brings it up to around 1150 algs, which is not very good with a Roux start and end.


----------



## CubeBlazer (Sep 24, 2019)

Even though I'm genning algs for "my" method, my method is still more viable because almost all algs are genned for the Partial set (just need to gen the flipped FR cases, I'm pretty sure the ZZ-C LS algs are optimal already; it's called the Partial set because you can rotate and use lefty qlgs), but for the full set, another 567 algs need to be genned. For Roux-LSS, it would be another 675 cases (without M setups to other cases in M slice) and that ignores CP. Unless you would do CP afterwards, the alg total would be raised once again. Because COLS didn't include CP(it's only CO), it gets to the point where there are 10,000+ algs.

Edit 1: My math is wrong, I did 27*21 additional algs for "my" method when it really is ((27*15)+(8*6)), but my math is also wrong between the difference of Roux-LSS and COLS. It's actually another 372 algs.
Edit 2: Just figured out my method is 959 algs. 802 for COLS, 157 for CPELL(COALL - Genned and published by Cubeur-Manchot). Also, it's not even my method, it was Blah's idea back in 2009, but work didn't start until earlier this year


----------



## efattah (Sep 25, 2019)

I'm getting confused. For Roux-LSS, L5C has 614 cases and the pre-located edge does not add any algorithms. So the number of algorithms is the usual number of Roux algorithms +614 (L5C) minus 42 (CMLL) = Usual Roux +572.
This is for the case where you cannot skip the last slot if the FR edge is already in place without the FR corner also in place.


----------



## CubeBlazer (Sep 25, 2019)

You said prelocate and solve both at the same time and it got me confused lol. If you're setting the case up, why not just use comms to solve the whole thing? You could do L5C into a 3style comm to prevent getting 6flips


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 25, 2019)

CubeBlazer said:


> You said prelocate and solve both at the same time and it got me confused lol. If you're setting the case up, why not just use comms to solve the whole thing? You could do L5C into a 3style comm to prevent getting 6flips


That's slow and less efficient.


----------



## Skewbed (Sep 25, 2019)

How about doing FB, SB minus the FR edge, set up the FR edge with <MU>, CMLL that solves FR, then L6E.

It's the same alg count as CMLL, with more efficient algs than CMLL because of more unsolved pieces and possible positions for FR.

Although it might be slower because of the FR edge setup.

L5C is probably better, but worse recognition and more algs.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 25, 2019)

Here's an interesting idea that I don't think I've heard before: CLS, but you also permute the corners at the same time. If you attach the corner to the edge before inserting, disregarding the edge's orientation, you have about 3 times the alg count of any other CLL-type method. It would only save a few moves though. I don't know if it would be worth it.


----------



## CubeBlazer (Sep 26, 2019)

That's called CPLS, but if you attach the corner, it would be 5000+ algs probs


----------



## KAINOS (Sep 26, 2019)

Not an actual new method or anything, but I found out that doing <R, U> scambles on a cube then <L, U> scrambles doesn't affect CP state - in other words you could solve LB first with <L, U> (not using reverse scramble) and the rest of the cube would be still in <RU> 2-gen solvable state. Maybe this could open up to a possibility for new CP-first method...or not 

Edit: I guess it might work on leor, if you do CP then <L, Lw, U> FB and the rest within <R, Rw, U> moveset. I'm not sure if it would be actually worth it though?


----------



## KAINOS (Sep 30, 2019)

Yay for double post

Possibly the most impractical subset/concept ever proposed in this thread, but anyway my idea is: 2-gen 1-look LSLL. Alg count is ~1600 (84 2GLLs, <100 each for two T2GLL sets, and 1296 for the rest) which is quite a lot for sure. Still it's cool to see that 1LLSLL can be done with algs less than half of 1LLL for normal CFOP. (3915 algs)
One of the possible ways to make this actually viable would be to have some corner control before finishing the F2L-1, for instance making sure at least 2 of the corners are oriented. I think it would be possible to cut down the alg count to ZBLL level with that kind of case restriction, which is already proven to be humanly possible to learn and use (still very difficult though.)
Maybe you could use it together with CP-Leor I mentioned in the previous post?

Edit: Never mind, looks like my calculations were way off


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Sep 30, 2019)

I was thinking we should probably concoct a wiki page for LEOR so that all of the info about it can be in one place. That would be really useful for people who are thinking about switching, like myself. (There’s a very good chance I won’t, but there’s a chance I will if I try it out and like it.) Also, does anyone know optimal human movecount for each step?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 30, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I was thinking we should probably concoct a wiki page for LEOR so that all of the info about it can be in one place. That would be really useful for people who are thinking about switching, like myself. (There’s a very good chance I won’t, but there’s a chance I will if I try it out and like it.) Also, does anyone know optimal human movecount for each step?


It probably wouldn't be too hard. Also, 7, ?????, 12, 16 ish depending on algs.


----------



## KAINOS (Oct 1, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I was thinking we should probably concoct a wiki page for LEOR so that all of the info about it can be in one place. That would be really useful for people who are thinking about switching, like myself. (There’s a very good chance I won’t, but there’s a chance I will if I try it out and like it.) Also, does anyone know optimal human movecount for each step?





PapaSmurf said:


> It probably wouldn't be too hard. Also, 7, ?????, 12, 16 ish depending on algs.


I ran some solves on HARCS and the average movecount for EO+DFDB (stepwise optimal) was ~10.6, while optimal for the whole step was ~8.0. (Both in <RrUM> moveset and STM metric)
I think finding optimal solution for both EO and DFDB shouldn't be too difficult. Plus you can influence DFDB pieces during EO and also cancel some moves, so I'm guessing the number will be somewhere in 9.5-10 range.
(I only did 30 solves, though, so the numbers could be off by a good bit.)


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Oct 1, 2019)

KAINOS said:


> I ran some solves on HARCS and the average movecount for EO+DFDB (stepwise optimal) was ~10.6, while optimal for the whole step was ~8.0. (Both in <RrUM> moveset and STM metric)
> I think finding optimal solution for both EO and DFDB shouldn't be too difficult. Plus you can influence DFDB pieces during EO and also cancel some moves, so I'm guessing the number will be somewhere in 9.5-10 range.
> (I only did 30 solves, though, so the numbers could be off by a good bit.)


So then we have like 7+10+12+16 which is ~44 movecount but the last step is algorithmic so it would be quite fast (not to say that LSE isn’t fast)


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Oct 1, 2019)

I want to know if anyone has thought of this and also can someone tell me how to use an alg generator?

So basically this is very similar to vandenbergh for squan. Steps:

1. EO and placing E layer edges into correct place (or one bar a R2 away from being solved).
2 CT: this is where you basically see what corners have colors other than yellow on top and twist them. I need to generate algs for this because I have not found an efficient way to do this.
3 CO. This doesn’t have to be explained
4 EO (but like squans EO). You basically just do M2’s and M’ U2 M to put the yellow/white edges in the correct place.
5 CP. you basically do it the same as squan but again need to generate algs for it because some don’t work on 3x3.
6 EP. You permute edges simultaneously on each side. Need to generate algs.

You could also combine CP and EP by doing a PLL on each side or making an alg that solves both sides.

Also in the middle of that somewhere after CO EO you need to do R2 U2 R2 to flip the bar. This also swaps the FU piece and the BU piece. So ya just please at least send me a link to a video on how to generate algs. Now this might not be very speedsolving efficient but it’s basically just something I wanted to share.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 1, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I want to know if anyone has thought of this and also can someone tell me how to use an alg generator?
> 
> So basically this is very similar to vandenbergh for squan. Steps:
> 
> ...


SSC but worse.


----------



## mDiPalma (Oct 2, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I want to know if anyone has thought of this and also can someone tell me how to use an alg generator?
> 
> So basically this is very similar to vandenbergh for squan. Steps:




I like your method.

HARCS can probably generate your algs. Post in the thread if you have questions.


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 3, 2019)

An idea for a 2x2x2 method popped into my head today. It's just a rough concept at the moment, and I'm not completely sure it would actually work or would be feasible. My idea was to create a method that has a fairly low alg count but is still possible to 1-look.

Step 0: Start with 3/4 of a face of opposite colors, similar to Guimond, but 2 of the pieces need to form a bar. This is usually solved already or can be solved with 1 move.

Step 1: The bar goes on the left side of the bottom. Then use 2-gen algs to orient. A caveat is that you can NOT use guimond-optimized algs for this step because pieces should not move between the bottom and top layers. I believe that with using 2-gen algs it should be possible to preserve the permutation of the pieces (or do a simple swap that is easy to track). I believe the alg count here should be 32 (8 cases + mirrors and inverses)

Step 2: Separation and PBL together. There are fewer separation cases than Guimond because you always have a bar on the bottom left. I think this might be 50-60 algs. More than I originally thought.

Potential cons of this method would be high move count, and AUF between steps might make the recognition more difficult. Plus, recognition of the cases for step 2 is apparently fairly tough as well.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 5, 2019)

I have a 3x3 method idea, that to me, just sounds really nice.

1. Left 1x2x3
2. EO + DFDB
3. Right 1x2x3
4. ZBLL (or 2lll)



Spoiler: Example Solve



Scramble: D B R L' U' L2 B F2 D R2 B2 U2 F2 L2 U' L2 D' B2 L U2
(x2 y)
U D B L' U' B // Left 1x2x3 (6)
r U' r' U' r U2 r U2 r2 // EO + DFDB (9)
U2 R U2 R' U2 R2 U' R' U' R2 U' R // Right 1x2x3 (12)
U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U' // ZBLL (9)
36 HTM ! (and 92% R and U moves!!)



Maybe I’ll name it LEOR or something. Thoughts on this method?


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Oct 5, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I have a 3x3 method idea, that to me, just sounds really nice.
> 
> 1. Left 1x2x3
> 2. EO + DFDB
> ...


Lol


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Oct 6, 2019)

Has anybody come up with this? Let me know.

1. solve all the edges intuitively 
2. Solve all the corners using comms.

so this is incredibly simple so someone has probably thought of it. This would probably be more of a fmc method than a speedsolving method.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 6, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Has anybody come up with this? Let me know.
> 
> 1. solve all the edges intuitively
> 2. Solve all the corners using comms.
> ...


Yes, I have definitely made a method like that and I'm sure others have as well. My method starts with EO on two axis. Here's my post about it. It averages in the 40s for movecount, and I have actually gotten a sub-30 FMC using it too, but it's pretty bad for speedsolving


----------



## Skewbed (Oct 6, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I have a 3x3 method idea, that to me, just sounds really nice.
> 
> 1. Left 1x2x3
> 2. EO + DFDB
> ...



I never realized how good that method is. 
How is EO-DFDB done? Is it intuitive?


----------



## BlastKracken7 (Oct 7, 2019)

Hopefuly I made a new skewb method(s).

Last night I was thinking of something for skewb and ended up finding algs for what I was thinking of (for beginners) I wat to know if any of these already exist.

Beginners: Make a block with 2 centers and 2 corners. Solve 2 corners. Orient the last 4. Solve the last 4 centers.

Intermediate: Make a block with 2 centers and 2 corners. Solve all 6 remaining corners. Solve the last 4 centers. 

Advanced: Made a block with 2 centers and 2 corners. Solve the rest. 

I would like to kno if any of these exist and if they do please help me out


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Oct 7, 2019)

I have not heard of any of these methods before, but there are plenty of skewb methods, so try checking here:
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_Skewb_methods
Hope this helps!


----------



## BlastKracken7 (Oct 7, 2019)

yeah i did but I didn't find anything exact. I found things that had 2 steps switched but that is it

When I make all the algs for each method I will make a pdf for them


----------



## BradyCubes08 (Oct 7, 2019)

this looks like it could have some potential but the algs would have to be all ns because otherwise it would disrupt the first step making them (in most cases) harder to learn


----------



## BlastKracken7 (Oct 7, 2019)

I already made the begginers algs last night so :shrug:

update: I'm thinking of dropping the intermediate algs and just doing beginers and advanced. and then coming back to intermediate when I do advanced.


----------



## Angry_Mob (Oct 8, 2019)

This probably already exists, but I think it's cool.
1. EOcross, but the edges can be permuted in any way
2. F2L-1 (kind of), solving edges into their correct location, but putting corners wherever is easiest
3. Solve the last pair and orient the LL corners (probably with WV)
4a. Permute corners
4b. Permute edges

I see a lot of people trying to reach the PBL state using belt methods, which I believe are much worse than this. It's not amazing, but one thing I really like about it is how it makes planning EOcross much, much easier. I'm a huge nub with zz, and can sometimes plan the entire cross in inspection. This method also leads to lots of keyhole shenanigans. I've come up with another version of this method that is more similar to zz, and I think it's about equal to the above method:

1. EOcross, but the edges can be permuted in any way
2. F2L, both the corners and edges being solved in their correct locations
3. COLL
4. Permute edges

Thoughts?


----------



## Hazel (Oct 8, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> This probably already exists, but I think it's cool.
> 1. EOcross, but the edges can be permuted in any way
> 2. F2L-1 (kind of), solving edges into their correct location, but putting corners wherever is easiest
> 3. Solve the last pair and orient the LL corners (probably with WV)
> ...


Interesting idea, but there's a few glaring issues—
- There would be 720 algorithms for 4a and another 720 for 4b, if I'm not mistaken, and the method is nowhere near good enough to justify this alg count :/
- Solving EOCross and F2L normally isn't all that much longer/harder, and it saves you a lot of recognition time and execution time for step 4.
Regular EOCross, followed by F2L, then ZBLL, is what many people consider to be a better method to ZZ. It has Way less algs than your method, and it's probably significantly faster too.
I don't mean to discourage you, though—keep on making methods, and maybe you'll come across something really good eventually


----------



## Angry_Mob (Oct 8, 2019)

4a is 8 algs and 4b is 15, so it's actually not that bad. I may have worded myself poorly (which is something I do often), but you're solving F2L so that there is a solid face on the bottom that needs to be permuted. The main advantage of this method is that EOcross is much easier to solve in inspection. I still think zz is better because 3 algs to finish the solve is too many imo.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Oct 9, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> 4a is 8 algs and 4b is 15, so it's actually not that bad. I may have worded myself poorly (which is something I do often), but you're solving F2L so that there is a solid face on the bottom that needs to be permuted. The main advantage of this method is that EOcross is much easier to solve in inspection. I still think zz is better because 3 algs to finish the solve is too many imo.


Isn’t there 3 cases for 4a? Solved, Adjacent and Diagonal? Also for 4b, just to clear up stuff, you can look at the cross at any given time. Therefore, you don’t need a x rotation to see the BD edge.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Oct 9, 2019)

BlastKracken7 said:


> Hopefuly I made a new skewb method(s).
> 
> Last night I was thinking of something for skewb and ended up finding algs for what I was thinking of (for beginners) I wat to know if any of these already exist.
> 
> ...


Isn’t that Ranzha’s but worse?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 9, 2019)

Angry_Mob said:


> This probably already exists, but I think it's cool.
> 1. EOcross, but the edges can be permuted in any way
> 2. F2L-1 (kind of), solving edges into their correct location, but putting corners wherever is easiest
> 3. Solve the last pair and orient the LL corners (probably with WV)
> ...


Just do ZZ with EOCross. There's not too much to it other than it's definitely better. EOCross ZZ<Pseudo EOCross, but then every other step with ZZ is either equal or better for both methods. In terms of algs, there would be 8 then 49.



Skewbed said:


> I never realized how good that method is.
> How is EO-DFDB done? Is it intuitive?


It is. It is basically EOLine but you use <RrUMF> to do it.


----------



## BlastKracken7 (Oct 9, 2019)

Triangles_are_cubers said:


> Isn’t that Ranzha’s but worse?


Its actually ranzha's but the last 2 are switched for the begginers


----------



## Skewbed (Oct 9, 2019)

Simiar to my earlier post, about the Roux alternatives to CMLL (except it's conjugated this time):

1. First Block
2. Second Block Back Square + 1 oriented corner (usually already done)
3. Set up edge for next step (short, <MU>, preserves corner)
4. Conjugated CMLL with unsolved edge
5. L6E

Pros:
- Only 42 algorithms
- Solving 6 pieces at a time with those algs
- Better algs than CMLL (since more unsolved pieces)
- Easier than full Second Block

Cons:
- Bad recognition
- Edge needs to be set up 

This should be a lot easier than learning about 500 algs or whatever it was for L5C with unsolved edge. It does the same steps with less algs.

This method is basically the 42 method with an unsolved edge getting solved with Conjugated CMLL, so you don't have to do L7E.


----------



## BlastKracken7 (Oct 9, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I have a 3x3 method idea, that to me, just sounds really nice.
> 
> 1. Left 1x2x3
> 2. EO + DFDB
> ...


I think if this were to get enough practice this could end up being a top method.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 10, 2019)

It already exists as a method and I do think it has a lot of potential. You just need to learn ZBLL, see EO in inspection and you're off.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Oct 10, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> I have a 3x3 method idea, that to me, just sounds really nice.
> 
> 1. Left 1x2x3
> 2. EO + DFDB
> ...


Just to clear things up for me at least, was this post intended to be a joke of some sort? LEOR already exists as a method, and we’ve been talking about it a lot on here. I assumed it was a joke until I saw PapaSmurf’s post... so is it?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 10, 2019)

It is a joke, and I am fully aware, but I hope that more people learn about it as a method.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 10, 2019)

How many 2x2 cases are there where each side is made up of 2 opposite colors?


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Oct 10, 2019)

Aerma said:


> How many 2x2 cases are there where each side is made up of 2 opposite colors?


**method incoming**


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 10, 2019)

Do the maths. Each corner can be in one of 7 places. So it's 7!=5040. Then you do more maths and do it properly but that's effort. So it's got an upper bound of 5040.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 11, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Do the maths. Each corner can be in one of 7 places. So it's 7!=5040. Then you do more maths and do it properly but that's effort. So it's got an upper bound of 5040.


I mean you aren't wrong xD but I don't know how to do that math myself...


----------



## Sue Doenim (Oct 11, 2019)

Aerma said:


> How many 2x2 cases are there where each side is made up of 2 opposite colors?


That's kinda the idea behind the HD method. It reduces to opposite V's, which is only marginally harder. Full case count doesn't actually seem very bad at all:

(Sorted by color pattern on U/D face)
PBL: 5 cases
V's: 21 cases
Adj/adj: at most 36 cases
Adj/opp: at most 36 cases
Opp/opp: at most 36 cases

That's lower than I expected, and definitely a very feasible alg count. Recognition does not seem good, but I don't know if that would be a big deal with the ability to one-look. I think this is really cool: this is one of the most commonly proposed methods, but it's always shot down because no one ever check to see how high the alg count actually was.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 11, 2019)

Sue Doenim said:


> :3


I don't intend on reducing down to the state I described, but rather the user of the method I'm looking into could choose to learn the algs in case it comes up.
I'm sure this method has been proposed before, but I really like it and think it could be interesting for those who want to get decent at 2x2 but don't care enough about it to learn EG.

1: OPS - Opposite Pseudo-Sides. Orient the corners so that the U and D faces consist only of two opposite colors. Can very easily be planned in inspection, at least if you do the sides one at a time.
2: Solve the rest. (Messy PBL?). I currently do this by orienting the corners and then Ortega PBL, but there must be better ways. Much of the time you just have NLL, so it would be advisable to know that.

With this method, I currently average sub-5, about a second faster than I do with Ortega. If you do OPS one side at a time, the POLL algorithms (Pseudo-OLL) should be better than regular OLL. For example, H would be just R2 U2 R('), and U can either be the regular alg or R U2 R U2 R('). I haven't found better algs for any other case yet, though.


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 11, 2019)

Aerma said:


> 1: OPS - Opposite Pseudo-Sides. Orient the corners so that the U and D faces consist only of two opposite colors. Can very easily be planned in inspection, at least if you do the sides one at a time.
> 2: Solve the rest. (Messy PBL?). I currently do this by orienting the corners and then Ortega PBL, but there must be better ways. Much of the time you just have NLL, so it would be advisable to know that.



This is basically Guimond isn't it? Step one of guimond gives you U and D faces of 2 opposite colors.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Oct 11, 2019)

Aerma said:


> I don't intend on reducing down to the state I described, but rather the user of the method I'm looking into could choose to learn the algs in case it comes up.
> I'm sure this method has been proposed before, but I really like it and think it could be interesting for those who want to get decent at 2x2 but don't care enough about it to learn EG.
> 
> 1: OPS - Opposite Pseudo-Sides. Orient the corners so that the U and D faces consist only of two opposite colors. Can very easily be planned in inspection, at least if you do the sides one at a time.
> ...



I just wanted to point out that the first step takes only 3.7 moves on average optimally, so doing it one side at a time is likkee a lot of extra moves. Also your OPS is commonly known as Corner Orientation, or CO.

Here's some examples of doing OPS aka CO in under 4 moves on average:
Scr: F2 U F' U' F R2 F' R U' -- (y') U R'
Scr: F R' U' R F U' F U F' -- (z x') R
Scr: F' U2 F' R F2 R' F2 R' F' -- (y') R' U2 R
Scr: U R' F2 U2 F' U2 F' U F' -- (y') F R
Scr: U2 F2 R U' R2 F R F2 U2 -- U' R2 U R'
Avg of 5 is just 2.4 moves, but I do admit these were really easy scrambles, and I know it usually takes around 4 moves.
If you want more information on how to do this or just CO and Guimond in general, then perhaps this is a good place to start.

And then for finishing the cube once you have CO, I'd have to say NLL is the way to go, but if you don't want to learn 36 algs then PBL is an alright choice.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 11, 2019)

Zarxrax said:


> This is basically Guimond isn't it? Step one of guimond gives you U and D faces of 2 opposite colors.


Oh  I thought Guimond was something different...



WoowyBaby said:


> And then for finishing the cube once you have CO, I'd have to say NLL is the way to go, but if you don't want to learn 36 algs then PBL is an alright choice.


If you get neither a V nor a solved side, is doing the seperation step followed by PBL the best option?


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Oct 18, 2019)

Aerma said:


> Oh  I thought Guimond was something different...
> 
> 
> If you get neither a V nor a solved side, is doing the seperation step followed by PBL the best option?



Not sure the context, so ill answer both scenarios...

If you solve with HD, you must always solve with a V on bottom when orienting corners so you dont have to separate. 

But if your talking about just using Guimond, then doing the separation step then PBL is the best option.


----------



## BlastKracken7 (Oct 21, 2019)

has anyone tried making algs for 2x3x3 that solve 1 layer?
or both


----------



## BlastKracken7 (Oct 22, 2019)

I still want to know if someone has tried making algs for 2x3x3 for ither p1l (permute 1 layer) or pbl (permute both layers)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Oct 22, 2019)

Google Sites: Sign-in


Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).



sites.google.com


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 28, 2019)

Random 2x2x2 Ortega thought.
Instead of just using the normal OLLs, why not use OLLs that will solve the adjacent swap case on the bottom? You get this case 2/3 of the time, and it's pretty easy to force it. Then your OLL can solve the bottom layer. Now you only have PLL on the top layer, so you have a much higher chance of a PLL skip, plus the recognition is much faster and easier.
Or I guess you could learn 21 OLLs, so you have one for each of the 3 bottom layer cases. It gets kinda stupid at that point though...


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 28, 2019)

Have you ever heard of EG? It is where you solve a face, then you solve everything. It's 128 algs, which is exactly what you're describing, just worse. EG isn't super hard to learn, so just go with that.


----------



## Skewbed (Oct 28, 2019)

Yesterday, I wrote a custom solver in JavaScript to find some algs for the CMLL with a missing edge set:

It let me make more state definitions than Cube Explorer, and that helped with finding shorter algs.

I set it to find all <RUF> algs up to about 10 moves, and it found over 60 working algs! Some of the algs are a bit hard to execute.

I also threw together a website showing the algs I found and the corresponding CMLL case (the position of the FR edge might not be visible in all cases).

Here's a link: http://cmlle-algs.surge.sh/


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 28, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Have you ever heard of EG? It is where you solve a face, then you solve everything. It's 128 algs, which is exactly what you're describing, just worse. EG isn't super hard to learn, so just go with that.


Yes, but what I am describing is just what seems like a better way of learning ortega/LBL, I'm not trying to replace EG, I'm just trying to make a beginner method better.


----------



## Hazel (Oct 28, 2019)

Zarxrax said:


> Yes, but what I am describing is just what seems like a better way of learning ortega/LBL, I'm not trying to replace EG, I'm just trying to make a beginner method better.


Yep - some people (myself included) want to get fast at 2x2 but don't care enough about the event to learn 100+ algs for it.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Oct 28, 2019)

This may be a bad idea, but maybe you could use Ortega on a 3x3? As long as you have a white corner piece to go with the correct middle layer edge piece, then you can just do PLLs to fix the top and bottom layers.


----------



## Skewbed (Oct 28, 2019)

BenChristman1 said:


> This may be a bad idea, but maybe you could use Ortega on a 3x3? As long as you have a white corner piece to go with the correct middle layer edge piece, then you can just do PLLs to fix the top and bottom layers.


Ortega started out as a 3x3 method:
http://rubikscube.info/ortega.php


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Oct 28, 2019)

BenChristman1 said:


> This may be a bad idea, but maybe you could use Ortega on a 3x3? As long as you have a white corner piece to go with the correct middle layer edge piece, then you can just do PLLs to fix the top and bottom layers.


Actually, Ortega for 3x3 (called Varasano) was invented quite a bit before ortega for 2x2 was. It;s not great.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Oct 28, 2019)

Skewbed said:


> Ortega started out as a 3x3 method:
> http://rubikscube.info/ortega.php





ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Actually, Ortega for 3x3 (called Varasano) was invented quite a bit before ortega for 2x2 was. It;s not great.


I have actually tried this method. I average between 20 and 25 seconds normally, but with this method I got over 1 minute. That is interesting that Varasano was invented before Ortega.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 29, 2019)

Skewbed said:


> Yesterday, I wrote a custom solver in JavaScript to find some algs for the CMLL with a missing edge set:
> 
> It let me make more state definitions than Cube Explorer, and that helped with finding shorter algs.
> 
> ...


That's pretty cool. How efficient are all the algs, because it could be a possible extension.


----------



## Skewbed (Oct 29, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> That's pretty cool. How efficient are all the algs, because it could be a possible extension.



A lot of them are just taking out the corner and putting in a pair. Lots of stuff like F U F’ though.


----------



## parkertrager (Oct 29, 2019)

i have actually created a Facebook group for this and we have gotten some algsets and methods worth trying out.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Nov 2, 2019)

Method for 4x4 incoming (or any big cubes for that matter). This is a Petrus version of 4x4. I dont use Petrus, do anyone can tell me if I did something wrong. Also this may not be as efficient as just doing redux and then Petrus.
1. Solve first two centers. This is like normal. You can solve them however you like or which ever ones you like.

2. Put two bottom color edges on the bottom center (these must be adjacent colors and also placed adjacent to each other) and then an edge that is the same colors as your d edge’s.

3. Solve last 4 centers like yau. The exact same no differences.

4. Put one of two options in the last slot on the down center.
1. Put another d color edge in or 2. Put an edge that has at least on color similar to your two down edges that have the down color.

5. 3-2-3 edge pairing (or any edge pairing for that matter).

6. Build the 2x2x2 (which it’s edges are already in the correct position) and then use your edge from step 4 to expand to 2x2x3.

7. Do Petrus style EO and fix parity if needed.

8. Finish F2L

9. COLL

10. EPLL + Parity.

I think Im going to call it 4trus like 4x4 and trus like in the end of Petrus. 

let me know what everybody’s thought are on this. Also @PetrusQuber do you do 4x4?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 2, 2019)

I kinda get what you're saying. An example solve would be nice just to clarify.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Nov 2, 2019)

Ok
Scramble: U Fw2 U' D2 Rw2 F2 L' F' Uw2 D' L D' B2 Fw' R2 D2 L2 Uw Fw' Uw2 B2 R2 Rw' Uw B Rw F' B Fw L' U' L2 U L B L' D' Uw' R' F2

Rw U’ Rw2 F Rw’ F Rw L2 Uw2 y U Rw U2 Rw’ //F2C
y’ R L’ Uw L F’ y’ R U’ R’ Uw’ D2 R2 U R’ U’ y L’ U L Uw’ L // Two d color edges and the colored edge that has the same colors as those edges put on bottom like Yau
z’ x R Rw U’ Rw’ x’ R2 U’ r U’ r’ x’ R U’ Lw’ U’ Lw // L4C
z R2 Uw’ R U R’ Uw U2 R2 // I chose to put a non d colored edge in that has at least one color in relation to the d edges. You couldve put a d color edge there but the non d edge was easier to make.
y R U’ R’ Uw L U’ L’ U’ y L’ U L Uw L U’ L’ U2 R U’ R’ Uw’ y U’ y’ R U’ R’ y R U R’ F R’ F’ R Uw’ U2 L’ U L Uw’ R U R’ F R’ F’ R Uw // 3-2-3 edge pairing.
R B U’ R’ U2 L U’ L’ F’ U2 F’ R2 U F’ U’ F’ 3Dw’ // 2x2x3
U F’ U F2 U’ L’ U2 L U2 L’ U L U2 R U2 R’ U R U’ R’ // EO+F2L
U R U R’ U’ R’ F R2 U’ R’ U’ R U R’ F’ U r2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 Uw2 U // PLL+Parity


ok I really hope I didn’t miscramble. If I did and this doesn’t work with the scramble then keep in mind you can just reverse everything and the go from there.
Also really the only thing that’s different is the first edges so that’s all that matters in this and the 2x2x3.


----------



## CubeBlazer (Nov 4, 2019)

I solve 6x6 weirdly and I don't know if anyone else does it this way. SPOILER: I'm garbage and average mid-4s

Step 1: Redux Centers
Step 2: Pair and Insert Cross Edges
Step 3: Yau5 L8E(Pair all F2L Edges)
Step 4: F2L3+4
Step 5: (Deal with Edge/OLL Parity at the same time) / OLL
Step 6: PLL


----------



## KAINOS (Nov 9, 2019)

New 4x4 method for ZZ/Petrus solvers, adapted from my 5x5 ZZ method from a while ago:

1. L/R Centers
2. 1x3x4 on L
3. Center bars
4. EOpair 5 edges with freeslice, not including DF and DB edges and place them on L/R
5. Finish reduction and solve EO2x2x3 - still uncertain about how to do this part, below is one way to do it:

5-1. 'Blockbuild' centers and EOLine minus 1 wing
5-2. L5W (Last 5 Wings) - done with commuators. You may get parity (=odd number of swaps) by 50/50 chance and this might be able to be avoided in the previous step.

6. Solve the rest - Petrus F2L, COLL then EPLL+Parity should be enough.



Spoiler: Example solve



Scramble: B2 U F2 L2 R2 D L2 B2 L2 B2 D2 R2 F' L' B D B D B' F L' Fw2 U R D' Fw2 D' L D L Fw2 L Fw B D' B2 L Uw Rw' Uw Fw2 Uw' Fw Rw2

x Lw' U Lw Uw' U' Lw2 Uw L2 Uw' L' x Uw' L2 Uw // L/R Centers (13/13)

x' R2 U Rw' D' x U' D Rw2 x' B' R2 3Rw' F
B Rw' M2 R U R2 B' // 1x3x4 (18/31)

3Rw' U' Rw' 3Rw' U l' U2 l U' 3Rw' U' Rw U' // Center bars (13/44)

Rw2 // GY
U R U l2 3Rw' // OB
U' R U l' // YO
U R U' 3Rw' U2 3Rw' Rw2 // YR
U' R' U' Rw2 // WO
R U R' U' // Finish step 4 (25/69)

3Rw2 Rw' U2 l' U2 3Rw U2 Rw2
U2 3Rw U2 3Rw' Rw U2 l' U2 3Rw' // step 5-1 (17/86)

D U R2 U' r U R2 U' r' D' // step 5-2 // (10/96)

R2 U' R U' R2 U R' U' R // F2L (9/105)
F' R U2 R' U2 R' F2 R U R U' R' F' // COLL (13/118)
M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U // EPLL (10/128)

Looks like this ended up being a pretty lucky solve - the actual average movecount seems to be closer to 140-150.


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Nov 10, 2019)

I believe this method can be subset to solve Petrus (not a Petrus solver at all, so Petrus users I’d like your critique), than just COLL+EPLL and I think it could be beneficial.

1. 2x2x3 block like Petrus in the back
2. EO (same as Petrus)
3. Last 2 F2L pairs (therefore ignoring the last cross edge)
4. COLL+L5E (16 algs to solve the whole thing with L5E).

I believe this COULD (big maybe) be better than standard COLL + EPLL, but if any Petrus solvers think otherwise let me know. Ignoring the last cross edge could be beneficial in some situations and L5E recognition is just as good as EPLL. Don’t expect this to be a good method. Let me know what you guys think!


----------



## Hazel (Nov 10, 2019)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> I believe this method can be subset to solve Petrus (not a Petrus solver at all, so Petrus users I’d like your critique), than just COLL+EPLL and I think it could be beneficial.
> 
> 1. 2x2x3 block like Petrus in the back
> 2. EO (same as Petrus)
> ...


Ignoring the last cross move won't save many moves... it'll also require an extra rotation to bring it to the front before L5E. Also, while L5E's recognition isn't necessarily harder than EPLL, it's more move moves on average if I'm not mistaken.
The biggie, though, is that the best Petrus solvers would know full ZBLL, which is much better than L5E+COLL.

TL;DR: ignoring the cross edge gives very minor benefits, which don't make up for the fact that L5E is worse than EPLL, and ZBLL negates this variation entirely.
Sorry


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 10, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Ok
> Scramble: U Fw2 U' D2 Rw2 F2 L' F' Uw2 D' L D' B2 Fw' R2 D2 L2 Uw Fw' Uw2 B2 R2 Rw' Uw B Rw F' B Fw L' U' L2 U L B L' D' Uw' R' F2
> 
> Rw U’ Rw2 F Rw’ F Rw L2 Uw2 y U Rw U2 Rw’ //F2C
> ...


I get what you mean now. The 3-2-3 edge pairing was a bit messed up, and I'd also recommend using alg.cubing.net for future example solves, just becasue it's easier and it automatically checks for you. This method seems pretty good. I don't think that it would be as good as yau, but it's certainly not a bad method. 


KAINOS said:


> New 4x4 method for ZZ/Petrus solvers, adapted from my 5x5 ZZ method from a while ago:
> 
> 1. L/R Centers
> 2. 1x3x4 on L
> ...


With this method, I don't see how it would be beetter than LEOR on 4x4. This is my proposal for a method. F2C, Roux block (pretty much Meyer at this point). L4C, 3-2-3, EODFDB/EOStripe/EOLine (all of these are the same things) + parity, RB, COLL, EPLL+parity. If you don't know what LEOR is, check the page on the wiki here. I think it has potential and is more competitive than Meyer because of <rR(M)U> being better than <MU> on big cubes. Yes, I know that <MU> isn't bad at all. Also, the <RU> of RB is better than <Rr(M)U> of RB in Meyer.


----------



## Pyjam (Nov 10, 2019)

I was off for a year. I didn't know there was a wiki page for Leor! 
What is LEOR-b ?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 11, 2019)

LEOR-b is 2x2x2, FL pair, EODF, normal LEOR from here. EOMR is EOFB, DFDB, normal LEOR from here. I don't think that they're better than normal though.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Nov 11, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> I get what you mean now. The 3-2-3 edge pairing was a bit messed up, and I'd also recommend using alg.cubing.net for future example solves, just becasue it's easier and it automatically checks for you. This method seems pretty good. I don't think that it would be as good as yau, but it's certainly not a bad method.
> 
> With this method, I don't see how it would be beetter than LEOR on 4x4. This is my proposal for a method. F2C, Roux block (pretty much Meyer at this point). L4C, 3-2-3, EODFDB/EOStripe/EOLine (all of these are the same things) + parity, RB, COLL, EPLL+parity. If you don't know what LEOR is, check the page on the wiki here. I think it has potential and is more competitive than Meyer because of <rR(M)U> being better than <MU> on big cubes. Yes, I know that <MU> isn't bad at all. Also, the <RU> of RB is better than <Rr(M)U> of RB in Meyer.


I would use alg.cubing.net but on my tablets keyboard for prime moves i usually use ‘ because the straight line is not a thing on my keyboard and alg.cubing doesn’t recognize ‘ as what a prime move is supposed to be, which is not on my keyboar.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 16, 2019)

So I was messing around with Petrus, and stumbled upon this...
1. 2x2x2 block
2. Heise style 2x2x1, or psuedoblock next to it
3. Pair on top of that creating a Roux 1x2x3
4. Insert last bottom layer edge. Swing the Roux pseudoblock down to create a F2L-1
5. OLL
6. PLL
Nice move count, around 45ish (just a few solves though)
Is there an appropriate thread for this to go into, because I can’t find one..,
I might do an example solve. Just posted this for fun!


----------



## Pyjam (Nov 16, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> Is there an appropriate thread for this to go into, because I can’t find one..,


Yes, 5th "Sticky threads", just above.
Please, post an example.


----------



## GAN 356 X (Nov 16, 2019)

Sub-8 with this new method now!


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 16, 2019)

I’m waiting for somebody to say:
Or you could just use Petrus


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 17, 2019)

R U’ L2 F2 B’ D2 R D2 B2 L’ D F’ B U2 R’
y’ x’// inspection
L2 R U L U’ R B2 D’// bad 2x2x2 8 HTM, 8 HTM
R’ F2 R2 F2 R2 U F’// Psuedo block, wrong 2x2x1 7 HTM, 15 HTM
U’ R U2 R’ U2// Roux block complete 5 HTM, 20 HTM 
B’ R F’ B// Edge insertion 4 HTM, 24 HTM
R’ U R U2 R’ U R// F2L pair 7 HTM, 31 HTM
y2 R U2 R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 U2 R// Chameleon Headlight 9 HTM, 40 HTM
y F2 U L R’ F2 L’ R U F2// U Perm 9 HTM, 49 HTM
U’// AUF 1 HTM, 50 HTM

Of course, there was a edge OLL skip, and an accidental COLl, but I believe this method could be optimised further with better block building at the start, D layer EO influencing and forced edge OLL skips.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Nov 17, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> R U’ L2 F2 B’ D2 R D2 B2 L’ D F’ B U2 R’
> y’ x’// inspection
> L2 R U L U’ R B2 D’// bad 2x2x2 8 HTM, 8 HTM
> R’ F2 R2 F2 R2 U F’// Psuedo block, wrong 2x2x1 7 HTM, 15 HTM
> ...


I believe i understand this. Also, really cool method! I think what you could also do is instead of inserting edges and then do F2L pair you could just insert a pseudo pair or just insert the edge and then do tols.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 18, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I believe i understand this. Also, really cool method! I think what you could also do is instead of inserting edges and then do F2L pair you could just insert a pseudo pair or just insert the edge and then do tols.


Yeah, the edge thing takes up too many moves...


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 18, 2019)

Edge+EO shouldn't take too many moves and could be worth pursuing.


----------



## KAINOS (Nov 19, 2019)

One of the problems that 2-gen redux methods have is that the 2-gen part of the solve is actually not that efficient. Traditional method (ZZ/Petrus F2L+2GLL) gives you something like 28~30 moves(13~15 for F2L, 14.65 for 2GLL (13.15 for algs+AUF)), when the average optimal is around 16~17. So I'm trying to find better alternate method that could finish the solve in <25 moves consistently.

One of the better methods I've come up with is this: Solving tripod(two 2x2x1 blocks - one on DBR and the other on U) and then solving the rest with 1 algorithm. (~300 algs in total) The latter part seems to be slightly better or at least equal to normal 2GLL in both movecount and ergonomics, and some of the algs are really short and nice (~9-12 moves) because of the open FR slot. Also making tripod does solves 1 more piece than F2L, but you have 4 different options for block on U and blockbuilding could be easier as well because of, again, the open slot.

That being said, it would only save only 2 moves at absolute best which is not sufficient to be under 25 moves, of course. And any other stuff I've found couldn't really top this, either. That's why I posted here - I want to hear some new possible ideas from other people. What do you guys think about it? Are there any good 2-gen solving method you can think of? Or do you think it would be impossible to meet a such goal?


----------



## Etotheipi (Nov 19, 2019)

KAINOS said:


> One of the problems that 2-gen redux methods have is that the 2-gen part of the solve is actually not that efficient. Traditional method (ZZ/Petrus F2L+2GLL) gives you something like 28~30 moves(13~15 for F2L, 14.65 for 2GLL (13.15 for algs+AUF)), when the average optimal is around 16~17. So I'm trying to find better alternate method that could finish the solve in <25 moves consistently.
> 
> One of the better methods I've come up with is this: Solving tripod(two 2x2x1 blocks - one on DBR and the other on U) and then solving the rest with 1 algorithm. (~300 algs in total) The latter part seems to be slightly better or at least equal to normal 2GLL in both movecount and ergonomics, and some of the algs are really short and nice (~9-12 moves) because of the open FR slot. Also making tripod does solves 1 more piece than F2L, but you have 4 different options for block on U and blockbuilding could be easier as well because of, again, the open slot.
> 
> That being said, it would only save only 2 moves at absolute best which is not sufficient to be under 25 moves, of course. And any other stuff I've found couldn't really top this, either. That's why I posted here - I want to hear some new possible ideas from other people. What do you guys think about it? Are there any good 2-gen solving method you can think of? Or do you think it would be impossible to meet a such goal?


would it be at all beneficial to solve eo before the last tripod 2x2x1? It would make the block a bit more efficient and reduce the alg count, but I don't know how much good it would do.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 20, 2019)

You need EO solved for it to be 2gen, so he's only talking about EO solved.


----------



## ProStar (Nov 24, 2019)

A (probably wrong) thought about improving CFOP F2L
This is most likely wrong, but would using Roux's F2B(First 2 Blocks) to start and then adding the extra 2 edge pieces by utilizing the M slice to finish F2L, then finishing the cube with OLL and PLL be faster? Or would that be slower than doing F2L normally?


----------



## AbsoRuud (Nov 24, 2019)

CFOP movecount:
Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL

Roux movecount:
FB, SB, CMLL, LSE

Your method: FB, SB, something something, OLL, PLL.

It seems to me that the 2-3 moves that you'd be doing more when doing cross right away would be less than 'something something'.


----------



## ProStar (Nov 24, 2019)

AbsoRuud said:


> CFOP movecount:
> Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL
> 
> Roux movecount:
> ...



But moves isn't the only thing that counts, some moves are less efficient than others. I've been trying to find splits for F2B compared to Cross + F2L for an average solver, but I can't find them.


----------



## Matt11111 (Nov 25, 2019)

Disclaimer: I'm not color neutral, nor am I particularly good at lookahead, so I'm probably the least qualified person to figure out whether this idea is any good or not.

So I was screwing around on 3x3, and a really weird idea came to mind. After doing your cross (let's say you do white) and two adjacent F2L pairs (so for example the two green pairs), you have a 2x2x3 block plus your last white cross edge. What if, in addition to looking for your next pair, you tried to locate the yellow-green edge, and if you can make a green cross and the next green pair easily, you stop solving on white and rotate to do green instead?

Not much progress would be lost since the only piece that might get moved out of position is the last white cross edge, but I wonder if looking for F2L pairs on two different colors might be too much to be thinking about when you're trying to get a fast solve. 

So what do you guys think? Could this idea have any potential? Like I said, I'm not color neutral, so it's definitely not an idea that could benefit me, but maybe some color neutral folks could provide some input.


----------



## Hazel (Nov 25, 2019)

It's an interesting idea, but I would think that it would take a lot of effort to get decent at, with very little reward... might just be easier and help look-ahead to just stick with the same F2L. I'm not color neutral though, so maybe someone else thinks it's a better idea!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 25, 2019)

Everyone has made that suggestion before a=nd everyone realises that it's worse than CFOP and it's worse than Roux. F2L is pretty fast anyway, and you're removing the benefits of CMLL+LSE for a worse system.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Nov 25, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Everyone has made that suggestion before a=nd everyone realises that it's worse than CFOP and it's worse than Roux. F2L is pretty fast anyway, and you're removing the benefits of CMLL+LSE for a worse system.


Has anyone ever suggested 3/4 cross with missing one in front, F2L(made rotationless and more efficient because the M slice is almost free), CxLL?(Doesn’t need to preserve EO, but the M slice isn’t completely free), L5E(EO is only 5 cases because on solved edge in DB, the rest can be done using one of 16 algs{4 are EPLL, and all except the 5 cycles can be EPLL with setup moves})(or you could do L5EOP and EPLL)(or FD and ELL)




Edit: this is basically Russo


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 25, 2019)

lars petrus had this idea when developing petrus.


> You have three corners to choose from. It's important to pick the easiest, just like in step 1.


Source:https://lar5.com/cube/fas2.html

I think it's doable if you can recognize cases quickly, but it would be some wasted moves if the cross is done.
If you go directly for 2x2x3, call it freefop and you're good to go


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 25, 2019)

Yes, same story. Do Roux.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 3, 2019)

Would it be at all beneficial for those who don't know full CMLL to, in Roux, after FB, do SB 2x2x1, CP, finish SB, then 2-gen CMLL? Recog is pretty bad for CP, but you can (I think) always solve it with at most 2 sledgehammers and some AUFs, and then you only need one alg out of a set of seven to one look CMLL. Obviously full CMLL would be better, but for those who don't know it would this help?


----------



## ProStar (Dec 3, 2019)

I think using two-look CMLL is just as good, any former-CFOP solvers will know the algs, and beginners will be able to learn them very quickly.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 3, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> I think using two-look CMLL is just as good, any former-CFOP solvers will know the algs, and beginners will be able to learn them very quickly.


Yeah, thats true, but imo doing CP is more interesting, though probably slower. But still, it is less algs, and doing SB-CP could be optimized to be decently fast.


----------



## RyanP12 (Dec 6, 2019)

Here’s an idea: what is we did ZZ EOLine, then did CP Block(left block) to reduce the cube to RU, then do right block(easily due to the RU reduction), and end up with a 2GLL.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 6, 2019)

RyanP12 said:


> Here’s an idea: what is we did ZZ EOLine, then did CP Block(left block) to reduce the cube to RU, then do right block(easily due to the RU reduction), and end up with a 2GLL.


that's zz-d






ZZ method - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com







> *Solving Corner Permuation during F2L*
> These methods solve Corner Permutation leaving the cube in a 2-gen state.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RyanP12 (Dec 7, 2019)

Thanks


----------



## RyanP12 (Dec 7, 2019)

What if we did LEOR(EOFB, then Stripe), which would leave us with 6 unsolved corners, which we can easily solve CP on, and end with RU gen into 2GLL?


----------



## RedstoneTim (Dec 7, 2019)

RyanP12 said:


> What if we did LEOR(EOFB, then Stripe), which would leave us with 6 unsolved corners, which we can easily solve CP on, and end with RU gen into 2GLL?


Almost every method with 2-gen finish solves CP at some point after 2x2x3 + EO which means that the general structure is solve 2x2x3 + EO (multiple ways: ZZ, Petrus, LEOR, LEOR-b, etc.) , solve CP, right block and 2GLL.
What I want to say is that it isn't really an innovation if you just put an existing way to solve 2x2x3 + EO and one to solve CP together.
If you're interested in CP, there are already a lot of methods out there like ZZ-d, Briggs, 2GR and Noah's CP block methods. They're all worth a look.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 11, 2019)

I have a algorithim set idea, 2 actually.

So we have cross solved, this can be ZZ (if eocross is solved) or CFOP. Sometimes you will have a F2L pair in the wrong slot. So what if, we put the F2L pair that went in that slot, in the slot that the first pair was supposed to go in. This only works for ZZ if it’s diagonal. So lets say we had a diagonal swapped F2L thing. We would do everything normal then at PLL we would do an algorithm that solves pll whilst solving the two diagonal pairs. This concept can also be applied if there are 2 adjacent swapped pairs (which is only possible with cfop).

Lemme know what your thoughts are on this.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 11, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I have a algorithim set idea, 2 actually.
> 
> So we have cross solved, this can be ZZ (if eocross is solved) or CFOP. Sometimes you will have a F2L pair in the wrong slot. So what if, we put the F2L pair that went in that slot, in the slot that the first pair was supposed to go in. This only works for ZZ if it’s diagonal. So lets say we had a diagonal swapped F2L thing. We would do everything normal then at PLL we would do an algorithm that solves pll whilst solving the two diagonal pairs. This concept can also be applied if there are 2 adjacent swapped pairs (which is only possible with cfop).
> 
> Lemme know what your thoughts are on this.


Well, recog shouldn't be an issue, because by the time you get to PLL you could easily remember that you have a diagonal case, without having to look, although learning the extra set of PLL algs might not be worth it, it depends on whether the diagonal PLL cases are longer or harder to execute than the normal PLL, I'd think they would, because more pieces would be needed to be moved, and there would be no 2-gen algs in the set because you'd need to do at least 2 L moves to get one misplaced pair out of it's slot and into the other.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Dec 12, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I have a algorithim set idea, 2 actually.
> 
> So we have cross solved, this can be ZZ (if eocross is solved) or CFOP. Sometimes you will have a F2L pair in the wrong slot. So what if, we put the F2L pair that went in that slot, in the slot that the first pair was supposed to go in. This only works for ZZ if it’s diagonal. So lets say we had a diagonal swapped F2L thing. We would do everything normal then at PLL we would do an algorithm that solves pll whilst solving the two diagonal pairs. This concept can also be applied if there are 2 adjacent swapped pairs (which is only possible with cfop).
> 
> Lemme know what your thoughts are on this.


This already exists. I can’t remember what it’s called (someone help me) but it was proposed a long time ago. It turns out that some of the algs are good, but the majority aren’t great. From what I remember though the diag swaps are some of the better ones.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 13, 2019)

I had a probs garbage 4x4 method idea, thats sort of a Petrus redux method. The steps are:
1: Solve a 4x2x3 block, and the center opposite the one contained in the block. 
2: Solve the remaining centers.
3: add the remaining little edge pieces to create a full 4x3x3 block
4: Pair remaining edges. 
5: finish as 3x3.

Does this already exist? Or is it completely garbage?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 14, 2019)

WoowyBaby said:


> Yes, I was first thinking of EO2x2x2 but I thought it might be too much to plan in inspection so I split them up, if you guys day it’s possible then ok! (I’ll edit the post)
> Edit: Just saying, In the random notes section, under the “To be faster with this method:” I said this about EO- “even solve it simultaneously w/ 2x2x2”


What is the current state of this method?


----------



## kadabrium (Dec 14, 2019)

VHCP - the LS extension of CPEOLL

combined with 2GLL this can theoretically solve 2LLS in the least number of alorithms, beating WVCP+ELL by about 30.


----------



## Skewbed (Dec 14, 2019)

kadabrium said:


> VHCP - the LS extension of CPEOLL
> 
> combined with 2GLL this can theoretically solve 2LLS in the least number of alorithms, beating WVCP+ELL by about 30.



I would assume it does it like VH, based on the name VHLS.

Wouldn’t it be 3 look?
1. Pair up pieces
2. VHCP
3. 2GLL


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 17, 2019)

F2L-1-1cross piece next to the pair/2x2x3block+pair
EO+LS(could probably do both at once, but doing them separately isn’t too bad)
COLL(or maybe do last pair, 
L5EP

Seems pretty decent to me


----------



## ProStar (Dec 17, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> F2L-1-1cross piece next to the pair/2x2x3block+pair
> EO+LS(could probably do both at once, but doing them separately isn’t too bad)
> COLL(or maybe do last pair,
> L5EP
> ...



Isn't that basically petrus?


----------



## Skewbed (Dec 17, 2019)

DarkSavage said:


> Isn't that basically petrus?


No


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 17, 2019)

I came up with this weird method where you solve 2 1x2x3 blocks, just like Roux, but then using the M slice, you insert the other 2 cross pieces, then solve the last layer like normal.


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Dec 17, 2019)

BenChristman1 said:


> I came up with this weird method where you solve 2 1x2x3 blocks, just like Roux, but then using the M slice, you insert the other 2 cross pieces, then solve the last layer like normal.


That's been thought of by most people. It's really not that good.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 17, 2019)

BenChristman1 said:


> I came up with this weird method where you solve 2 1x2x3 blocks, just like Roux, but then using the M slice, you insert the other 2 cross pieces, then solve the last layer like normal.


This has already been suggested by several people, and it has been turned down each time.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 17, 2019)

BenChristman1 said:


> I came up with this weird method where you solve 2 1x2x3 blocks, just like Roux, but then using the M slice, you insert the other 2 cross pieces, then solve the last layer like normal.


Insane!


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 17, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> F2L-1-1cross piece next to the pair/2x2x3block+pair
> EO+LS(could probably do both at once, but doing them separately isn’t too bad)
> COLL(or maybe do last pair,
> L5EP
> ...


Has anyone already though of this?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 17, 2019)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> That's been thought of by most people. It's really not that good.


No, its not.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 17, 2019)

BenChristman1 said:


> No, its not.


WombatWarrior17 is right


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Dec 17, 2019)

BenChristman1 said:


> I came up with this weird method where you solve 2 1x2x3 blocks, just like Roux, but then using the M slice, you insert the other 2 cross pieces, then solve the last layer like normal.





BenChristman1 said:


> No, its not.


Very common, yeah. The only good variant is ZBRoux, which uses ZBLL. The problem is that it’s so many more algs for a small improvement. So many people have come up with it, we get it like once every one or two weeks here.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 17, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> F2L-1-1cross piece next to the pair/2x2x3block+pair
> EO+LS(could probably do both at once, but doing them separately isn’t too bad)
> COLL(or maybe do last pair,
> L5EP
> ...


I think this is petrus with EJLS? And then L5EP. I believe this was proposed recently.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 17, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I think this is petrus with EJLS? And then L5EP. I believe this was proposed recently.


That’s not what EJLS is


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 17, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> That’s not what EJLS is


Oh sorry. I believe petrusquber asked if he should do this kinda thing earlier.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 18, 2019)

Is there a last layer subset in which the corners are oriented, and than you solve the cube(eo+cp+ep) Like ELL, but with CP. It would be 174 algorithms, -21 PLL, -25 ELL = 128 This could be used with WV as a low(er than ZB) alg count 2 look LS+LL method. If this is new, I will name it KLMNLL


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 18, 2019)

That's not new. COALL has been around for a while (also called ELLCP or CPELL) and isn't better than ZB, Zipper, Ribbon with CLS (which gives the COALL ending).


----------



## brododragon (Dec 18, 2019)

This idea is super undeveloped and I hope someone can help.

First, solve the first layer. Don't know how, but just do it.

Next, do the second layer, but while doing that, find bad edges and corners and place them in certain places so that they naturally get fixed my the second layer.

Finally, permute the LL.

Like I said, super undeveloped. Help developing it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 18, 2019)

brododragon said:


> This idea is super undeveloped and I hope someone can help.
> 
> First, solve the first layer. Don't know how, but just do it.
> 
> ...


Interesting, I suppose one could develop multiple edge insertion algs that orient specific pieces, and then apply the correct ones. 

From fiddling, I found that the alg U R U' R' U' F' U F orients two corners and one last layer edge, so you could manipulate it to solve EO every time, but for the corners I think we'll need another alg.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 18, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> This is mostly waterman. In waterman, you solve first layer, than solve E layer, and then last layer. The E layer is typically done with commutators. I guess your method is different, in the way that you kinda do like a domino sort of thing.


I think this method is LBL, but with an forced OLL skip each time.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 18, 2019)

I’m dumb, waterman is you solve first layer and then do a CxLL, then solve r edges, whilst orienting m layer edges, and then, L4e.


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 18, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I’m dumb, waterman is you solve first layer and then do a CxLL, then solve r edges, whilst orienting m layer edges, and then, L4e.


Ok then. =P


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 18, 2019)

There's a set of methods called L2L. Check them out.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 18, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Interesting, I suppose one could develop multiple edge insertion algs that orient specific pieces, and then apply the correct ones.
> 
> From fiddling, I found that the alg U R U' R' U' F' U F orients two corners and one last layer edge, so you could manipulate it to solve EO every time, but for the corners I think we'll need another alg.



I do not have access to a cube right now, but have two ideas for the corners.

Idea: Build the white side middle first. Then do the right side. You can use the left to orient the corners before actually constructing the left side. Finally, permute.

Edit: it's just dawning on me that this could be a good OH method; mostly R and U, with a couple Fs.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 18, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> There's a set of methods called L2L. Check them out.


What I'm trying to do is to orient edges and corners during the first layer

Edit: Whoops I got confused


----------



## brododragon (Dec 18, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Interesting, I suppose one could develop multiple edge insertion algs that orient specific pieces, and then apply the correct ones.
> 
> From fiddling, I found that the alg U R U' R' U' F' U F orients two corners and one last layer edge, so you could manipulate it to solve EO every time, but for the corners I think we'll need another alg.


Wait, so you use U' R' U' F' U F to solve EO, right? Also, where is the other edge that gets flipped? (two edges always get flipped).


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 18, 2019)

brododragon said:


> Wait, so you use U' R' U' F' U F to solve EO, right? Also, where is the other edge that gets flipped? (two edges always get flipped).


the other edge that gets oriented is the one being inserted.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 18, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Interesting, I suppose one could develop multiple edge insertion algs that orient specific pieces, and then apply the correct ones.
> 
> From fiddling, I found that the alg U R U' R' U' F' U F orients two corners and one last layer edge, so you could manipulate it to solve EO every time, but for the corners I think we'll need another alg.


Couldn't you use a slightly modified alg to insert a white edge to the bottom layer whilst orienting two LL corners? You could do this twice to make a white cross AND orient all corners. To preserve them, it shouldn't be more than a move or two inserted into the middle of algorithm.

Note: I've been packing for a trip for the last few hours, so sorry about the delay.

Edit: Do you want to continue the conversation in an actual conversation?


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 19, 2019)

brododragon said:


> Couldn't you use a slightly modified alg to insert a white edge to the bottom layer whilst orienting two LL corners? You could do this twice to make a white cross AND orient all corners. To preserve them, it shouldn't be more than a move or two inserted into the middle of algorithm.
> 
> Note: I've been packing for a trip for the last few hours, so sorry about the delay.
> 
> Edit: Do you want to continue the conversation in an actual conversation?


Won't the first layer be solved by the time you start on orienting things? I guess you could do that though.

I go on long car drives every month or so, so no worries about packing, I'm used to it lol. (I go somewhere for Christmas on the 20th so I won't be active at all that day, except maybe for a little while around 8:00 or 9:00.)


----------



## brododragon (Dec 19, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> so I won't be active at all that day, except maybe for a little while around 8:00 or 9:00.)


Same for me except tomorrow.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 19, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Won't the first layer be solved by the time you start on orienting things? I guess you could do that though.


Can you go more in depth on the alg's use? Maybe post a video? I'm a bit confused


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 19, 2019)

Its just an F2L alg, invert it and you can see the case.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 19, 2019)

Etotheipi said:


> Its just an F2L alg, invert it and you can see the case.


Figured it out.

Also, we're gonna have to figure out another alg that doesn't flip the edge for LL edges that are already correctly oriented


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 19, 2019)

brododragon said:


> Figured it out.
> 
> Also, we're gonna have to figure out another alg that doesn't flip the edge for LL edges that are already correctly oriented


You know you can download a algorithm generator on to your computer or laptop to find that alg.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 19, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> You know you can download a algorithm generator on to your computer or laptop to find that alg.


Well I just wasted an hour


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 19, 2019)

brododragon said:


> Well I just wasted an hour


Lol. You could use harcs, kubesolver, and i think cube explorer.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 19, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Lol. You could use harcs, kubesolver, and i think cube explorer.


Are those mobile? I don't have access to a computer at this moment


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 19, 2019)

brododragon said:


> Are those mobile? I don't have access to a computer at this moment


No. There is currently one website generator but it’s interface is really confusing.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 30, 2019)

CECE? Cross, EO during F2L(EOF2L), COLL, EPLL
I don’t think I invented this, but there should be a name for it. EOF2L could just be placing pairs so that edges get oriented, or just F2L+VHLS


----------



## ProStar (Dec 30, 2019)

Ok, I got another bad idea:

F2L Pairs - Solve the corner-edge f2l pairs, but not the cross. The middle layer should now be finished, as well as the bottom corners.
CLL - Solve the corners on the last layer with one alg
Orient all edges - Orient the remaining 8 edges with 1 alg
Permute all edges - Permute the 8 edges with 1 alg

Probably not very practical, and I'd be willing to bet that OAE and PAE would take a lot of algs.


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Dec 30, 2019)

That's a cool idea
I mean cuz i average 25 seconds and my cross is 10 seconds....
I HATE CROSS


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Dec 30, 2019)

ProStar said:


> Ok, I got another bad idea:
> 
> F2L Pairs - Solve the corner-edge f2l pairs, but not the cross. The middle layer should now be finished, as well as the bottom corners.
> CLL - Solve the corners on the last layer with one alg
> ...


That's basically PCMS.
I don't think EO would be too many algorithms, but EP would be a ton.


----------



## Pyjam (Dec 30, 2019)

Parity Nightmare said:


> I HATE CROSS


Roux is for you.


----------



## Hazel (Dec 30, 2019)

ProStar said:


> Ok, I got another bad idea:
> 
> F2L Pairs - Solve the corner-edge f2l pairs, but not the cross. The middle layer should now be finished, as well as the bottom corners.
> CLL - Solve the corners on the last layer with one alg
> ...








PCMS - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com





Also, look at my signature


----------



## ProStar (Dec 30, 2019)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> That's basically PCMS.
> I don't think EO would be too many algorithms, but EP would be a ton.





Aerma said:


> PCMS - Speedsolving.com Wiki
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh well, I'll try again next time lol 

stay tuned for another post in which I invent an existing method


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 30, 2019)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> CECE? Cross, EO during F2L(EOF2L), COLL, EPLL
> I don’t think I invented this, but there should be a name for it. EOF2L could just be placing pairs so that edges get oriented, or just F2L+VHLS


Does this have a name already?


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 30, 2019)

Parity Nightmare said:


> i average 25 seconds and my cross is 10 seconds....
> I HATE CROSS


Well, if you knock your cross times down to 2-3 seconds then you'll be averaging sub-20, you have tons of room to improve there,so it shouldnt be too hard to get faster at cross. But if you really hate it then you can switch to Roux or something else.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Dec 30, 2019)

OK, ProStar's post was PCMS, wich already exists, but it made me think of something : How many algorithms would it be to solve the cube after EO ?


----------



## Hazel (Dec 30, 2019)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> OK, ProStar's post was PCMS, wich already exists, but it made me think of something : How many algorithms would it be to solve the cube after EO ?


(8!) / 2, or 20,160. Quite a bit.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Dec 30, 2019)

Aerma said:


> (8!) / 2, or 20,160. Quite a bit.


 Oh, OK. Would that be any less after roux EO ?


----------



## Hazel (Dec 30, 2019)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Oh, OK. Would that be any less after roux EO ?


After Roux EO, you would have 6 edges, so (6!) / 2, or 360. Still a lot, but at least this can actually be done. I highly doubt it would be worth it though, as the algorithms probably wouldn't be much more efficient or really any faster than just solving normally.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 3, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> CECE? Cross, EO during F2L(EOF2L), COLL, EPLL
> I don’t think I invented this, but there should be a name for it. EOF2L could just be placing pairs so that edges get oriented, or just F2L+VHLS


This is definitely worse than ZZ. If you want to do something similar, just do ZZ with ZBLL.


----------



## Chris_Cube (Jan 5, 2020)

Hello there,
my name is Chris and I am new here on this place. I wanted to post here a speedsolving method for the 3x3x3. 
So I tried some solves with this method and for me as a bad speedcuber  (pb is 22:26 sec) I achieved an average of around 30 secs. So this method maybe has potential with some more Optimization to be a sub-20 method. My Explanation is as follows:


I hope you can give me some feedback 
Greetings

ESO-Method

The ESO-Method (E & S Slice Method) is a method for speedsolving. It's a little bit a fusion of Blockbuilding
and Triangular Francisco. Especially it uses the principles of Group-reducing.
The Steps are as follows:

Step 1: The Rubik's Cube Group is firstly reduced to Moves Rw, R, U, E, F, M and L so you build in this step
a 1x2x2 Block. After this, turn the block into the left corner, so that the F & R Slices won't destroy it. 

Step 2: Put every corner on the E Slice in it's correct position, this is very practical at this point, because
(just like Triangular Francisco) the R Slice is completely moveable and also the F Slice, you won't destroy your 
1x2x2 Block. You now have reduced your Cube to simple and fast moves. Also if for example a corner is at the 
Down-Position on the R-Slice, you can get it out with the R2-Move, which would for example destroy your "B2-Bomber" 
in the Triangular Francisco Method. 

Step 3: Orientate the Corners of the last Layer. Because you have 2 Corners left from your starting layer you can 
orientate the last layer corners with these corners. If you start with white for example, you will get the yellow
cross. This step also reduces the cube to simple Moves resp. the M-Slice. It is also done by Intuition.

Step 4: F2L 
This F2L is very interesting, because it only needs R,R2,U,U2,L,L2 as moves
(or R,R2,U,U2 when you want to turn the whole Cube), which can be executed very fast.
In this step you sometimes orientate the last layer completely and can skip it in Step 5. You could optimate this 
step by orientating the last layer simultaneously as inserting the F2L-Pairs or using MGLS. 

Step 5: OLL + PLL
It's the same like CFOP. Sometimes you get an OLL-Skip. 

Example Solve
--------------------------------------------------
Scramble: B' D' B' D' U2 L D2 B U' B R' U R2 L' B2

Solve: yellow on top green in front

1x2x2-Block: D2 U' F U' F'
E-Layer-finish: D' E2 Rw U Rw' U' E' R U' R' E' U' Rw U Rw' E' Rw U Rw'
OLL-Edge: U2 M' U2 M U2 S' U2 S 
F2L: R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' U R R U R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R' L' U' L U L' U' L U2 L' U L 
OLL-Corner: U2 R U R' U R U2 R
PLL: U U-Perm 
86 Moves


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 5, 2020)

Welcome! I am very confused with your method at present, because A:there are no corners in the E slice (step 2 of your method), and B: the example solve doesn’t seem to work. Maybe elaborate on this a bit?
EDIT: Never mind, realised you were scrambling White on top Green on front, then rotated. Give me a minute to go through this.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jan 5, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> CECE? Cross, EO during F2L(EOF2L), COLL, EPLL
> I don’t think I invented this, but there should be a name for it. EOF2L could just be placing pairs so that edges get oriented, or just F2L+VHLS


From what I can tell, this is ZB but with a simpler LL. Please correct me if I’m wrong.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jan 6, 2020)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> From what I can tell, this is ZB but with a simpler LL. Please correct me if I’m wrong.


All I came up with was the name


----------



## Chris_Cube (Jan 6, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Welcome! I am very confused with your method at present, because A:there are no corners in the E slice (step 2 of your method), and B: the example solve doesn’t seem to work. Maybe elaborate on this a bit?
> EDIT: Never mind, realised you were scrambling White on top Green on front, then rotated. Give me a minute to go through this.



Hey PetrusQuber, 
yeah excuse me I maybe mentioned some things wrong, but if you made the example solve you should understand the things I explained wrong with my english skills  
For example I also found out, if you insert the F2L in Step 4 in a specific order, you can orientate the last layer simultaneously in this Step. 
But this has to be worked out, because I don't want to use i.e. MGLS (too much algs  ).
Greetz


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 6, 2020)

You mean, you guys don't just peel the stickers off?


I'm sorry


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 6, 2020)

Well, I’m really not the kind of person to analyse this method. Maybe somebody else can!


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 6, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> You mean, you guys don't just peel the stickers off?



I've heard stickered cubes will be forbidden by the WCA in 2021.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jan 6, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> I've heard stickered cubes will be forbidden by the WCA in 2021.


I’ve heard that Moyu will make a clock.


----------



## Acro (Jan 7, 2020)

My friend taught me this method and I'm not sure if it's original or not and he only taught me the beginner version so I'll try to write as much as I remember of his advanced version

The steps would be 
3/4 Cross
F2L minus the edge
CMLL
L5E

The bottom face's center can be on top or bottom depending on the pieces and basically make a line and one white edge and fix the line and edges and then M2 to put it at the bottom or simply do it like a normal cross but only 3 edges

F2L can be done like normal except that face without the edge can be moved to pair as long as no pairs have been inserted in that face
and another trick is the M where if u have an edge that needs to be paired you can do M' to pair and U or U' and M to put the M slice back in it's place and sometimes the edge is not correct so you can put the corner so the other side and in Roux you would do M2 to pair if the pieces were the same but in this method it would be M' U2 M
and the pair would be....paired

CMLL, I don't know how this works but I learnt to do Sune and Anti-Sune and J and A perms to solve the corners but somehow he solves the four corners in one alg 
he said it's an alg set u can memorize

L5E I solved like how i would on LSE except I made it into a PLL case but he said I can memorize an alg set for it

He never named this method and could anyone tell if this is original or an existing method


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 7, 2020)

ZZ-Zipper.

EO+line
F2L minus 1 edge
COLL
L5E

Only interesting if you get a bad F2L case for the 4th slot.


----------



## G0ingInsqne (Jan 7, 2020)

Isn't that like FreeFOP? Idk much bout the method but I heard its like using M moves to solve F2L and freestyling F2L.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 7, 2020)

G0ingInsqne said:


> Isn't that like FreeFOP? Idk much bout the method but I heard its like using M moves to solve F2L and freestyling F2L.


No, FreeFOP is just straight blockbuilding and freestyling for F2L, then OLL PLL.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jan 7, 2020)

this is like roux with an extra piece solved that just gets in the way and reduces efficiency. please just Learn roux


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 7, 2020)

Acro said:


> My friend taught me this method and I'm not sure if it's original or not and he only taught me the beginner version so I'll try to write as much as I remember of his advanced version
> 
> The steps would be
> 3/4 Cross
> ...


It’s Russo


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 8, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> I've heard stickered cubes will be forbidden by the WCA in 2021.


OH NO!


----------



## Chris_Cube (Jan 8, 2020)

Nicola Bruhin said:


> Scramble: B' D' B' D' U2 L D2 B U' B R' U R2 L' B2
> Inspection: z2
> D2 U' F U' F' // 1x2x2-block
> D' // move block to BL
> ...



Yeah ok I understand what you mean. I found it interesting to solve the E-Layer because some last F2L Cases with this situation can skip OLL, so you just have to make PLL. I thought, that it would be a little bit too silly to solve the last F2L after you solve the E-Layer, but if you are fast at rotating the U and R layer this method could improve your F2L solving a little bit. My avg with CFOP is 25 secs and with ESO I got around 30 to 35 secs. 
Greetings


----------



## ProStar (Jan 8, 2020)

Ok, back with another idea that probably already exists. It's a combination of CFOP + Roux.

F2B - Solve First 2 Blocks like you normally would do for Roux
CMLL - Same as Roux
EO - Orient Yellow/White edges like normal for Roux, then use M moves to place the remaining cross edges
EPLL - Same as CFOP

Example Solve(excuse my laughably horrific F2B):

z2 U R2 L' U2 L U2 L' U L U2 L U L' R U R' U' M U' M' y R U R' U2 R' U R U' y R U' R' // F2B ( I don't mean any disrespect to Roux users, I'm just awful lol )

R U R' U' R' F R F' // CMLL

U M' U' M U2 M' U' M // EO pt. 1

M' U2 M // EO pt. 2 (I know I could've done U M' U' M U2 M' U M for EO, this is just so it's easier to understand)

U' M2 U M U2 M' U M2 U' // EPLL(+AUF)


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, back with another idea that probably already exists. It's a combination of CFOP + Roux.
> 
> F2B - Solve First 2 Blocks like you normally would do for Roux
> CMLL - Same as Roux
> ...


This has been proposed by a lot of people, but no EO and before the EO. This is usually not very efficient, but this version might be better than placing L and R and then L4E. I can do some comparison solves for refrence.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, back with another idea that probably already exists. It's a combination of CFOP + Roux.
> 
> F2B - Solve First 2 Blocks like you normally would do for Roux
> CMLL - Same as Roux
> ...


thats how i solve roux


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 8, 2020)

It's inefficient. Have you noticed that the first move of U-Perm, H-Perm, and Z-Perm is M2 ? and then deconstruct the DF-DB line.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 8, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> It's inefficient. Have you noticed that the first move of U-Perm, H-Perm, and Z-Perm is M2 ? and then deconstruct the DF-DB line.



I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 8, 2020)

If you look how this PLL U works : M2 U' M' U2 M U' M2, you see that it deconstructs DF-DB to solve UL-UR instead.
The PLL H and Z do the same thing.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 8, 2020)

For the ESO method: just start off by building a 2x2x2. It averages 6 moves if you get good. 
Instead of solving the whole E slice, just solve the FL and BR edges. That will only be another 4 ish moves. 
EO+cross is an interesting step. I'd guess about 8-10 moves?
2 keyhole F2L pairs which would be maybe 10 moves.
An F2L pair, around 8 moves.
ZBLL, 16 moves (inc. AUF).
All in all, an interesting method, rotationless and good ergonomics, althougn mixed. Probably a low-ish movecount of <50 moves. Would be cool to see if it's good, but would need ZBLL (493 algs) to unlock its proper potential.



Spoiler: Example solve












alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net




Overall, a pretty lucky solve, but it feels like on of those methods that are lucky just because they are. Could have potential.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 9, 2020)

(I asked this another time but don't remember where so I don't know what the answer was)

How many algs would it take to to the last slot while orienting and permuting corners? Obviously the set would be enormous, but it could be like OLS; you learn only certain subsets(like WV or SV for OLS)


----------



## Sue Doenim (Jan 9, 2020)

The case count would be somewhere around 6000.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 9, 2020)

Sue Doenim said:


> The case count would be somewhere around 6000.


thats a large number.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 9, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> thats a large number.



OLS has over 17,000 total. No one learns OLS, they learn certain subsets. Recognition would be harder then OLS though.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 9, 2020)

I have this idea. It's probably very bad, but here it is :
1. Solve the entire cube ignoring the orientation of every piece.
2. Orient the E-Slice (1 algorithm)
3. Apply pure OLL on one side. Try orienting the side as much as you can, if finish with one twisted corner or edge, don't worry. If you have both, make sure that two bad pieces are next to each other after pure OLL.
4. Do the same thing on the other side.
5. If you have twisted corners, edges, or both, align them so they are on the same layer, then rotate the cube and apply another pure OLL so they are both solved simultaniously.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 9, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I have this idea. It's probably very bad, but here it is :
> 1. Solve the entire cube ignoring the orientation of every piece.
> 2. Orient the E-Slice (1 algorithm)
> 3. Apply pure OLL on one side. Try orienting the side as much as you can, if finish with one twisted corner or edge, don't worry. If you have both, make sure that two bad pieces are next to each other after pure OLL.
> ...


Seems pretty bad Lol. No offense.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 10, 2020)

So, it's like Petrus, except instead of EO you do CO. Then, when F2L is finished, you have all the corners oriented. Then you can do one alg and solve the rest of the cube. The LL set would have less algs than ZBLL, cause corners instead of edges would be oriented. I can't figure out how to do CO properly though.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 10, 2020)

ProStar said:


> So, it's like Petrus, except instead of EO you do CO. Then, when F2L is finished, you have all the corners oriented. Then you can do one alg and solve the rest of the cube. The LL set would have less algs than ZBLL, cause corners instead of edges would be oriented. I can't figure out how to do CO properly though.


CO is a pain XD. ask WoowyBaby about how to solve it, he's an FMCer who uses domino reduction sometimes, he'd know.


----------



## fortissim2 (Jan 10, 2020)

So I was looking at the Zipper Method, and I kinda thought of a variant for it. It goes like this:
1. Cross
2. F2L - 1 edge
3. CLL
4. L5E
What I like about the second step is that if you get a bad F2L case, you can just insert the corner and continue with the other corner-edge pairs, which can be faster than doing normal F2L.
Instead of doing OLLCP, you could do CLL (smaller alg set) and move on to the first step of L5E.
The L5E part can be split into 2 parts: solve 2 top edges to where they belong in the cube with an algorithm, and L3E, using 1 algorithm to solve the rest of the cube.

There might be more efficient ways on doing the last 5 edges, but for now I think it's good.

Edit: I also included an example solve to show you guys how it works.
https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F2_D-...2_top_edges
U2-_R-_U-_R-_U-_R-_U_R_U_R_//_L3E


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 10, 2020)

Justin (the inventor of Zipper) has already come up with that and it's called Zipper-b, but it's almost certainly better than normal Zipper. The algs are found here.
You one look L5E for the best.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 10, 2020)

fortissim2 said:


> So I was looking at the Zipper Method, and I kinda thought of a variant for it. It goes like this:
> 1. Cross
> 2. F2L - 1 edge
> 3. CLL
> ...



It wouldn't be normal L5E. Normal L5E does the 4 U layer edges and a D layer edge.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 10, 2020)

L5E just means last 5 edges, so it doesn't really matter. Just as CLL in Waterman is different to CLL in CFCE, L5E in Zipper is different to other L5E.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jan 11, 2020)

ProStar said:


> So, it's like Petrus, except instead of EO you do CO. Then, when F2L is finished, you have all the corners oriented. Then you can do one alg and solve the rest of the cube. The LL set would have less algs than ZBLL, cause corners instead of edges would be oriented. I can't figure out how to do CO properly though.





Etotheipi said:


> CO is a pain XD. ask WoowyBaby about how to solve it, he's an FMCer who uses domino reduction sometimes, he'd know.



Petrus with CO would make the right block F2L blockbuilding a whole lot worse, because with EO you can do it iwth just R and U moves, while without it you require F and / or B moves, and, also, it is basically impossible to building your right block without breaking CO.
CO isn't hard to do. In fact, it takes the same number of moves to do as EO, but the benifits of CO aren't much. It doesn't make blockbuilding any easier like EO does and it barely makes the corners any easier to solve, and it heavily restricts what you can do, for example, if you have CO it's impossible to solve the cube without breaking CO, unlike EO, unless........ along with CO you also have EO on two axis as well; so then you have domino reduction. Then it's actually really dang good


----------



## ProStar (Jan 11, 2020)

What about Petrus with CLS?


----------



## Chris_Cube (Jan 11, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> For the ESO method: just start off by building a 2x2x2. It averages 6 moves if you get good.
> Instead of solving the whole E slice, just solve the FL and BR edges. That will only be another 4 ish moves.
> EO+cross is an interesting step. I'd guess about 8-10 moves?
> 2 keyhole F2L pairs which would be maybe 10 moves.
> ...


Hello PapaSmurf,
yeah your additions are very interesting. In fact it realizes my ideas very good. So do you think, that my original method is interesting or your modified version?
For example i don't use keyhole because you need too much algs. The ESO Method as it is needs just the algs in step 5. someone above you mentioned that my F2L after E-Line is inefficient but i think as a fast cuber you can perform the U and R Turns fast enough to get good times. Also your ZBLL in the last step can be modified because i found out that if you insert the last 3 f2l pairs you can also orientate the last layer with just U and R turns. But i did not figure out how this comes. It works in like 75% of my solves.
Greets


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 11, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> For example i don't use keyhole because you need too much algs.


Keyhole is completely intuitive, you don't need algs for it.


----------



## Chris_Cube (Jan 11, 2020)

Oh excuse me, I messed something up there. Sorry


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 11, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> Oh excuse me, I messed something up there. Sorry


If you meant ZBLL, then I agree, its too many algs.


----------



## xcross (Jan 12, 2020)

This is a post to debate the possibility of making this method MUCH faster.



Spoiler: Hint 1



[Its very old.]




Spoiler: Hint 2



[It is NOT layer by layer.]




Spoiler: What is it?



[Its Corners first/Waterman!]


*Why revisit corners first?*
Corners first is a very old method that isn't talked about as much as before. I want to revisit this method with a possibility of cutting times by ALOT!


*What's the big change?*
The new change is implementing EG-1 ALGS! As we know EG-1 takes less than a second to do. We also know its possible to get Sub 10 with corners first, If we use EG-1 ALGS and solve the rest as you normally would, we could cut the time in *HALF!


Will this have any downsides or drop offs?*
I will be testing this method in an attempt to see how this could change this method. As far as we can see so far there is no drop offs.


*"this isnt viable!"*
I'm well aware, I would just wanted to see how we could increase this method's speed as a fun project.


----------



## RagingCat22 (Jan 12, 2020)

elrog said:


> *Please read before posting*
> 
> I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed. This is a place to post them. I have come up with many ideas and didn't want to post a new thread for every one of them when most don't get very far. Perhaps if an idea gets very far, it may deserve its own thread, but until then, it should go here.
> 
> ...


Aw man. I had just made a method called "Pillar method" where you make 4 f2l pails without cross. But then i saw the columns first method. Though my way is different from it's solve


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 12, 2020)

xcross said:


> This is a post to debate the possibility of making this method MUCH faster.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This isn't new. The fastest CF method is LMCF and everyone who does corners first should use the most advanced 2x2 method as possible. Check that method out.



Chris_Cube said:


> Hello PapaSmurf,
> yeah your additions are very interesting. In fact it realizes my ideas very good. So do you think, that my original method is interesting or your modified version?
> For example i don't use keyhole because you need too much algs. The ESO Method as it is needs just the algs in step 5. someone above you mentioned that my F2L after E-Line is inefficient but i think as a fast cuber you can perform the U and R Turns fast enough to get good times. Also your ZBLL in the last step can be modified because i found out that if you insert the last 3 f2l pairs you can also orientate the last layer with just U and R turns. But i did not figure out how this comes. It works in like 75% of my solves.
> Greets


I think that your method is interesting and the modified version is a faster version of your method, so is also interesting. As Etotheipi said, keyhole is completely intuitive and is definitely faster than the F2L that you're proposing. The ergonomics aren't that great but doing it this way will definitely make it faster with really good ergonomics.
When you get to last slot, the 100% best way to do it is insert the pair then ZBLL. Skipping OLL (with winter variation or OLS) just isn't as good as winter variation takes too many moves with an extra look and OLS is slightly less efficient, when, if you get good, you can predict the OLL during last slot. I know 493 algs sounds like a lot, but you don't need to learn 144 of them (as sune and anti sune ZBLLs aren't any faster than sune+PLL) and if you start earlier, you will have more time to learn them. Also people have learnt full ZBLL in 2 months, so it is possible to learn all of them quickly.


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 16, 2020)

Mephiles Method?

Mephiles-R
1. T-Shape Layer (1x1x3 Block+Opposite Edge)
2. Solve all corners: First Layer -->CMLL
3. Equator (This can be done rotationlessly)
4. LSE

Mephiles-F
1. T-Shape
2. Equator
3. Solve all corners: First Layer --> CMLL
4. LSE

Mephiles-CT
1. T-Shape
2. Equator
3. EO+Solve First Layer Edges
4. Solve DBR-Corner+Orient 2 Corners
5. CTLS

Mephiles-Z
1. EO+T-Shape (EO+1x1x3 Block -->Opposite Edge)
2. ZZF2L
3. COLL
4. LSE

Quite fun to do actually lol


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 16, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> Mephiles Method?
> 
> Mephiles-R
> 1. T-Shape Layer (1x1x3 Block+Opposite Edge)
> ...



The Mephiles-R seems similar to the Hexagonal Francisco variant Octagonal Francisco.

Step 1 - Octagon: a layer with the DF and DB edges missing, and the DFR corner missing.
Step 2 - Equator: done the same as Hexagonal Francisco
Step 3 - Corners: Commutators probably
Step 4 - L6E

Here is a link for those interested in Hexagonal Francisco:
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hexagonal_Francisco


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 16, 2020)

Here's an idea that's a mix of ZB and Roux

1. FB
2. SB except one pair while placing UR and UL in DF DB (like in pinkie pie)
3. Use ZBLS for your last SB pair while orienting edges
4. Use ZBLL to solve the corners and to make it so that when you inser LR edges the M-Slice is solved
5. Insert LR
6. Done !


----------



## Hazel (Jan 17, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Here's an idea that's a mix of ZB and Roux
> 
> 1. FB
> 2. SB except one pair while placing UR and UL in DF DB (like in pinkie pie)
> ...


Interesting, but it seems a little complex. ZBRoux (Roux but EODFDB -> ZBLL instead of CMLL -> LSE) is already a thing and I think it might be better... maybe post an example solve here?


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 17, 2020)

I finished 4Trus. Actually, I did a while ago lol. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/4trus
EDIT: @PetrusQuber do you do 4x4? If so, this method might work for you.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 17, 2020)

I do a bit, but not too seriously. I will take a look at it, when I start doing it more, thanks!


----------



## RedstoneTim (Jan 17, 2020)

Metallic Silver said:


> Mephiles Method?
> 
> Mephiles-R
> 1. T-Shape Layer (1x1x3 Block+Opposite Edge)
> ...



The first variant seems really similar to the Skis method.
Also the second one looks a bit worse than the first since the only advantage is that you can place all the E-layer edges <RUu>-gen, but solving the corners is a lot more moves.
Mephiles-CT looks really interesting, I like how the beginning is similar to ZBRoux, except that you don't solve the DFR and DBR corners. (Maybe there's some better way to solve from step 3, for example DBR + EP and L5C afterwards?)
Mephiles-Z isn't that great imo because the M slice doesn't really make ZZF2L a lot more efficient and the DFR and DBR corners only hinder solving since it almost always requires you to solve them first, which isn't that great in terms of movecount.
Since you do equator in most of the variants directly after T-shape, you could also have some kind of Roux variant with FB+DR edge (fat T-shape because it's two layers?) and then solve the rest of the E-slice to have a lower movecount (though it might be too similar to Roux that way).
All in all, really good job with the method and keep on posting new ideas and methods!


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 17, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Here's an idea that's a mix of ZB and Roux
> 
> 1. FB
> 2. SB except one pair while placing UR and UL in DF DB (like in pinkie pie)
> ...


zbll plus lr edge seems too much algs


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 17, 2020)

Aerma said:


> Interesting, but it seems a little complex. ZBRoux (Roux but EODFDB -> ZBLL instead of CMLL -> LSE) is already a thing and I think it might be better... maybe post an example solve here?





Filipe Teixeira said:


> zbll plus lr edge seems too much algs


I've made this reconstruction. Please note that I am Trash at roux, and that ZBLL could probably have been done better. : https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=x2_//_inspection u_B_u-_R2_U_L_U-_L-_U2_L_U-_L-_//_FB R2_U__r_R_U-_R2_U-_r-_U-_r_U2_M_//_SB_&#2b;_LR U-_U2-_R_U_R-_F-_U-_F_//_ZBLS U-_y2_F_R2_U-_R_U2_R_U_R-_U_R-_U_R2_F-_M-_U2_M2_U2_M-_U_//_ZBLL_&#2b;_avoiding_dots&setup= U_F-_R2_D2_F2_U2_L-_D2_R-_B2_F2_L2_F2_D-_B-_U-_F2_L_B-_U2

I also realised that you would often get dots, which can be fixed by avoiding them, like in my example solve. I also could have done LR edges on bottom it with misoriented centers (see Kian's pinkie pie video).


----------



## Hazel (Jan 17, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I've made this reconstruction. Please note that I am Trash at roux, and that ZBLL could probably have been done better. : https://alg.cubing.net/?alg=x2_//_inspection u_B_u-_R2_U_L_U-_L-_U2_L_U-_L-_//_FB R2_U__r_R_U-_R2_U-_r-_U-_r_U2_M_//_SB_&#2b;_LR U-_U2-_R_U_R-_F-_U-_F_//_ZBLS U-_y2_F_R2_U-_R_U2_R_U_R-_U_R-_U_R2_F-_M-_U2_M2_U2_M-_U_//_ZBLL_&#2b;_avoiding_dots&setup= U_F-_R2_D2_F2_U2_L-_D2_R-_B2_F2_L2_F2_D-_B-_U-_F2_L_B-_U2
> 
> I also realised that you would often get dots, which can be fixed by avoiding them, like in my example solve. I also could have done LR edges on bottom it with misoriented centers (see Kian's pinkie pie video).


Hate to break it to you, but I think ZBRoux is probably a much better hybrid of Roux and ZB. Plus, then you don't need ZBLS.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> Hate to break it to you, but I think ZBRoux is probably a much better hybrid of Roux and ZB. Plus, then you don't need ZBLS.


I know. But what exactly is ZBRoux ?


----------



## Hazel (Jan 18, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I know. But what exactly is ZBRoux ?


The steps of ZBRoux (also known as LLOB) are as follows:
1) Roux-style First Block
2) Roux-style Second Block
3) Solve DF and DB while solving EO
4) ZBLL


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> The steps of ZBRoux (also known as LLOB) are as follows:
> 1) Roux-style First Block
> 2) Roux-style Second Block
> 3) Solve DF and DB while solving EO
> 4) ZBLL


So it's like ZZ but with blocks before EOL.


----------



## Hazel (Jan 18, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> So it's like ZZ but with blocks before EOL.


I suppose you could think of it that way


----------



## ProStar (Jan 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> The steps of ZBRoux (also known as LLOB) are as follows:
> 1) Roux-style First Block
> 2) Roux-style Second Block
> 3) Solve DF and DB while solving EO
> 4) ZBLL



Sounds like the CFOP-Roux hybrid where you do F2B then DF and DB, then LL. Except with slightly modified ZBLS and ZBLL


----------



## Hazel (Jan 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Sounds like the CFOP-Roux hybrid where you do F2B then DF and DB, then LL. Except with slightly modified ZBLS and ZBLL


I'd say ZBRoux is better than this, though. Once I finish ZBLL, I intend to switch from CFOP to ZBRoux, at least for a little while, because it's tons of fun!


----------



## ProStar (Jan 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> I'd say ZBRoux is better than this, though. Once I finish ZBLL, I intend to switch from CFOP to ZBRoux, at least for a little while, because it's tons of fun!



Don't you need to learn (a modified version for DF and DB) ZBLS also?


----------



## Hazel (Jan 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Don't you need to learn (a modified version for DF and DB) ZBLS also?


EODFDB (we gotta think of a better name for that...) isn't an algorithm set - it's completely intuitive. I either solve it by solving one of those edges and then inserting the other while solving EO, or do I do it more LSE style, but solving DF and DB instead of UL and UR.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> EODFDB (we gotta think of a better name for that...) isn't an algorithm set - it's completely intuitive. I either solve it by solving one of those edges and then inserting the other while solving EO, or do I do it more LSE style, but solving DF and DB instead of UL and UR.



EOL2E? (I spent an entire 15.76 seconds of my life thinking of that name, you better not reject it lol)


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 18, 2020)

EOLine in ZZ? I spent a whole tenth of a second thinking this up, you better not reject it lol. (What a waste of time...)


----------



## ProStar (Jan 18, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> EOLine in ZZ? I spent a whole tenth of a second thinking this up, you better not reject it lol. (What a waste of time...)



It could actually be called EOLine


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 18, 2020)

In Leor its called EO stripe


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 18, 2020)

An unconventional approach of ZBRoux.:

D' F' R' L U R' L2 F' U L B2 U2 L2 F2 U' F2 B2 R2 U L2 U'

(z2) M2' B' U R F U R F' // (8) FB
M2' U R2 U M2' R' U' R U M2' r U r' U' // (14/22) SB & more…
(y2 x') r U' r U2' R' F R U2' r2' F // (10/32) simple ZBLL


----------



## ProStar (Jan 18, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> An unconventional approach of ZBRoux.:
> 
> D' F' R' L U R' L2 F' U L B2 U2 L2 F2 U' F2 B2 R2 U L2 U'
> 
> ...



Is that really ZBLL though?


----------



## ProStar (Jan 22, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, I got another bad idea:
> 
> F2L Pairs - Solve the corner-edge f2l pairs, but not the cross. The middle layer should now be finished, as well as the bottom corners.
> CLL - Solve the corners on the last layer with one alg
> ...



Ok, idea for modified PCMS.

Pairs - Normal PCMS
CMSLL - Normal PCMS
EO - Orient L8E, this can be done intuitively with the help of a few algs; similar to Roux EO
B3E - Permute three bottom edges by using the M and S slices. Intuative
L5E - Solve the last bottom edge while solving the four top edges. This is mostly intuitive


Example solve time! (I'm bad at this )

z2 // Inspection

L U2 F' U F // 1st Pair

U' F U2 F' L' U2 L // 2nd Pair

U R' U R U' l U l' // 3rd Pair

y U M2 U2 R U' R' M2 // 4th Pair

U2 r' D' r U r' D r U' r U r' // CMSLL

U D' M D' M' // EO

z2 y D' U2 M U2 M' U' M' U2 M // B3E

y' M' U2 M U M' U2 M // L5E


While messing around with this method(I like doing timed solves with other methods), I got a 15 second solve, which is amazing for me with CFOP. Of course, it was an extremely lucky scramble, comparable to an XCross+Free pair. I'm not expecting this method to be any good, but it's fun nevertheless.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 22, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, idea for modified PCMS.
> 
> Pairs - Normal PCMS
> CMSLL - Normal PCMS
> ...


L6E is probably better for this, especially considering that EO is already done in this. Also, inserting 2 edges is easier 3.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 22, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> L6E is probably better for this, especially considering that EO is already done in this. Also, inserting 2 edges is easier 3.



I wonder how many algs it would take to do EO while permuting two of the bottom edges. Then it would just be

Pairs
CMSLL
EO+B2E
LSE


----------



## fuzzballcat (Jan 24, 2020)

I was messing around with 3x3 yesterday and thought up a method so bad I had to try it: a mix of Petrus and Roux. The more I examined it though, the less hopeless it seemed.

Yes, I know what you're thinking: "It's another guy with some 'new method' which is either just a simple variation of something else or it's been done before." Well, (as you'll see soon) it's not the first. And, to the extent of my knowledge, it isn't the second either. I've scoured the web but have been unable to find this or a similar method. So, before I ramble on too long, let's get to the good stuff.

*Method:*

Solve two 1x2x2 blocks on right lower front and left lower front (i.e., by putting the M slice centers in their places and solving the DF edge you would solve a 2x2x3 block.)
Put one U or D edge (an edge with yellow or white on it) in the DF slot. It doesn't have to be the right edge, _just make sure it is oriented correctly_ (white/yellow facing down).
Do a y move. Now, solve all edge orientation Petrus-style. (I won't cover that here — if you don't know how to do that, check this tutorial).
Solve F2L minus the DR and DL edges using only <R, U, S2> turns. S*2* is the important thing: provided you only use the S slice in increments of 2 you will keep edge orientation. (The S2 also makes F2L much easier than in Petrus.)
CMLL (look up any Roux tutorial)
L4E (same as above)

*Why this might be good*
I was thinking about what benefits this method might have, and although I couldn't come up with much I was thinking that since Roux and Petrus are both blockbuilding-based, low alg count methods that they might lend well to each other. Maybe I'm wrong, but just a thought.

So... now it's your turn. Tell me what you think! Questions, comments, suggestions, anything. I don't care whether you tell me that this is absolute garbage or the next CFOP, any input is welcome!

(P.S. I really do apologize if I have stolen someone's method. I promise I have come to this conclusion independently and was not aware in any way of your method.)

Whoops, was a bit groggy when I wrote this. There should be a "Solve UL/UR Edges" step after CMLL.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Jan 26, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> I was messing around with 3x3 yesterday and thought up a method so bad I had to try it: a mix of Petrus and Roux. The more I examined it though, the less hopeless it seemed.
> 
> Yes, I know what you're thinking: "It's another guy with some 'new method' which is either just a simple variation of something else or it's been done before." Well, (as you'll see soon) it's not the first. And, to the extent of my knowledge, it isn't the second either. I've scoured the web but have been unable to find this or a similar method. So, before I ramble on too long, let's get to the good stuff.
> 
> ...



Really like that method. Well thought out, especially for your first post!

I've tried to create an example solve that can be found here, so this is what I've noticed:

Not sure if it's fully plannable in inspection, but first 1x2x2 block and DR are definitely possible. I'd put them in the back instead of the front for better lookahead.
This step can be removed in my opinion. Only advantage I could see is that it prevents 8 flips, but you solve EO immediately after, so just EO would actually be more efficient.
Good step, though it's much more ergonomic to do the rotation afterwards (most cases are <RULF>, with a y' it'd be more like <RUBF>).
While S2 does make the last two pairs more efficient and easier than Petrus, it isn't really fast to execute. So I'd recommend to only really use S2 when it's way shorter to use it than only <RU>.
Since you have EO already solved, you'd have to do COLL (but ignoring the permutation of the S-slice) here.
Because of EO, you could do LSE in one algorithmic step, L6EP. For this you should probably rotate, since M is a lot faster than S.
For the method as a whole, I believe that Roux is still better than that since algs (preserving EO takes more moves) and ergonomics (Roux has all moves, <RrMU>, <RUF> (or whatever CMLL algs you use) and <MU> while your method has all moves, <RULF>, <RUS2>, <RUF> and <MU>).

This still method does have some potential though, so keep on improving it!


----------



## fuzzballcat (Jan 26, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> Really like that method. Well thought out, especially for your first post!
> 
> I've tried to create an example solve that can be found here, so this is what I've noticed:
> 
> ...


Thanks! Your suggestions are very helpful. For step two, how would you do EO if the edge in the place mentioned is flipped (is there an EO algorithm I don't know about?)

Thanks again!


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 26, 2020)

So I came up with a pretty bad skewb method, but it may become mediocre with some more development. The steps are as follows:
1. Solve a face, with regard to corner permutation.
2. With sledge hammers and hedgeslammers, solve the F and B centers or the L and R centers in each others spots, so if you had blue for your solved face on bottom, then you could solve the white center in the yellow centers spot, and the white in the yellows spot.
3. Do a sledgehammer to finish the centers, there will always be one solved center after step 2, and if it is on the sides, You can put in the back and one sledge will finish the centers. Heres one of the main flaws with this method, if the solved center is the top center, then you get a bad case for edges that needs three sledges and two y2s to solve, so im wondering how to prevent this.
4. Solve the last four corners.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 27, 2020)

Petrus varient:

F2L-1
EO
LS
LL


Example solve:


Scramble: F2 U2 B2 F2 L2 D B2 F2 L2 D L' U R' F2 L' D' R' B U

x2 // Inspection

R F R' L2 // Cross

U L' U2 L2 F' L' F // 1st Pair

U2 R' U R L U L' // 2nd Pair

U R' U' R U' F' U' F // 3rd Pair

y U F' L' U2 L F // EO

y' U R' U2 R U2 R' U R // LS

U' F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' U' // LL+AUF


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Petrus varient:
> 
> F2L-1
> EO
> ...


No lol. You would have to orient edges two ata a time


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Petrus varient:
> 
> F2L-1
> EO
> ...


I would call this a CFOP variant, and it is similar to VH.

It's probably worse than VH, and harder to transition to ZBLS from.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 27, 2020)

Intuitive method (my sexy method variant)

Daisy cross
Solve Cross
Bottom 3 corners
keyhole 3 middle edges that have corners solved
Solve last middle edge while orienting all edges (swap one bad edge with a good edge a time then solve the remaining one middle edge)
solve epll with sunes
L5C with sexy move


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 27, 2020)

EPLL with Sunes isn’t necessary, with trying, you can permute the edges during orientation too, without going to too much trouble.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 27, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> EPLL with Sunes isn’t necessary, with trying, you can permute the edges during orientation too, without going to too much trouble.


I find it too confusing. the aim is to be a simple method and having more steps help it


----------



## ProStar (Jan 27, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> I would call this a CFOP variant, and it is similar to VH.
> 
> It's probably worse than VH, and harder to transition to ZBLS from.



It's not supposed to help transition to ZB, it's supposed to be an alternate to Petrus, one where you solve an extra F2L slot right away


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> It's not supposed to help transition to ZB, it's supposed to be an alternate to Petrus, one where you solve an extra F2L slot right away


It is just worse ZB, so why not transition to ZB? EO then LS is worse than doing both at the same time.

Also, you missed the fact that you have to solve another cross edge (in addition to another pair) after the Petrus block.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 27, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> It is just worse ZB, so why not transition to ZB? EO then LS is worse than doing both at the same time.



ZB is just worse then doing LSLL, so why not transition to LSLL? Doing LS+EO then LL is worse than doing both at the same time.

Algs. 



Skewbed said:


> Also, you missed the fact that you have to solve another cross edge (in addition to another pair) after the Petrus block.



"F2L-1"


----------



## WoowyBaby (Jan 27, 2020)

I agree with ProStar, too many algs to do EO + LS in one look, it has 305 or so cases. I know that not many people know all of ZBLS, and I can understand why. Around 305 cases is a lot.
ZBLL on the other hand is a lot more popular, just because it is more versatile/useful in more situations/methods, but it does have about 490 algorithms which is even more, and I would have to say that knowing full ZBLL isn’t a standard among cubers.

Sticking with alg count of under 50 or so makes it much easier to learn and a realistic standard for everyone learning any such method. 

I have personally never learned a full set of algs more than 42, full 2x2 CLL, partially because I am lazy, and very lazy in fact, but also any more than that is way too much for me, and I suspect too much for most people.

This is just a wall of my thoughts, I’m not mad at anyone so don’t take this the wrong way.
Also, kudos to anyone who has actually learned full ZBLS or ZBLL, it is such a time commitment, I applaud you.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 27, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> I agree with ProStar, too many algs to do EO + LS in one look, it has 305 or so cases. I know that not many people know all of ZBLS, and I can understand why. Around 305 cases is a lot.
> ZBLL on the other hand is a lot more popular, just because it is more versatile/useful in more situations/methods, but it does have about 490 algorithms which is even more, and I would have to say that knowing full ZBLL isn’t a standard among cubers.
> 
> Sticking with alg count of under 50 or so makes it much easier to learn and a realistic standard for everyone learning any such method.
> ...



There are a lot of LL varients, just like normal Petrus. It all depends on how many algs you're willing to learn

OLL->PLL
COLL->EPLL
EPLL->ZZLL
ZBLL
etc.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 28, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> I agree with ProStar, too many algs to do EO + LS in one look, it has 305 or so cases. I know that not many people know all of ZBLS, and I can understand why. Around 305 cases is a lot.
> ZBLL on the other hand is a lot more popular, just because it is more versatile/useful in more situations/methods, but it does have about 490 algorithms which is even more, and I would have to say that knowing full ZBLL isn’t a standard among cubers.
> 
> Sticking with alg count of under 50 or so makes it much easier to learn and a realistic standard for everyone learning any such method.
> ...



In my original response, I suggested that the 32 alg VHLS subset was better than EO before pairing. It also makes it easier to achieve ZB as an end goal.

I’m sorry if I sounded harsh in my thoughts. I’m not insisting that ZB is the best for everyone. It’s just that I think that VH is better than EO before LS.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 28, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> In my original response, I suggested that the 32 alg VHLS subset was better than EO before pairing. It also makes it easier to achieve ZB as an end goal.
> 
> I’m sorry if I sounded harsh in my thoughts. I’m not insisting that ZB is the best for everyone. It’s just that I think that VH is better than EO before LS.



VHLS is bad. Having to pair up a F2L pair, then do a bad alg isn't good. Not to mention that the amount of people that are seriously learning ZB is very few.

It seems like you're arguing against Petrus, not my variant specifically.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> VHLS is bad. Having to pair up a F2L pair, then do a bad alg isn't good. Not to mention that the amount of people that are seriously learning ZB is very few.
> 
> It seems like you're arguing against Petrus, not my variant specifically.


Your example solve wasn’t even Petrus, it was CFOP.

Petrus is a 2x2x3 block, then EO, then finish.
CFOP is a cross, then F2L(-1), then.

I’m not saying VHLS is good, I’m saying that it’s better than your subset.

I have never argued against actual Petrus, since I have never been given the chance, but it sucks.

I do want want to be rude in all of this, I want to inform you.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 28, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> Your example solve wasn’t even Petrus, it was CFOP.
> 
> Petrus is a 2x2x3 block, then EO, then finish.
> CFOP is a cross, then F2L(-1), then.
> ...



Dude I wasn't doing a Petrus solve, I was doing a solve with a Petrus variant I made. And how does Petrus suck? It's a whole lot better than almost all the methods ever invented, save a few(max)

I didn't invent a subset, I came up with the idea to do an extra cross piece+f2l pair before doing eo.

(Side note, I'd be willing to bet that you're the type of cuber that says "Roux and ZZ and Petrus and all the other methods suck so much, CFOP is way better than all of them")


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Dude I wasn't doing a Petrus solve, I was doing a solve with a Petrus variant I made. And how does Petrus suck? It's a whole lot better than almost all the methods ever invented, save a few(max)
> 
> I didn't invent a subset, I came up with the idea to do an extra cross piece+f2l pair before doing eo.
> 
> (Side note, I'd be willing to bet that you're the type of cuber that says "Roux and ZZ and Petrus and all the other methods suck so much, CFOP is way better than all of them")


I'll start this out by saying please don't take offense.

That example solve was objectively not a petrus variant, it was a CFOP variant.

Petrus has bad lookahead, and no one is globally sub 10 with it, even with ZBLL.

Please do not assume that I strictly believe in CFOP. I spend a lot of time on this thread because I believe that CFOP is not the best.

I have put lots of work into generating algs for a Roux variant. I literally wrote all of the code to do it myself, and you can see the code yourself in my signature.

*I just want to have a friendly discussion where we can propose and critique each other's methods without being targeted like this.*


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 28, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> I'll start this out by saying please don't take offense.
> 
> That example solve was objectively not a petrus variant, it was a CFOP variant.
> 
> ...


This conversation is getting a little cold. Can we please leave it behind and move on with our lives ?


----------



## fuzzballcat (Jan 28, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> This conversation is getting a little cold. Can we please leave it behind and move on with our lives ?


Agreed. Maybe we could change the subject a bit... like more suggestions for my method!


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 28, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> Agreed. Maybe we could change the subject a bit... like more suggestions for my method!


Some suggestions :
1. Don't insert an oriented edge
2. No y rotation. That way, you can use the M-slice without awkward S moves, use arrow cases, and use some ZZeo.
3. Maybe leave an F2L pair empty, so you can use WaterZZ algs.


----------



## fuzzballcat (Jan 28, 2020)

Okay, I've gotten "Don't insert an oriented edge" a few times now. I clearly must not be familiar with EO (I'm a square-1 cuber and only got into 3x3 recently). Suppose the edge in that slot is oriented incorrectly. What would I do to make it correct? Would I do that before or during the EO step?
True. Unfortunately that means lots of F or B turns, which aren't the greatest.
I'm not familiar with WaterZZ, but I'll get back to you on that when I am.

Thanks so much!


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Jan 29, 2020)

thoughts?


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 29, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> Petrus has bad lookahead, and no one is globally sub 10 with it, even with ZBLL.


Just want to point out that there is someone that’s sub 10 with it, I believe there was a guy on the sub 8 with petrus thread that posted a vid of sub 9 or 8 average.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 29, 2020)

I believe @Tao Yu and @2180161 are sub 10 with Petrus, but I’m not sure what globally means.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 29, 2020)

which puzzles don't have a method yet? I'm thinking of buying obscure puzzles to develop my own methods

i remeber me trying to solve the floppy hexagonal prism on the simulator and having fun with it

new 3x3 methods are getting scarce

i want to get a maple leaves soon.


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 29, 2020)

This one, maybe. 
http://www.ziicube.com/VeryPuzzle-Wandering-Tuttminx

Good luck!


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 29, 2020)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> which puzzles don't have a method yet? I'm thinking of buying obscure puzzles to develop my own methods
> 
> i remeber me trying to solve the floppy hexagonal prisma on the simulator and having fun with it
> 
> ...











mf8 Multi Dodecahedron Ball IQ Cube


The mf8 Multi Dodecahedron Ball IQ Cube is an interesting take on the classic megaminx. This puzzle features an internal megaminx but also a variety of movable outer layers. The outer layers are structured around the megaminx in ring-like patterns making this puzzle pleasing to look at and easy...




www.thecubicle.com


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 29, 2020)

you guys are mean


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 29, 2020)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> you guys are mean


You're calling them mean !?









SpeedCubeShop


Speed cubing's most trusted retailer since 2009. Free shipping and easy returns available. Based in the USA.




speedcubeshop.com





This one.


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 29, 2020)

I think if you solve the Wandering-Tuttminx, you are sure to hold the UWR.
Even Cubeur Manchot has declined the challenge.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 29, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> I think if you solve the Wandering-Tuttminx, you are sure to hold the UWR.
> Even Cubeur Manchot has declined the challenge.


What is cubing nowadays


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 29, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> I think if you solve the Wandering-Tuttminx, you are sure to hold the UWR.
> Even Cubeur Manchot has declined the challenge.


"i solved 5 sides once" applies here


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 30, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> Okay, I've gotten "Don't insert an oriented edge" a few times now. I clearly must not be familiar with EO (I'm a square-1 cuber and only got into 3x3 recently). Suppose the edge in that slot is oriented incorrectly. What would I do to make it correct? Would I do that before or during the EO step?
> True. Unfortunately that means lots of F or B turns, which aren't the greatest.
> I'm not familiar with WaterZZ, but I'll get back to you on that when I am.
> 
> Thanks so much!


For EO, learn Kian's EO algs and the EO from J Perm's ZZ tutorial, then use a mix of both.

You won't find much about WaterZZ so here are the steps :
1. Solve EO while making a 2x2 block in the back
2. Extent that 2x2 to a 2x2x3 in the back
3. Solve the front - left F2L pair
4. Solve all the 5 remaining corners at once
5. Solve all remaining 6 edges at once

What I was Thinking about for your method is this :

1. 2 2x2x1s in back
2. EO
3. Solve the DB edge and the FL F2L fair
4. Same last two algs as WaterZZ

Please like this so that I know you read it.
You can PM me or ask me here if you have any questions !


----------



## brododragon (Jan 30, 2020)

I don't know if this is already a thing, but what if you solved all the centers on a pyraminx and then did one alg to solve it?


----------



## Hazel (Jan 31, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I don't know if this is already a thing, but what if you solved all the centers on a pyraminx and then did one alg to solve it?


Waaayyyy too many cases to be viable, and recognition would suck, unfortunately...


----------



## brododragon (Jan 31, 2020)

Aerma said:


> Waaayyyy too many cases to be viable, and recognition would suck, unfortunately...


I was just looking at the wiki, and I realized that's basically L4E but with 6 Edges. It seems like 5 edges would have okay recognition...


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 31, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I was just looking at the wiki, and I realized that's basically L4E but with 6 Edges. It seems like 5 edges would have okay recognition...


But probably still way to many algs. L4E already has over 100 and not the best recognition.

EDIT: Also, I have an idea for a method finally. First I have a question, how many algs would there be for PBL on 3x3?

1. Solve a side but there are no regards to permutation.
2. Solve the E Layer like you would in HF.
3. Orient the opposite side with an OLL.
4. IF there aren’t to many algs, do a PBL to solve both layers at once.
4b. If there are to many algs, do one alg to permute corners and one to permute edges.

VARIATION:
1. Solve a cross with no regard to permutation.
2. Then do Pseudo F2L BUT the E layer must be solved.
The do steps 3-4 like the one above.
Gimme your ideas!


----------



## ProStar (Jan 31, 2020)

That's a variation of Belt


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 31, 2020)

ProStar said:


> That's a variation of Belt


It’s technically not cuz I don’t solve the middle layer First


----------



## ProStar (Jan 31, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> It’s technically not cuz I don’t solve the middle layer First



But the general idea is to solve the middle layer then finish the top and bottom layers, even if step one does involve the first layer


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Jan 31, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I was just looking at the wiki, and I realized that's basically L4E but with 6 Edges. It seems like 5 edges would have okay recognition...


L5E does exist








L5E doc


L5E Done by Benjamin Kyle, Tymon Kolasinski, Leo Min-Bedford, Harsha Paladugu, Luke Van Laningham Algs are sorted by the nature of the two bottom edges. Nutella R’ Rw U R’ L R Rw2’ L’ R’ U’ R U’ L R L U’ R U’ R’ L’ R’ L’ R’ U L’ U L R L Swappy L R’ U’ R U’ L’ [U] U’ R U’ R U R’...




docs.google.com


----------



## brododragon (Feb 1, 2020)

TipsterTrickster said:


> L5E does exist
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm probably going to learn that.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 1, 2020)

I don’t know a lot about roux, but I after a method idea I did some research about roux and think I found a pretty good varaint.

1. Solve 2 1x2x3's like normal
2. Solve the top 2 1x1x3's
3. Permute & Oreint the last 4 edges

*For step 2:*
I would just permute & orient the UL and UR edges intuitively, and then do COLL. COLL algs could probably be shortened by not caring about UF, UB, DF, and DB edges.

The problem with CMLL is it doesn't care about the F, U, and B centers, along with the UL and UR edges.

Something I would find useful is if the DB edge could be solved during step 2. This would eliminated cube rotations and make recognition way easier.


What do you think. Is it viable, it does it still need work?


----------



## RedstoneTim (Feb 1, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I don’t know a lot about roux, but I after a method idea I did some research about roux and think I found a pretty good varaint.
> 
> 1. Solve 2 1x2x3's like normal
> 2. Solve the top 2 1x1x3's
> ...


That seems really similar to this 2-step LSE method (except that the UR edge must be unoriented).


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Feb 1, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I don’t know a lot about roux, but I after a method idea I did some research about roux and think I found a pretty good varaint.
> 
> 1. Solve 2 1x2x3's like normal
> 2. Solve the top 2 1x1x3's
> ...


Honesty this is pretty much just roux, but with a bad version of lse.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 1, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I don’t know a lot about roux, but I after a method idea I did some research about roux and think I found a pretty good varaint.
> 
> 1. Solve 2 1x2x3's like normal
> 2. Solve the top 2 1x1x3's
> ...


The problem with your variant of LSE is that the most efficient algs for that kind of thing affect the other two edges that you just solved.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 1, 2020)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> The problem with your variant of LSE is that the most efficient algs for that kind of thing affect the other two edges that you just solved.


That's why you would have to generate algs.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 1, 2020)

brododragon said:


> That's why you would have to generate algs.


But that argument doesn’t hold up. Those algs would *almost certainly* be non- MU gen, which is what make LSE fast. And any MU gen algs for those cases would be very long because you would have to replace the edges you displaced, at which point it would be more convenient to solve with regular LSE.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 1, 2020)

Darn guys, you kinda just shot down his idea.
Try to be nice and give more explanation why other options are better, but good job ImmolatedMarmoset for telling why it’s bad, thank you.

So, the first two blocks of Roux and your method are the same.

Then, you decide to solve the UL UR edges?
This actually takes about 7 moves on its own, this is from some personal testing, which is pretty inefficient for just placing two pieces, which isn’t great, but if it leads to better steps it could be worth it.

Then you get to CLL, which, is not simply doing COLL but less restrictive, but in fact, more restrictive, so the algorithms would be much longer and worse. I have personally tested this with CE, and CMLL’s that can be solved in 9 moves require 13-14 moves now, because of those edges that you have to preserve.

Finally, we have L4E, which at first, I thought they would be oriented, so then you could solve it with just a simple cycle that would take 4-5 moves and is very quick, but if they actually not oriented which is what I understood, then it would take many more moves, but also, the algorithms would be non-MU. I have personally tested this with CE and verified that the shortest solutions are MFE or MBE moves and such, and about 10 moves of those weird moves, and if you search for only MU algorithms, they are much longer, in fact, as long as the entire LSE on its own.

So, since we know this is bad, let’s tell you an alternative to your method, and hopefully it’ll teach you of what’s bad and good.

After first two blocks, if you want to solve UL UR, you should stock them in D layer, because 1) this always takes less time then solving them directly, it in fact is close to cutting it in half, and 2) the CLL algorithms will be much nicer, because they will not be restricted by the UL UR edges on top.

But, even though this little slight variant is much better than what you proposed, it still leaves you with the same gross L4E as mentioned earlier. So, if we can manage to orient these edges in an earlier step, then the L4E will be super duper nice, infinitely better than it is now. We could do so whilst solving the UL UR edges to D layer, because this would require extra algorithms to be memorized as if we were to orient while doing CLL, and, orienting these four edges while stocking UL UR actually only takes a few extra moves, so it’s a good trade off. Perhaps just three very quick and easy MU moves added here to get rid of eight or so bad and slow moves in the end.

So, this new and improved method I have goes like this:
- First Block
- Second Block
- EO + Stock ULUR (or UFUB)
- CLL (similar to COLL)
- Good L4E (easy M-slice)

Here’s an example solve to prove its good:

Scramble: U B2 R' F2 R2 U2 L2 F2 D L2 F2 D L2 U2 B' F L B2 F' R' U'
(y2)
D R f R D' f // First Block (6/6)
r' y R U R' U S' R' F2 R y' // Second Block (9/15)
U' M U M' U2 M U' M' // EO + ULUR (8/23)
U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R // CLL (10/33)
U2 M2 U' M2 // Permute Final Edges (4/37)

What do you guys think of this variant method?


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 1, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Darn guys, you kinda just shot down his idea.
> Try to be nice and give more explanation why other options are better, but good job ImmolatedMarmoset for telling why it’s bad, thank you.
> 
> So, the first two blocks of Roux and your method are the same.
> ...


It’s really not bad at all. In fact, I like it quite a lot. My apologies to @brododragon for being more than a little belligerent. EO+ULUR feels a little weird, but I know I can get used to this in time. Maybe I’ll do an Ao50 with this today (I average 14.5 with standard Roux). I don’t know COLL, so I’ll have to improvise, but it should be fun!


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 1, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> CLL (same as CFCE)


CFCE CLL doesnt necessarily preserve EO, so you would need COLL. I think in general, if some change benefits the efficiency of an intuitive step, but hurts an algorithmic step, it doesnt matter as much because TPS will always be higher in algorithmic steps. So this might be better.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 1, 2020)

There were major edits made to this post, so if you've already read it, you might want to read it again.


WoowyBaby said:


> Darn guys, you kinda just shot down his idea.
> Try to be nice and give more explanation why other options are better, but good job ImmolatedMarmoset for telling why it’s bad, thank you.





ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> It’s really not bad at all. In fact, I like it quite a lot. My apologies to @brododragon for being more than a little belligerent.


It's all good.


What do you mean by this:


WoowyBaby said:


> EO + Stock ULUR (or UFUB)






Spoiler: My Thoughts



Let me just start off by saying what you created is almost definitely way better then what I was visualising. I want to see if what I had in mind had any viability anyway, though. The UL and UR edge aspect has viability, but I'm wondering if there's more.

What I had in mind was solving UR, UL, UFL, UFR, UBL, and UBR. The weird L4E, though, kinda ruins it.


Spoiler: Idea 1



The best thing I can think of that follows my vision is this:
1. Solve either the UL or UR edge + EO
2. insert the other edge whilst simultaneously doing COLL.
3. L4E





Spoiler: Idea 2



Note: this is nothing like what I had in mind, just a random idea.

I don't really know why I'm doing these any more; you already had a great idea I can probably not top, but here it goes.

1. F2B
2. Solve the DB and UB edges, along with the UBR and UBL corners. For this, you will probably need to do an x' rotation, but that shouldn't be too slow.
3. Solve the UF and DF edges, along with the UFR and UFL corners.
4. Solve the UL and UR edges

For step 2, before the x' rotation, you should probably take note of what the F face looks like (and the bottom of the DF edge.






Edit: 37 moves?! That's better than a lot of FMC solves.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 2, 2020)

All right, just waterman with EO at the begining and a bit of editing.
1. EO3x3x1
2. COLL
3. Permute two U edges
4. L6EP


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Feb 2, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> All right, just waterman with EO at the begining and a bit of editing.
> 1. EO3x3x1
> 2. COLL
> 3. Permute two U edges
> 4. L6EP


L6EP I believe has more algs than ZBLL so this wouldn’t be worth it to learn.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 2, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> L6EP I believe has more algs than ZBLL so this wouldn’t be worth it to learn.


No it has 95. It's L5CO that has more than ZBLL.


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 2, 2020)

L5CO: 615...


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 2, 2020)

What is L5CO?


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 2, 2020)

It solves the last 5 corners.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 2, 2020)

I feel like I’ve seen this LSLL before but I don’t know where

EO + Pair with corner any orientation
Orient corners(subset of CLS, 23 algs including 7 OCLL)
PLL


----------



## RedstoneTim (Feb 2, 2020)

So recently I had the idea that you could solve some kind of EOLine and EOEdge in one step for ZZ. It didn't really end in a great method, but I thought I'd still share it here.
It's called ZZ-Line and the steps are:

EOLineLine: solves EO and two lines of edges, LF + LB and DF + DB
Left line: solves a triplet (corner + edge + corner) in DL
Right line: solves a triplet in DR
Edge lines: solves two lines of edges, UF + UB and RF + RB (so that all edges except for UL and UR are solved now)
Last 2 Lines (or just ZZLL if that was too much lines for you): Solves two triplets in UL and UR, respectively, finishing the solve
For better clarification of the steps, here's a link to some example solves.


----------



## Hazel (Feb 2, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> So recently I had the idea that you could solve some kind of EOLine and EOEdge in one step for ZZ. It didn't really end in a great method, but I thought I'd still share it here.
> It's called ZZ-Line and the steps are:
> 
> EOLineLine: solves EO and two lines of edges, LF + LB and DF + DB
> ...


Interesting, but I sorta think that if you're going to solve two extra edges during step 1, you might as well just make them the other two cross edges followed by rotationless F2L and ZBLL.


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 2, 2020)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> you guys are mean



I'll be a little less cruel: try developing a square-1 full blind method. Honestly, I'm not sure if its possible but I'd love to see it if it is.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 2, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> I'll be a little less cruel: try developing a square-1 full blind method. Honestly, I'm not sure if its possible but I'd love to see it if it is.


I second that.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 2, 2020)

It is in fact possible.



How to Solve Square-1 Blindfolded


(Mike Hughey)

You could your own great awesome one if you'd like to.


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 2, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> It is in fact possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoa, never knew that! So cool (given I'm a square-1 enthusiast)!
Image square-1 OH...


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 2, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> I'll be a little less cruel: try developing a square-1 full blind method. Honestly, I'm not sure if its possible but I'd love to see it if it is.


@Mike Hughey did it I think, though it might have been someone else and im confusing names.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 2, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> Whoa, never knew that! So cool (given I'm a square-1 enthusiast)!
> Image square-1 OH...



Z3Cubing did that


----------



## Sion (Feb 3, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Darn guys, you kinda just shot down his idea.
> Try to be nice and give more explanation why other options are better, but good job ImmolatedMarmoset for telling why it’s bad, thank you.
> 
> So, the first two blocks of Roux and your method are the same.
> ...



I like the idea, but here are a few little things I’m a curious about.

1: what makes this any better than EOLR?
2: how do you assure the CLL step doesn’t mess up orientation or orients itself incorrectly?


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 3, 2020)

Sion said:


> 1: what makes this any better than EOLR?


The only advantage I can see is better look ahead from blocks, since you do the eo edges step before doing an alg, so you have a lower TPS before this step and you can track the edges better, but other than that I don't know.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 5, 2020)

CFEC?

Cross
F2L
Edges - Doesn't need to keep CO/CP, just needs to orient and permute edges. I'm assuming you could do modified ELL
Corners - Modified version of COLL, it needs to keep edge permutation as well as orientation. Still would only be 42 cases

Depending on how many algs a simple method for corners would take, it might be a viable beginners method, as edges only takes 1 alg(Sune)


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 5, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Corners - Modified version of COLL, it needs to keep edge permutation as well as orientation. Still would only be 42 cases



L4C has 84 cases.



> _Because edges are solved at this point you cannot AUF as in CxLL so the number of cases is quadrupled, but because you cannot have parity that is reduced again by factor 2._


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 5, 2020)

Edges would be very easy and short, good.

Corners would be long and slow, and it would actually be double 42, so 84 algs.
Why? Do M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 U2.

Although, I do have to say, recognition is actually pretty good, so maybe this can be good.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 5, 2020)

Ok, idea for a different way of teaching beginners method:

Cross - Normal
Corners - Solve corners on bottom, use sexy move to insert
Middle edges - Line the edge up so it makes a bar with the center, then move it away from where it needs to go. Then do the alg(sexy move), then you can just do these three moves(do F' U' F) to insert it. You can make that part use only sexy and a little intuitive part. Use lefty sexy(L' U' L U) for the left side.
Orient Yellow Edges - Use F (sexy) F' and you're able to cycle through the 3 cases.
Permute Yellow Edges - take the pair out (R U R'), then the alg (sexy), then put the pair back in(R U' R'). You can repeat this until edges are permuted.
Orient Yellow Corners - Flip yellow on bottom, then use the alg(sexy) to orient the corners(normal beginners)
Permute Yellow Corners - With yellow on bottom, take a corner out (R U R'), do D moves so that the correct corner is above the two correct edges, then put the edge back in(R U' R'). Then repeat for all the corners. Then the cube is solved 

So with this, you only need sexy move(R U R' U') and lefty sexy(L' U' L U) to solve the cube(with maybe a couple moves added/subtracted, like for yellow cross/corners or something).

(I learned from the Rubik's tutorial and basically did brute force 4lll for LL, so maybe this is the normal method lol)

Here's an example solve that gives comments on how you'd explain it. Be warned, it's over 180 HTM, has more lines then the reconstruction of Feliks' entire Ao5 WR, and has a stupid amount of U U' lol




Pyjam said:


> L4C has 84 cases.



Oh ok, thanks. Would the cases for edges be the same as ELL, or less because corners are ignored?



WoowyBaby said:


> Edges would be very easy and short, good.
> 
> Corners would be long and slow, and it would actually be double 42, so 84 algs.
> Why? Do M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 U2.
> ...



Yeah, that makes since why it would double.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 5, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, idea for a different way of teaching beginners method:
> 
> Cross - Normal
> Corners - Solve corners on bottom, use sexy move to insert
> ...


It's a bit like this: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/8355_Method

It uses only the sexy move and is similar to CFOP, But this method is more move-effecient.

I would still this has some viability, as it's more similar to CFOP, meaning it gives the beginner a better understanding of CFOP.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 5, 2020)

brododragon said:


> It's a bit like this: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/8355_Method
> 
> It uses only the sexy move and is similar to CFOP, But this method is more move-effecient.
> 
> I would still this has some viability, as it's more similar to CFOP, meaning it gives the beginner a better understanding of CFOP.



"Move-Efficient" lol

Yeah, that one is weird. I'd say normal LBL is better than that. I've been working on developing an easier beginners, because the one I learned had a bunch of algs. (1 for cross, one for corners(although those were mostly intuitive), 2 for middle edges, 3 for yellow cross, 1 for yellow corners, 1 for permute corners, 2 for permute edges). The only reason I thought of this is because I'd been playing around with only solving the edges of the cube, and that got me the idea of an edges first LL(CFEC, I posted about it last post), and then turned that into a beginners.

(If you're wondering, I learned from the Rubik's tutorial)


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 5, 2020)

I learned the beginners method from rubiksplace.com, which, looking back, used some really weird algs.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 5, 2020)

ProStar said:


> (1 for cross, one for corners(although those were mostly intuitive), 2 for middle edges, 3 for yellow cross, 1 for yellow corners, 1 for permute corners, 2 for permute edges).


*You can do that method in less algs*
Cross: can be done in 0, just takes a couple days to figure out.
Corners:  
E-Slice edges: U R U’ R’ U’ F’ U F (and mirror of it)
Yellow Cross: Can be done with a 3-step cycle: F R U R’ U’ F
Permute two adjacent edges: R U R' U R U2 R' U
Permute 3 Corners Counterclockwise: U R U’ L’ U R’ U' L
Orient Corners: 1 trigger R' D' R D
4 algs and a trigger


----------



## brododragon (Feb 5, 2020)

I have already posted this but put it in a spoiler do no one read it . Anyway, this is directed towards @WoowyBaby but anyone is welcome to comment.

Let me just start off by saying what you created is almost definitely way better then what I was visualising. I want to see if what I had in mind had any viability anyway, though. The UL and UR edge aspect has viability, but I'm wondering if there's more.

What I had in mind was solving UR, UL, UFL, UFR, UBL, and UBR. The weird L4E, though, kinda ruins it.

*Idea 1*
The best thing I can think of that follows my vision is this:
1. Solve either the UL or UR edge + EO
2. insert the other edge whilst simultaneously doing COLL.
3. L4E

*Idea 2*
Note: this is nothing like what I had in mind, just a random idea.

I don't really know why I'm doing these any more; you already had a great idea I can probably not top, but here it goes.

1. F2B
2. Solve the DB and UB edges, along with the UBR and UBL corners. For this, you will probably need to do an x' rotation, but that shouldn't be too slow.
3. Solve the UF and DF edges, along with the UFR and UFL corners.
4. Solve the UL and UR edges

For step 2, before the x' rotation, you should probably take note of what the F face looks like (and the bottom of the DF edge.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 5, 2020)

brododragon said:


> *You can do that method in less algs*
> Cross: can be done in 0, just takes a couple days to figure out.
> Corners:
> E-Slice edges: U R U’ R’ U’ F’ U F (and mirror of it)
> ...



I know, but Rubik's couldn't possibly have made their method decent lol


----------



## ProStar (Feb 5, 2020)

Ok another idea:

F2L-1
Orient corners while doing LS(so like ZBLS for corners). Some of the algs could be WV/SV, but the rest would have to be generated
Last layer - Permute the corners while oriented and permuting edges. This would have less algs then ZBLL.



ProStar said:


> CFEC?
> 
> Cross
> F2L
> ...



Wait... Is this BLL?


----------



## Skewbed (Feb 5, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok another idea:
> 
> F2L-1
> Orient corners while doing LS(so like ZBLS for corners). Some of the algs could be WV/SV, but the rest would have to be generated
> Last layer - Permute the corners while oriented and permuting edges. This would have less algs then ZBLL.


That LL subset is called COALL, and definitely could be improved with LS as described.
It doesn't have too many algs, but I don't think that they have been genned that well.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 5, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> That LL subset is called COALL, and definitely could be improved with LS as described.
> It doesn't have too many algs, but I don't think that they have been genned that well.



Doesn't COALL only work if the pair is already paired(like VHLS instead of ZBLS)?


----------



## Skewbed (Feb 5, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Doesn't COALL only work if the pair is already paired(like VHLS instead of ZBLS)?


In that comparison, it would be the equivalent of ZBLL. It is the last layer subset. You can get to it whether or not you already have a pair made.


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 5, 2020)

Matthieu Aubert uses COALL.
He's well known under the nickname "Cubeur Manchot" (one-arm cuber, or is it penguin cuber?)
His algs: COALL d'un Manchot


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 6, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> So, this new and improved method I have goes like this:
> - First Block
> - Second Block
> - EO + Stock ULUR (or UFUB)
> ...


Very similar to Pinkie Pie. Isn't it?


----------



## brododragon (Feb 6, 2020)

Found something cool on gear ball. Is for the most common method. If don't know what that is, it's this:
1. Solve the pluses
2. Solve the gears + Solve a slice (Happens naturally)
3. Solve edges
4. Oreint gears

Right before step 3, This should be what your F face looks like:
Instead of working spamming R U until it's solved (What you would normally do), you can do this alg: L' U' R' D' L' U'. You also don't really have to memorize it. It's just a kind of circle and a half movement.


----------



## ari(a cuber) (Feb 6, 2020)

just an idea, i average 40 seconds but i'm a roux noob, so who knows, it might be good
roux+ fildrich
1. first block
2. second block
3.coll
4.eo
5. orientate and permute edges on top and bottom side using m and u


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 6, 2020)

ari(a cuber) said:


> just an idea, i average 40 seconds but i'm a roux noob, so who knows, it might be good
> roux+ fildrich
> 1. first block
> 2. second block
> ...


That is roux.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 6, 2020)

ari(a cuber) said:


> just an idea, i average 40 seconds but i'm a roux noob, so who knows, it might be good
> roux+ fildrich
> 1. first block
> 2. second block
> ...


Well, as stated above, that’s Roux... First Block and Second Block is the same. Then we have COLL, which is CMLL, but restricted by preserving top cross edges and F2L. Then EO and MU to solve edges - that is how you do LSE, if I’m not mistaken.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Feb 6, 2020)

ari(a cuber) said:


> just an idea, i average 40 seconds but i'm a roux noob, so who knows, it might be good
> roux+ fildrich
> 1. first block
> 2. second block
> ...


I think you might be doing roux like this:
FB
SB
Bottom line
CFOP LL
This is what I thought roux was at first and then I learned, that’s not what it is.
Also, roux has absolutely no Fridrich vibes what so ever.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 6, 2020)

Allrighty, I got this idea for a petrus variant :

1. 2x2 in back
2. 223 in back
3. EO from front, (front determines the orientation of the E edges, like in ZZ)
4. Left and right F2L pairs
5. COLL
6. L5EP
This could be good since you don't have to rotate, you have more ergonomic 22 and 223s, you get to orient 4 edges at a time instead of 2, and you have less pieces to solve after EO.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 6, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Allrighty, I got this idea for a petrus variant :
> 
> 1. 2x2 in back
> 2. 223 in back
> ...



Wait, last *5* edges? Am I missing something?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Wait, last *5* edges? Am I missing something?


It's like an edge PLL except with the DF edge taken into account. Nothing big, just 12 extra algs.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 6, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> It's like an edge PLL except with the DF edge taken into account. Nothing big, just 12 extra algs.



Oh, you don't do the last cross edge.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 6, 2020)

Yes, @ProStar , last five edges.

Here's what a solve with @WarriorCatCuber 's method might look like:

Scr: L2 U2 B D2 R F2 R2 U' F2 U2 B' L2 U2 L2 U2 B' D2 F L2 R'
(y2)
L' D2 R U2 B2 // 222
F U2 R2 U R D R' D' // 223
L' U2 L F // EO
U2 L' U L F2 U' F2 U F2 // 2P
U2 l' U' L U R U' r' F // CLL
U' R2 D r2 B2 R2 D r2 B2 U2 // L5E
(45)

Overall, I think it is a great method! Only has about 50 algorithms and has great lookahead because the 2x2x3 is totally in the back, differently than petrus. I like this!


----------



## ProStar (Feb 6, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Yes, @ProStar , last five edges.
> 
> Here's what a solve with @WarriorCatCuber 's method might look like:
> 
> ...



Petrus-B! Also, shouldn't it've been COLL instead of CLL? Because the edges are already oriented.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 6, 2020)

Why not just do the last cross edge? 2-3 more moves for better recognition and less algs.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Why not just do the last cross edge? 2-3 more moves for better recognition and less algs.


Last cross ege is tough in this method. Plus, you get to do F2 moves and M' U2 M, which helps a lot.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Last cross ege is tough in this method. Plus, you get to do F2 moves and M' U2 M, which helps a lot.


You can just do a double flick with your pointer and middle finger.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You can just do a double flick with your pointer and middle finger.


I know, but no cross edge helps a lot with freedom.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 7, 2020)

What if one of the F2L edges is where the cross edge normally goes? How do I take that out without disturbing EO/The pair already there? Doing M' U2 M ruins EO


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Doing M' U2 M ruins EO


No it does nothing to EO.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What if one of the F2L edges is where the cross edge normally goes? How do I take that out without disturbing EO/The pair already there? Doing M' U2 M ruins EO


@Etothepi is correct, but at least how I do Petrus F2L, you shouldn’t get into that situation.

What I do is place the cross piece before placing the first pair (you can still make the first pair, just not place it). Because of this, it doesn't matter where you put the cross piece in. If one of the F2L edges is where you would put the cross, just do an F move (or R or L, depending on your orientation), and you've got a place to put the cross. Once you've placed the cross piece, you can take the F2L edge out and continue like normal.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

I'm naming my method Petrus-W


----------



## brododragon (Feb 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I'm naming my method Petrus-W


Just curious, why?


----------



## ProStar (Feb 7, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Just curious, why?



Probably *W*arriorCatCuber


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 7, 2020)

This is actually very interesting, @WarriorCatCuber came across it while critiquing my example solve, and I was like - what? I don’t think the 2x2x2 and expansion would be more ergonomic, since that’s how Petrus is done, but then the rest of the solve changes completely. This is basically shooting into a ZZ solve halfway through, and switching to RUL gen. I’ve never been good at critiquing methods, so I’ll just say this is definitely a viable method, and could be explored further to become world class.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

ZZ Method - External Resources


There are many great resources to help with gaining knowledge and becoming better at the cube. Here are some of them:




sites.google.com




L5EP algs can be found here.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

A huge thanks to the person who did the Wiki page ! However, there is a slight mistake. since EO is said to be done petrus style and then FU for two pairs. EO is meant to be done ZZ-style (Key sticker being the FUD centers) and Both pairs with RUL. Check out woowybaby's example solve. Thanks anyway!


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> A huge thanks to the person who did the Wiki page ! However, there is a slight mistake. since EO is said to be done petrus style and then FU for two pairs. EO is meant to be done ZZ-style (Key sticker being the FUD centers) and Both pairs with RUL. Check out woowybaby's example solve. Thanks anyway!


I edited the creator’s post.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I edited the creator’s post.


Thanks ! Just wondering, how do you edit on the wiki ?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Thanks ! Just wondering, how do you edit on the wiki ?


You can create an account using the button in the top right corner of the homepage, then you have freedom to edit and post.


----------



## Hazel (Feb 7, 2020)

@WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
<F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

Aerma said:


> @WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
> <F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
> I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?


What ? I know FU isn't fast, see the edited wiki page. If you didn't misunderstand that, petrus EO also has FU during EO.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 7, 2020)

Aerma said:


> @WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
> <F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
> I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?


If you got this from the wiki page, somebody accidentally misunderstood the method, it does ZZ style EO with block in back, then use RUL gen to solve two pairs, followed by COLL and L5EP.

Also I made some other minor changes, like correcting permuting four edges to permuting five edges, etc.


----------



## Hazel (Feb 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> What ? I know FU isn't fast, see the edited wiki page. If you didn't misunderstand that, petrus EO also has FU during EO.





PetrusQuber said:


> If you got this from the wiki page, somebody accidentally misunderstood the method, it does ZZ style EO with block in back, then use RUL gen to solve two pairs, followed by COLL and L5EP.
> 
> Also I made some other minor changes, like correcting permuting four edges to permuting five edges, etc.



Ah, I looked at the page again and it looks better 
Still, though, after EO, I feel that 2-gen F2L -> ZBLL is just better than 3-gen F2L minus the edge -> CLL -> L5EP.
That said, I'd love to be proven wrong, and if you still believe in the method then I hope you will


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 7, 2020)

Unless an edge or corner is stuck in slot on the other layer, most of the pairing still remains 2 gen - you may do a couple L moves to put an edge in position, then do RU pairing, then swap round to LU pairing. And also, ZBLL is not for everyone . (Though recognition for L5EP is still worse than EPLL)


Quick question for the person who edited in the Pros and Cons - didn’t it have 12 more algorithms than EPLL, according to previous posts?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Unless an edge or corner is stuck in slot on the other layer, most of the pairing still remains 2 gen - you may do a couple L moves to put an edge in position, then do RU pairing, then swap round to LU pairing. And also, ZBLL is not for everyone . (Though recognition for L5EP is still worse than EPLL)
> 
> 
> Quick question for the person who edited in the Pros and Cons - didn’t it have 12 more algorithms than EPLL, according to previous posts?


I made a mistake in the previous post. Also, L5EP is barely worse than EPLL, you still only have to look at the top layer.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 7, 2020)

Also, how exactly did you come up with the method? I might put a history section in.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 7, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> (Though recognition for L5EP is still worse than EPLL)



Just watch the piece during L2P(Last 2 Pairs), then you'll only need to see the LL edges


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Also, how exactly did you come up with the method? I might put a history section in.


When PapaSmurf told you in your quest for sub-8 petrus that you should do your 223 in the back, I thought he meant to do something like this, by putting in the cross edge with F2. But when I critiqued you, you were a little confused, so I realised it wasn't the case. So, I decided to propose this here, without putting in the cross edge with F2.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 7, 2020)

I propose calling the "F2L" step for Petrus-W "L2P", for Last 2 Pairs. The reason is that the first 2 layers are never actually completed, since the DF edge remains mispermuted until the final step. Also, how many algs to do COLL+L5EP in one step? If it were similar to ZBLL, it'd remove the downside of having to always 2-look, even at advanced levels.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I propose calling the "F2L" step for Petrus-W "L2P", for Last 2 Pairs. The reason is that the first 2 layers are never actually completed, since the DF edge remains mispermuted until the final step. Also, how many algs to do COLL+L5EP in one step? If it were similar to ZBLL, it'd remove the downside of having to always 2-look, even at advanced levels.


It would be over 1000


----------



## LNBFilms (Feb 7, 2020)

Not to break up this current covo, but I have a variation of CFOP that I call ”KC-CFOP”. here is the link: https://lnb-films.github.io/KC-CFOP/

It is a W.I.P.


Co-Founder of WeCubeTeam, Lukas Batema


----------



## ProStar (Feb 7, 2020)

@WarriorCatCuber as the creator of Petrus-W, what do you think of this idea?



ProStar said:


> I propose calling the "F2L" step for Petrus-W "L2P", for Last 2 Pairs. The reason is that the first 2 layers are never actually completed, since the DF edge remains mispermuted until the final step.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> @WarriorCatCuber as the creator of Petrus-W, what do you think of this idea?


Sure.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> When PapaSmurf told you in your quest for sub-8 petrus that you should do your 223 in the back, I thought he meant to do something like this, by putting in the cross edge with F2. But when I critiqued you, you were a little confused, so I realised it wasn't the case. So, I decided to propose this here, without putting in the cross edge with F2.


You can get around F2 moves.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 7, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You can get around F2 moves.


I know.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Working on a list of L5EP algs


----------



## brododragon (Feb 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Working on a list of L5EP algs


Ummm.... @WarriorCatCuber already posted one.


WarriorCatCuber said:


> ZZ Method - External Resources
> 
> 
> There are many great resources to help with gaining knowledge and becoming better at the cube. Here are some of them:
> ...


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Ummm.... @WarriorCatCuber already posted one.



That's for L6EP, it's not made specifically for L5EP. And I couldn't find any algs that worked for L5EP, all of them had an E slice edge in the U layer.


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 8, 2020)

you could just use intuitive L5EP.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> you could just use intuitive L5EP.



There's only 16 algs(11 if you remove EPLL and the basic M' U2 M case) and they're all pretty easy, so it might be better just to learn algorithmic L5EP, because algs are faster than intuitive.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

@ProStar I found this : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y5uTfEKJ03vZg9MdFKe4UQTjai901J0fOWay_8P-Xx4


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> @ProStar I found this : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y5uTfEKJ03vZg9MdFKe4UQTjai901J0fOWay_8P-Xx4



I'll take algs and cases from there, but I'd like to have a standard setup system(i.e the DF piece in the front), that way it's easier to recognize as a beginner.


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 8, 2020)

What do you want? L5E with DF or DB unsolved?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> What do you want? L5E with DF or DB unsolved?


DF


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> What do you want? L5E with DF or DB unsolved?



DF is unsolved, but what I mean is that if DF is in the U layer, then it should be facing the front(for easier recognition). Think of it like when you're learning the Pi cases for ZBLL: you don't want some of the cases to have the headlights in the back, some in the front, some on the right, etc. You want them all AUFed the same.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

So I got this suggestion on the ZMS server that said to solve the FL edge during EO, then the corner could be solved with Keyhole and would turn F2L into RU and a couple of D moves.


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 8, 2020)

Wow, I feel like history has just been made. The wiki page makes Petrus-W seem really official!

Which brings me to another point... I need a name for my method.


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 8, 2020)

> You can orient 4 edges at a time, instead of being restricted to 2 at a time as in Petrus
> EO is more free than in Petrus or ZZ



I don't think those two points are valid.
You can't have more freedom to orient the edges than with ZZ.
And advanced Petrus users orient 4 edges at the same time every day.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 8, 2020)

L5EP


ProStar said:


> Working on a list of L5EP algs


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> L5EP



Preferably one that features living color 

(It's almost impossible to recognize a case by just looking at where the piece needs to go)


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Preferably one that features living color
> 
> (It's almost impossible to recognize a case by just looking at where the piece needs to go)


L5EP

Between these two there are probably some good algs, if you can get good images that would be great(That’s why I haven’t learned the 5 cycles)


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> L5EP
> 
> Between these two there are probably some good algs, if you can get good images that would be great(That’s why I haven’t learned the 5 cycles)



I'm generating images, and I'm using all three of the previous mentioned sources for algs. I also came up with a naming system, which either is a good idea or a bad one. 

(Also since I never use google docs the page looks an awful lot like Kian's CMLLs lol)


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> I don't think those two points are valid.
> You can't have more freedom to orient the edges than with ZZ.
> And advanced Petrus users orient 4 edges at the same time every day.



Fixed 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the main algs for EPLLs? I currently have:

U-Perms: RU & MU
H-Perm: M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 and an alternate version with U's
Z-Perm: (M2' U M2' U) (M' U2) (M2' U2 M')
and
y' M' U (M2' U M2') U (M' U2 M2)


Am I missing any of the common algs?


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Feb 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Fixed
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


I use this Z Perm:
M U’ M2‘ U’ M2‘ U’ M U2’ M2‘ U
you hold it with an adj on right and front and the another adj on left an back.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Okay, done with L5EP. Does anyone know how to prevent it from showing my name as the creator? I'm working on WVCP now.



Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I use this Z Perm:
> M U’ M2‘ U’ M2‘ U’ M U2’ M2‘ U
> you hold it with an adj on right and front and the another adj on left an back.



Added


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Okay, done with L5EP. Does anyone know how to prevent it from showing my name as the creator? I'm working on WVCP now.
> 
> 
> 
> Added


You can just create a new google account, share it with it, make it the owner, then delete it from your original account's drive. Or you can change your username.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Fixed
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


R2 S U perms. Here's on of them : y' R2 U S' U2 S U' R2
I know, it's just a beginner's method U perm on the side, but it still is quite good.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> Wow, I feel like history has just been made. The wiki page makes Petrus-W seem really official!
> 
> Which brings me to another point... I need a name for my method.


The square method.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Okay, so I'm working on WVCP(also I named WVCP+SVCP CLP[Corners Last Pair]), and I need an alg for this case. More than one alg is welcome 

Edit: Done with WVCP(minus that one alg), gonna mirror them all before I start SVCP. I haven't found anything for SVCP, any help with algs/cases is welcome.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Complete list of L5EP algs can be found here. DF edge will always be in the front.

A list of WVCP algs can be found here. It contains all algs(minus 1) if the pair can be inserted with (R U' R'). I'll be adding mirrored versions of the algs soon, then I'll start working on SVCP.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Complete list of L5EP algs can be found here. DF edge will always be in the front.
> 
> A list of WVCP algs can be found here. It contains all algs(minus 1) if the pair can be inserted with (R U' R'). I'll be adding mirrored versions of the algs soon, then I'll start working on SVCP.


Just curious, how did you generate those images ?


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Just curious, how did you generate those images ?



VisualCube. But the person who made the WVCP sheet I used had it set up so that it would auto-generate a photo when I put it an alg

(This is the WVCP sheet I based mine on)


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 8, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> The square method.


Hah! I'll call it double square. Thanks!


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 8, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Complete list of L5EP algs can be found here. DF edge will always be in the front.
> 
> A list of WVCP algs can be found here. It contains all algs(minus 1) if the pair can be inserted with (R U' R'). I'll be adding mirrored versions of the algs soon, then I'll start working on SVCP.


At least for now, just use the inverse of the scramble you listed on alg.cubing.net.


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 8, 2020)

Okay, sorry to break up the great Petrus-W work but I want to put all the changes to my method (now christened the "Double-Square" method) in one place. So, here we go:

As of now, there are two branches of the method: A speedsolving (pro) method and an intermediate method.

*Speedsolving Method:*

Solve two 1x2x2 blocks on back right and back left.
Do EO (using a combination of Roux and ZZ EO)
Solve the DB edge and the FL F2L pair
L5CO
L6EP
*Intermediate Method:*

Solve two 1x2x2 blocks on back right and back left.
Do EO (same as above)
Solve the DB edge and both remaining F2L pairs
COLL
L5EP
If anyone has any more suggestions, feel free to give them!


----------



## ProStar (Feb 8, 2020)

Does calling WVCP+SVCP CLP(Corners Last Pair) sound good? I want to make a wiki page for WVCP, and figured I might as well make the others as well.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 9, 2020)

How about ZZ with CLP? EOLine->ZZF2L-1->CLP->EPLL


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 9, 2020)

ProStar said:


> How about ZZ with CLP? EOLine->ZZF2L-1->CLP->EPLL


I guess, but it has 2x as many algs as ZZLL.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 9, 2020)

Maybe Petrus-W deserves it’s own thread?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 9, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Maybe Petrus-W deserves it’s own thread?


If you wish you can create one, but I don't want to be the one creating it. It'll seem like I just want attention.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 9, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I guess, but it has 2x as many algs as ZZLL.



but less than ZZ-a, which is indisputably the best ZZ variant right now


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 9, 2020)

ProStar said:


> but less than ZZ-a, which is indisputably the best ZZ variant right now


Yeah, but ZZ-B averages 1.5 more moves than ZZ-a


----------



## ProStar (Feb 9, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Yeah, but ZZ-B averages 1.5 more moves than ZZ-a



? I'm not suggesting ZZ-B


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 9, 2020)

ProStar said:


> ? I'm not suggesting ZZ-B


Yeah, I just meant ZZ-b may have a better movecount.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 10, 2020)

I just realized Petrus—W is basically Petrus but switching to a Roux variant halfway through.

I have a CFOP to Petrus/ZZ idea:
1. F2L-2/XXCross
2. EO
3. Petrus/ZZ


----------



## ProStar (Feb 10, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I just realized Petrus—W is basically Petrus but switching to a Roux variant halfway through.
> 
> I have a CFOP to Petrus/ZZ idea:
> 1. F2L-2/XXCross
> ...



That's literally Petrus/Petrus-W except you put in an extra cross edge


----------



## brododragon (Feb 10, 2020)

ProStar said:


> That's literally Petrus/Petrus-W except you put in an extra cross edge


I guess but you do it CFOP style.
I meant this:
1. Cross
2. F2L-2
3. EO
4. ZZ/Petrus

Also, you can do different F2L insertions.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 10, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I guess but you do it CFOP style.
> I meant this:
> 1. Cross
> 2. F2L-2
> ...



Like I said, it's Petrus/Petrus-W with an extra cross edge inserted, which is worse


----------



## brododragon (Feb 10, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Like I said, it's Petrus/Petrus-W with an extra cross edge inserted, which is worse


Not really inserted, because cross already does that. The problem with just doing Petrus-W is it loses being CFOP.

I'll try one last time to give this method some viability:
1. F2L-1
2. EO
3. Insert LP + OCLL
4. PLL


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 11, 2020)

That's just forcing ZZ-C in a CFOP solve.


----------



## katsudon (Feb 11, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Allrighty, I got this idea for a petrus variant :
> 
> 1. 2x2 in back
> 2. 223 in back
> ...



I was not sure if I should chime in on Petrus-W, but here goes. There was a similar method I used last year called WaterZZ/WaterPetrus. Instead of solving the right F2L pair in step 4, you can just do L5C and then L6EP (You can also mirror it if you want). It's also more flexible since steps 1-3 are solved within a single step, so you can use ZZ, Petrus, or other methods/techniques to reach EO223. You can do Shadowslice's way of solving L5C, but I still think learning all 614 algs alongside one-looking EO223 will make it an "end-game" method in the far future since you can solve EO223 in about a second if you do it in 10tps, do EO223+pair in one look, which is about 13 moves on average, and it can be combined with ZBLL. Petrus-W is probably much more viable as of now and less alg-heavy compared to WaterZZ though.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 11, 2020)

I have an interesting idea. What if you solved the S and M slices first? It would go something like this:
1. Solve M and S slices
2. Orient remaining pieces
3. Pair up edge+2 corner pairs
4. Place the pairs with F2/R2/L2/B2

Here’s a few ideas based off of this:
1. Solve S and M slices + EO
2. Orient Corners (1L: 49 algs, 2L: 7 algs)
3. Permute to pair up all edge and 2 corner pair
4. Place the pairs with F2/R2/L2/B2


1. Solve S and M slices
2. Orient all pieces (1L: 98 algs, Orient F2L, then OCLL: 21 algs)
3. Permute to pair up all edge and 2 corner pair
4. Place the pairs with F2/R2/L2/B2


1. Solve S and M slices + EO/OCLL
2. Orient remaining pieces
3. Permute to pair up all edge and 2 corner pairs
4. Place the pairs with F2/R2/L2/B2

1. Solve Cross
2. Solve Top edges, kind of like doing F2L. You can also use insertion algs to orient/Permute remaining pieces
3. Can't really make more steps because of how undeveloped it is


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Feb 12, 2020)

totally intuitive commutators last layer solve for begginers

put last layer on bottom, then:

(not necessarily in this order)

CO: sexy move <D, D', D2>
EO: [M' U' M U M' U2 M, <D, D', D2>]
CP: R <U, U'> R' <D, D', D2> (remove, reinsert corners)
EP: M' <U, U'> M <D, D', D2> (remove, reinsert edges)

Examples:



Spoiler: Solve 1



B L' U L' U' L B R2 U' L2 U L2 U F2 U R2 B2 L2 D

z2
[M' U M U' M' U2 M, D2] // EO
y' [(R U R' U')2, D2] // CO
[M' U' M: D2] D' [M' U' M: D'] D2 // EP
z2





Spoiler: Solve 2



L B L2 B' L F2 D' B2 D2 R2 D' F2 D' B2 D L2

z2
y [M' U M U' M' U2 M, D'] // EO
y' [(R U R' U')2, D'] // CO
(R U R') D2 (R U' R') D (R U R') D (R U' R') // CP
y [[M' U' M: D'] D M' U' M, D2]// EP
z2





Spoiler: Solve 3



R2 U2 F2 U' R2 U2 F2 U R2 U2 F2 U' L R' F2 L' R

z2
[[R U' R', D] R U' R', D2] // EP
[M' U' M: D2] D [M' U' M: D] D // CP
z2


----------



## ProStar (Feb 17, 2020)

CLP for Roux?
CLP for CFCE?
CLP for PCMS?
CLP for Petrus-W?


----------



## Chris_Cube (Feb 17, 2020)

CLP for Roux sounds good, but if there are more algs than CMLL or COLL then it's not really suitable. This would be like doing Last Pair in Roux and then Winter Variation, something like WVLP + Roux. Less Algs than CMLL maybe in some situations and can be influenced in the solve, but not really practical if you want to be sub 10 maybe (?)


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 17, 2020)

2x2x3 + pair( can be done in many ways, i.e. 3/4 cross and pairs, 1x2x3 + 2x2x2)
Last pair with corner orientation(like ZBLS with corner)(could be WV or SV)
L5EO
HKPLL


----------



## ProStar (Feb 17, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> CLP for Roux sounds good, but if there are more algs than CMLL or COLL then it's not really suitable. This would be like doing Last Pair in Roux and then Winter Variation, something like WVLP + Roux. Less Algs than CMLL maybe in some situations and can be influenced in the solve, but not really practical if you want to be sub 10 maybe (?)



Just because something has more algs doesn't mean its bad. 2lll has less algs that 4-look, but almost everyone knows 2-look. People use EOLR even though it has more algs than EO then L/R. Also it's WVCP(Winter Variation Corners Permute) not WVLP


----------



## Chris_Cube (Feb 18, 2020)

Oh yeah, that is a point... So is CLP for Roux something useful?


----------



## brododragon (Feb 18, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> 2x2x3 + pair( can be done in many ways, i.e. 3/4 cross and pairs, 1x2x3 + 2x2x2)
> Last pair with corner orientation(like ZBLS with corner)(could be WV or SV)
> L5EO
> L5EP + CP/PLL + DF edge(96 or fewer algs - 21 PLL = <75 algs(also some will just be setup moves to PLL))(If this subset hasn’t been named yet tell me (I want to name a subset))


Wait. L5EO? What about the DF edge?


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Wait. L5EO? What about the DF edge?


That is EO-ing 5 edges: UB, UL, UF, UR, and DF


----------



## brododragon (Feb 18, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> That is EO-ing 5 edges: UB, UL, UF, UR, and DF


But you have 6 unsolved edges: UB, UL, UR, UF, DF, and FL/FR (Depending on which pair you solve).


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 18, 2020)

This thread has kinda died... so here's something to talk about:

Super floppy cube 1-look method? (Regular floppy cube 1-look is easy)


----------



## ProStar (Feb 18, 2020)

I beg to differ. This thread isn't dead, it has simply not been posted in for a few hours.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I beg to differ. This thread isn't dead, it has simply not been posted in for a few hours.


Well, relative to this same thread a month ago, it's pretty inactive.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> But you have 6 unsolved edges: UB, UL, UR, UF, DF, and FL/FR (Depending on which pair you solve).


?
3 pairs in step one, one more in step two
6 edges in step one, 1 edge in step two 12(total)-6-1=5


----------



## brododragon (Feb 19, 2020)

I’d just thought I should jot down this idea some where. It’s just a way to utilize luck or even influence it (In Petrus and maybe ZZ? Dunno if you could do it in ZZ). Basically the idea is that if you see a 2x2x1 block form (or start to form and influence it whilst solving), you can preserve it, leaving you with an easy COLL case and an EPLL skip.

Now that I think about it, it’s kinda like phasing.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 19, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I’d just thought I should jot down this idea some where. It’s just a way to utilize luck or even influence it (In Petrus and maybe ZZ? Dunno if you could do it in ZZ). Basically the idea is that if you see a 2x2x1 block form (or start to form and influence it whilst solving), you can preserve it, leaving you with an easy COLL case and an EPLL skip.
> 
> Now that I think about it, it’s kinda like phasing.



So instead of using ZZLL for Petrus you use this?


----------



## brododragon (Feb 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> So instead of using ZZLL for Petrus you use this?


 At a more advanced level, you could. This is because you could more easily influence the formation 2x2x1. But for less advanced solvers, it would just be a luck thing.

Now that I think about it, you could do a less advance method (not just pure influence). It would go like this:
1. 2x2x2
2. 2x2x3
3. EO
4. 2x2x1 like F2L, but on top
5. F2L
6. COLL
You could switch around 3 and 4.

Do you think that pure influence is the only viable option? Or could devoting a full step to the 2x2x1 be worth it, too?


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 20, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I beg to differ. This thread isn't dead, it has simply not been posted in for a few hours.


Whoopsies, saw the wrong timestamp  (I look really stupid now).
Although, brododragon does have a point.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 21, 2020)

Has someone proposed a 1LLL in which you see the case, than do a pure OLL and PLL without a pause because you saw the PLL that is unaffected by the OLL


----------



## brododragon (Feb 22, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Has someone proposed a 1LLL in which you see the case, than do a pure OLL and PLL without a pause because you saw the PLL that is unaffected by the OLL


I think it would be better to just do normal oll and see the PLL during the oll.


----------



## zimlit (Feb 24, 2020)

LCE or lines, corners, edges
So recently I was messing with corners first and came up with this
1. first you build two 1x1x3 lines on the L and R sides of the cube
2. CMLL 
3. solve 1-2 edges on the top layer
4. do a z rotation then solve the edges until there is one missing on L and two missing on R
5. L7E

*Big cube variant*
1. solve top and bottom centers
2. partial lines solve two sets of 1 corner plus one dedge on the d layer and place one dedge in between the two corners
3. finish centers
4.solve one of the remaining cornes as well as a dedge then do 3-2-3 edge pairing
5. 3x3+parity



Spoiler: Notes



When solving edges in step 4 you solve them in pairs


----------



## Chris_Cube (Feb 27, 2020)

@zlimit
Sounds to me like Waterman mix with LMCF with a bit of Salvia.

@others
I am searching Information about WaterZZ but I can't find this anywhere. So if someone has some useful links i would be grateful


----------



## RedstoneTim (Feb 27, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> I am searching Information about WaterZZ but I can't find this anywhere. So if someone has some useful links i would be grateful


https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZZ_method#General_Variants and https://sites.google.com/view/zzmethod/solving/variants (under "
Completely different ways of solving the cube ZZ style")


----------



## zimlit (Feb 28, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> @zlimit
> Sounds to me like Waterman mix with LMCF with a bit of Salvia.



seems accurate


----------



## Chris_Cube (Feb 28, 2020)

Do you know the average movecount? The Idea is interesting though


----------



## Chris_Cube (Feb 28, 2020)

So I also came up with a new Idea. It's called ZZ-Salvia. Steps are: 
1. EO+Line( Edges like in Salvia) 
2. First Layer like Salvia
3. COLL
4. PLL because of already doing Orientation
Opinions on that?


----------



## ProStar (Feb 28, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> So I also came up with a new Idea. It's called ZZ-Salvia. Steps are:
> 1. EO+Line( Edges like in Salvia)
> 2. First Layer like Salvia
> 3. COLL
> ...



I think plain ZZ is way better, because for salvia you need to take 2 separate steps to solve F2L, instead of just doing pairs. Also ZBLL could be used instead of COLL/PLL


----------



## zimlit (Feb 28, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> Do you know the average movecount? The Idea is interesting though


Assuming you’re talking about my idea, I’m not sure but I would guess it to be around 45-55


----------



## brododragon (Feb 29, 2020)

What if you did petrus except you only build the 3 edges for the 2x2 (no corner), allowing for a buffer spot, meaning you could solve the cube with only Commutators, no algs.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What if you did petrus except you only build the 3 edges for the 2x2 (no corner), allowing for a buffer spot, meaning you could solve the cube with only Commutators, no algs.



So solve a couple pieces then do 3-style?


----------



## brododragon (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> So solve a couple pieces then do 3-style?


It would go something like this:
2x2x2 without corner
2x2x3
EO
2-gen F2L
EPLL, using the buffer in case of impossible case
CPLL, using Commutators.
Is Orienting 5 corners possible with Commutators?

If you ever find a corner you need is in the 2x2x2, use a commutator to take it out.

Additionally, you could turn PLL into one step by memorizing which Commutators Permute edges while permuting edges.


Varaint:
1. F2L-1, so the last slot can be used as a buffer
2. Use Commutators to solve corners
3. Use Commutators to solve edges

So, yes. But it would be more than "a few pieces", it would be the maximum without making commutators useless.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

anyone know how many algs it would take to do COLL and L5EP at once?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 29, 2020)

COLL (42) x number of L5EP cases (16) x number of angles for L5EP. A large number. 42x16 is already 672... If we just take every L5EP case to have 4 different angles, that’s 2688 algorithms


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> COLL (42) x number of L5EP cases (16) x number of angles for L5EP. A large number. 42x16 is already 672... If we just take every L5EP case to have 4 different angles, that’s 2688 algorithms



Welp, there goes 1lll for Petrus-W. I guess CLP->L5EP is your best bet still


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 29, 2020)

I think you meant COLL, not CLP but yeah. Two look is still decent, most people use that tbh.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I think you meant COLL, not CLP but yeah. Two look is still decent, most people use that tbh.



No, I mean using CLP for LS then doing L5EP. It's like using VLS for CFOP. Also I wonder if you could do WV/SV for last slot then permute corners+L5E


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Feb 29, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> 2x2x3 + pair( can be done in many ways, i.e. 3/4 cross and pairs, 1x2x3 + 2x2x2)
> Last pair with corner orientation(like ZBLS with corner)(could be WV or SV)
> L5EO
> L5EP + CP/PLL + DF edge(96 or fewer algs - 21 PLL = <75 algs(also some will just be setup moves to PLL))(If this subset hasn’t been named yet tell me (I want to name a subset))


Bump
Edit: It’s just HKPLL
Edit 2: This is literally just Hawaiian Kociemba but worse
Edit 3: This is also basically Petrus-W but worse


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 1, 2020)

ProStar said:


> No, I mean using CLP for LS then doing L5EP. It's like using VLS for CFOP. Also I wonder if you could do WV/SV for last slot then permute corners+L5E


For edges already oriented there's this: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/HKPLL


----------



## zimlit (Mar 7, 2020)

Edges first Idea
1. 2x2x3 block
2. remaining edges
3. solve BDR and FDR corners
4. last 4 corners


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 7, 2020)

You could just do WV + HKPLL for Petrus-W.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> You could just do WV + HKPLL for Petrus-W.



That's way less algs than for CLP, and maybe even better, so I'd say that's the big boi alg version of Petrus-W


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> That's way less algs than for CLP, and maybe even better, so I'd say that's the big boi alg version of Petrus-W


The problem is, HKPLL algs don't exist.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> The problem is, HKPLL algs don't exist.



I'll get on it, I'm gonna start developing my first alg set from scratch


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I'll get on it, I'm gonna start developing my first alg set from scratch


Cube explorer ?


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I'll get on it, I'm gonna start developing my first alg set from scratch


Thanks, I use Hawaiian Kociemba and will eventually want to learn full HKPLL
BTW, M move setups to PLL can work as algs, if you can’t gen ergonomic ones easily


----------



## Tjacke (Mar 9, 2020)

Hi. My name is Haakan Aaslin from Sweden. This is my first post btw.
I am new to this cubing world and the 3x3 cube, but it diden´t take long time for me to realize that you need quite many algorithms for solving LL in an efficient way.
OLL with 57 algorithms and alot of preworking before you get the top layer done and after that 21 PLL.

I didn´t want to learn all of that so i have spend hours on YouTube to try find another way of solve the LL without so many algoritms. I did not find that so i started to laborate to find a way and i did.

If i have not found anything yet that matching my method... i can´t be sure, so i ask you first.

I will briefly explain my approach on the LL, so if you know this method sins before tell me.

For now we can call my approach HALL, after my name ofcourse.
OLL needs 57 algorithms and some pre algorithms to reach the desired result.
HALL with a method called A34 (approach 34) consists of 2 algorithms, one universal trigger that works anytime on any top layer pattern and one common to reach the desired result.

A34:s 2 algorithms can be applyed on any outcome the top layer has after F2L and you will always get same result.

Have any of you heard of that approach before? else i have a full developed concep in a pdf. This is an new approach like OLL but more easy.
After the 2 step with A34:s algorithms you end up in a very nice position to finnishing to LL with next algoritm, but i leave that to you.

What do you say? does this sounds interesting? or does this already exist?

If i have post in wrong place/category i am sorry.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 9, 2020)

Sounds like a nice idea, but I can’t follow very well. Could you provide an example solve to show me how you would do the last layer. By the way, Petrus has a minimum of 2 algorithms for LL, 13 for 3 look, 28 for 2 look and 493 for one look.


----------



## Tjacke (Mar 9, 2020)

Okej, but i think Petrus don´t use the F2L method.

I will give you an pdf. 
Please tell me if this has potential. I realy think this approach HALL with A34 can be a new member of how to solve LL.
It can be an alternative for lazy cubers 
What i can feel is that this way can for sure bring cubers to reach better PB becaus it is so simple and straight forward.
I realy love this way...


----------



## napstablook22 (Mar 9, 2020)

I have made a made a method with mah frends. I call it csr. That is the combination of our last name initials. It starts with eo tho


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 9, 2020)

Tjacke said:


> Okej, but i think Petrus don´t use the F2L method.
> 
> I will give you an pdf.
> Please tell me if this has potential. I realy think this approach HALL with A34 can be a new member of how to solve LL.
> ...


But once you’re finished with your HALL, you need to do ELL. The edges haven‘t been oriented or permuted. Also this is pretty similar to Lars Petrus’s beginner LL system. https://lar5.com/cube/fas5.html


----------



## brododragon (Mar 9, 2020)

zimlit said:


> Edges first Idea
> 1. 2x2x3 block
> 2. remaining edges
> 3. solve BDR and FDR corners
> 4. last 4 corners


How many algs would L6C be?


----------



## Tjacke (Mar 9, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> But once you’re finished with your HALL, you need to do ELL. The edges haven‘t been oriented or permuted. Also this is pretty similar to Lars Petrus’s beginner LL system. https://lar5.com/cube/fas5.html


I think many cubers are to much into orienting pieces and permuting edges and corners rather that solve the top layer. This idea is built to not perute, prepair, ELL. Maybe many cubers like that? but after HALL you need to pick one of 4 PLL then all edges are in place and then you have to rotate the edges in worst case. This is a straigt forward solution. 

Try do F2L or any other F2L without thinking on bad edges, just solve F2L and then use HALL.

In many cases all edges will be permuted by it self and rotate the edges are in my opinion as fast as if you wast on preparation algorithm in Petrus approach.

With HALL you will never do anything for prepairation, in each step you can solve the cube.

This is a new approach and let some more try this. It is a great way of solving LL and i cant find this close to be same as Petrus, becaus with Petrus you need to think and prepair for the last layer so the edges get in place. If you do ONE step to move an edge while building up the F2L with Petrus you have wasted time and moves. With HALL you don´t need to worry by doing something wrong.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 9, 2020)

I wasn’t questioning how good your LL method was, just curious about the last stage after HALL. That makes sense now, it could be a good way to do LL easily, but I can’t judge alone. I don’t agree however that doing EO in F2L is wasting time though.


----------



## Tjacke (Mar 9, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I wasn’t questioning how good your LL method was, just curious about the last stage after HALL. That makes sense now, it could be a good way to do LL easily, but I can’t judge alone. I don’t agree however that doing EO in F2L is wasting time though.


What can happen right after HALL is that all edges can acctualy be permuted correctly, then you need to do one of 4 PLL. and done.
Or all edges can be in right place but not facing right, then you need to rotate the edges.
You have to calculate how much time you spend to prepair for getting pieces correct, while doing F2L.

What i can see with OLL is that you need to recognize alot of colors and that can take time.
Another thing With HALL is after the first trigger, you might endup with a good pattern that you can solve easy, if it is not a good pattern you do the Sune and now another good pattern can show up.

If you dont see any good pattern that you can solve easy, just do PLL and then rotate edges.

If you absolutely want to permute edges and do OLL you can do after HALL becaus you have only 3 OLL pattern to choose from. You will reduce the OLL to just 3 from 57. But if you take that path maybe you need to learn all 21 PLL instead of only 4.

I agree it is the edge rotation that can take slightly more time, but put this in the whole process it can be a good alternative. In the pdf document you have plenty of ready algoritms that turning edges while rotating the corners.

I agree that more cubers need to try this out and give it a chance.

With all new things it seams to be odd at first, but after a while it can be something great. this is a totaly new concept to solve last layer without prepairing for the LL.

Thank you for trying HALL


----------



## Tjacke (Mar 9, 2020)

_I am not the one who can make this approach great, it is all of you enthusiast cubers. I have just found a new way that has potential, but this approach needs your intrest and your skills and better set of algorithms._

The idea is to orient the corners and turn them right with only 2 algorithms. That works everytime nomatter how the LL look like after F2L.
You apply a trigger algorithm right after F2L and you either have an X or no correct color on the edges. That means you only have 3 OLL pattern left if X and slightly more 12 OLL if no color.

The trigger works good with one Sune to hide right color on the corners, but you might need 2 Sune sometimes to show all colors.

You don't need to prepare for the top layer in F2L which mean you can focus on doing the F2L as fast and efficient as possible. For beginners this might be a great approach becaus you can be fast and solve the top layer easy with few algorithms. Not much can go wrong and you don´t need many PLL.

*The process*
If you are a skilled cuber, this approach can still be of interest.
When you are done with F2L you either recognize a good pattern that give aPLL skip. If not a good pattern, you apply the trigger (_by applying the trigger you can solve the cube_). You will now get a new patter that can give a PLL skip. If not, you do a Sune and turn all corners up or all away so they eithe match the center or not. If you like that new pattern you solve the cube with a PLL skip.

After you done the second step, the Sune Phase you have 2 choices.
Either you apply one of the 3 OLL (_only 3 possible OLL if you have the corners in place and turned right way_) and finnishing with an PLL.

The outcome after step 2 when you turned the corners can be great because all edges can be permuted by it self and you can finnishing by doing one of the 4 PLL

Or all edges are in their position and you only have to rotate them.

This is a great compliment for beginners and semi-professional cubers.

This method have potential. Maybe some one see an approach or a change of trigger etc that can make this method more interesting.

This is an approach for the creative one that want to laborate and find their own way and algorithms that can boost luck or skips.

Look at the pdf, i have tried to explain the steps as easy as possible, and you also get some more or less usefull bonus algorithms that works with this method.

Thank you...


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 9, 2020)

Tjacke said:


> I didn´t want to learn all of that so i have spend hours on YouTube to try find another way of solve the LL without so many algoritms. I did not find that so i started to laborate to find a way and i did.





Tjacke said:


> It can be an alternative for lazy cubers


There are two conflicting goals here: do you want to keep the number of algs low, or do you want the method to be fast? You _cannot_ simultaneously attain these goals, unless your method is of the "subgroup descent" type, where the cube state moves along a descending chain of subgroups generated by single moves until it's eventually solved, e.g. the Roux method if you ignore the CMLL step.

Last layer methods that solve corner permutation (CP) before corner orientation (CO), including your method and Lars Petrus's beginner method, suffer from the problem that you either need to know CLL recognition (i.e. you also recognise the CO case at the same time) or check many more stickers than needed to recognise CO alone. In a speedsolving setting, that rules out the latter option. But if you're going to spend the time to do CO+CP recognition instead of only CO recognition, you might as well use a method that exploits that (e.g. CLL or OLLCP), which would then bring you to learning a whole bunch of algs to do that.

Your method may have more "skips", but one thing to keep in mind is that skips mean less when you're… skipping less. A CP skip happens 1/6 of the time, but you still have three-ish more last layer substeps to go through—your originally-4-step last layer became a 3-step last layer on this one solve, but it's still worse (in terms of move count and speed) than the true 2-step last layer methods like OLL+PLL or CLL+ELL. As another example, an EO skip (1/8 chance) is nearly worthless for a CFOP user who knows full OLL but doesn't use COLL/ZBLL.

So blah blah blah, your method isn't good for speedsolving. It does have a low alg count, which is nice, but that's not a unique feature of your method; there are also variants of OLL and PLL that require much less algs (but again, this comes at the cost of efficiency). For example, EO using fruruf (1 alg), CO using Sunes (1 alg), CP using T perms (1 alg) and EP using U perms (1 alg) makes for 4 algs in total, albeit with the last layer potentially taking up to 10 or 11 little steps.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 9, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> There are two conflicting goals here: do you want to keep the number of algs low, or do you want the method to be fast? You _cannot_ simultaneously attain these goals, unless your method is of the "subgroup descent" type, where the cube state moves along a descending chain of subgroups generated by single moves until it's eventually solved, e.g. the Roux method if you ignore the CMLL step.
> 
> Last layer methods that solve corner permutation (CP) before corner orientation (CO), including your method and Lars Petrus's beginner method, suffer from the problem that you either need to know CLL recognition (i.e. you also recognise the CO case at the same time) or check many more stickers than needed to recognise CO alone. In a speedsolving setting, that rules out the latter option. But if you're going to spend the time to do CO+CP recognition instead of only CO recognition, you might as well use a method that exploits that (e.g. CLL or OLLCP), which would then bring you to learning a whole bunch of algs to do that.
> 
> ...



I agree. This is a low alg-count method, but it comes at the cost of bad for speedsolving.

Also I think the simplest LL method is EO with Fruruf, EP using anti-sune, CO using sexy and CP using a variant of sexy(just R U R' and R U' R'). Also since Fruruf is basically just a sexy and antisune can be explained as Take pair out(R U R') sexy, put pair back(R U' R'), it's basically one alg.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 9, 2020)

Petrus-W for 4x4!


Solve 2 opposite centers
Solve edges for a 2x2x2
Solve centers while creating a 2x2x2
Solve a 2x2x3 in the back
Solve the remaining edges
Do EO as in Petrus-W. If there is an odd number of bad edges, solve all but one and then flip the remaining one with the OLL parity algorithm
Solve the rest of the cube as in Petrus-W. This can be done in a variety of ways, including L2P->COLL->L5EP, L2P-1->WV->HKPLL, L2P-1->CLP->L5EP, etc.
I'm gonna make an example solve

EDIT:

Scramble: D2 R2 B L2 F' L2 R2 B' R2 B U2 R2 D' F' R D B' F2 D' R' F Rw2 F' D2 Fw2 F' Uw2 L B' Rw2 B L2 B Rw2 Uw' B' U2 L2 Uw' D2 Rw B2 Rw' Uw2 B' U'

x2 // Inspection

U Rw2 U' Rw2 Lw' U' Lw z2 U' Rw U Rw' U' Lw U' Lw' // F2C

x y F U' Rw2 F' D2 U' L2 U' Rw2 L' U' B' Rw' B Rw // 2x2x2 Edges

L2 U 2L2 U' 2L2 x L2 F Lw' U2 2L U2 2L2 U2 2L2 z' y2 D L2 U2 F' U F y2 F' Uw F' Uw' // Centers + 2x2x2 

R2 L' U L Uw' U2 F R' F' R Uw R Uw' R U R' Uw L F' L' U L' U L U' L' U' L // 2x2x3

y U' F R' F' R Uw' U' F R' F' R Uw R U2 R' Uw' R U R' F R' F' R Uw F Uw' R U R' F R' F' R Uw // Edges

R' F R // EO

U' m' U2 m U2 L' U' L U' R U' R' U R U R' // L2P

U2 R U R' U' R' F R2 U R' U' R U R' U' F' // COLL

m' U2 m U' m' U2 m // L5EP

Probably could've been way better; 158STM. For my Redux-Yau mix I normally do for 4x4 FMC, I get around 130-140STM(both assuming no parity). Some of the steps could probably be altered, like solving multiple edges before making 2x2x3 or something


----------



## Tjacke (Mar 10, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> There are two conflicting goals here: do you want to keep the number of algs low, or do you want the method to be fast? You _cannot_ simultaneously attain these goals, unless your method is of the "subgroup descent" type, where the cube state moves along a descending chain of subgroups generated by single moves until it's eventually solved, e.g. the Roux method if you ignore the CMLL step.
> 
> Last layer methods that solve corner permutation (CP) before corner orientation (CO), including your method and Lars Petrus's beginner method, suffer from the problem that you either need to know CLL recognition (i.e. you also recognise the CO case at the same time) or check many more stickers than needed to recognise CO alone. In a speedsolving setting, that rules out the latter option. But if you're going to spend the time to do CO+CP recognition instead of only CO recognition, you might as well use a method that exploits that (e.g. CLL or OLLCP), which would then bring you to learning a whole bunch of algs to do that.
> 
> ...


I agree that the best is to know an algorithm for every outcome, but not everyone is there yet and many will never get there. I admire all who have learned 57 OLL and 21 PLL plus hundreds of more algorithms, amazing.

Today many records are very difficult to beat unless you have skips and luck. If you never solve the top layer in the way that can give you skips and luck after every set of algorithms you will have difficulties to beat a record, you will have hard time to get that jackpot because you don´t want to gamble.

This way might be slightly slower compared to someone who know full OLL and PLL, but this might also give a boost for those who don´t know full OLL and PLL.

Every methode to solve the LL have pros and cons. For HALL you need to locate the corners and do either single swap or double swap, thats it. It is pretty obvious after that what to do, you need to rotate the corners. You don´t need to learn a bunch of more algorithms, only learn more and more OLL till you feel comfortible.

HALL is not nessessary that bad for speed solving if you are on your way of learning all OLL and PLL.

This approach has few alg, the chance of making errors are few, you don´t need much planning except to know the corners after F2L. You have probabilities of skips and luck in every moment.
Question, can you solve the F2L faster and more efficently if only do that as easy as possible?
If yes, you save time. The LL can give you a nice setup without preparation.
If you don´t get that a good pattern, swap corners, when you do that you can solve the LL or get another OLL pattern that you can solve at once.
If you don´t get a good pattern now, use a Sune and you might solve the cube or get a new OLL pattern you can solve at once.

HALL is a gambling approach that is kind of error free and straight forward. I don´t think you will perform that bad with HALL if you don´t get a skip or luck with a pattern you can solve at once. But when you get a skips and luck with a pattern you can get a great result instead.

Maybe there are Cubers out there who like this kind of gambeling to reach better PB. It is up to everyone to find a trigger algorithm that suits different corner constalations so you by apply right trigger get all corner right with all colors right just by doing the trigger.

I think you need to gambeling to break new records today, you need to find ways that raise you luck to get skips and ways that reduces pattern you need for solving the cube at once.

Thank you for your professional view


----------



## ProStar (Mar 10, 2020)

Tjacke said:


> I agree that the best is to know an algorithm for every outcome, but not everyone is there yet and many will never get there. I admire all who have learned 57 OLL and 21 PLL plus hundreds of more algorithms, amazing.
> 
> Today many records are very difficult to beat unless you have skips and luck. If you never solve the top layer in the way that can give you skips and luck after every set of algorithms you will have difficulties to beat a record, you will have hard time to get that jackpot because you don´t want to gamble.
> 
> ...



Learn 4lll, it doesn't have that many algorithms. And you can get skips. Also the best way to get skips is to learn extra algs:

wanna get OLL skips? WV!
wanna get PLL skips? COLL!
wanna get LL skips? Luck!

Knowing 4lll give way better solves on average, and a skip doesn't make it an amazing method. If I use LBL and get an LL skip, I'm gonna use more moves than a fullstep CFOP solve.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 11, 2020)

Hawaiian Kociemba variant:

Arrow(EO Arrow without EO, empty spot in DF)
F2L with M slice pairing so rotationless
HKOLL
HKPLL

I will call it Hawaiian CFOP


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 11, 2020)

The problem with HKPLL is that the algs are almost certainly gonna be not that great. WLL (imagine TTLL with an edge instead of a corner) has awful algs. This is the same thing, but with the edge in DF instead of FR. I mean prove me wrong, but I wouldn't immediately say it's a fast idea.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 12, 2020)

Easy 1LLL:
1. LB
2. Solve UF, U center, and UB on B layer. (Just solve UF and UB, then do a M2)
3. EO (Pretend like the B center is on U)
4. RB
5. Solve UF, UB, DF, and DB with an M2
6. COLL

I really like this idea, similar to LEOR but more flexible M slice.


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 12, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Easy 1LLL:
> 1. LB
> 2. Solve UF, U center, and UB on B layer. (Just solve UF and UB, then do a M2)
> 3. EO (Pretend like the B center is on U)
> ...


I don't think that COLL would always give you a 1LLL with this method, but if you solve UF and UB like you described, you would be able to use ZZLL for 1LLL.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 12, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> I don't think that COLL would always give you a 1LLL with this method, but if you solve UF and UB like you described, you would be able to use ZZLL for 1LLL.


In all of my testing UL and UR are automatically solved. Can you provide an example solve were ZZLL is needed?


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 12, 2020)

brododragon said:


> In all of my testing UL and UR are automatically solved. Can you provide an example solve were ZZLL is needed?


Try doing a T perm after solving UF and UB


----------



## brododragon (Mar 12, 2020)

Nvm I found a case.


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 13, 2020)

brododragon said:


> In all of my testing UL and UR are automatically solved. Can you provide an example solve were ZZLL is needed?





brododragon said:


> Nvm I found a case.


Reminds me of another post where someone thought they never got parity with their solving order for 3BLD.
If you can't figure out if it will be a skip or not intuitively, then please do some more testing before posting.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 13, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> Reminds me of another post where someone thought they never got parity with their solving order for 3BLD.
> If you can't figure out if it will be a skip or not intuitively, then please do some more testing before posting.


I'll try to do more testing, it was 12:00.


----------



## zimlit (Mar 15, 2020)

Steps:
1. 2x2x3 + eo
2. right cross edge and back right f2l pair
3. Remaining edges
4. last 5 corners


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 15, 2020)

zimlit said:


> Steps:
> 1. 2x2x3 + eo
> 2. right cross edge and back right f2l pair
> 3. Remaining edges
> $. last 6 corners


This seems good for a 2 look LSLL approach. However there's an issue with alg count (for comparison, L5CO which only solves five corners is already 614 algorithms).
Also as I've said on the Discussion page of the wiki article, the name ZZ-EF is already taken so this should be renamed and possibly just be listed as a variant in the ZZ wiki article.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 15, 2020)

zimlit said:


> Steps:
> 1. 2x2x3 + eo
> 2. right cross edge and back right f2l pair
> 3. Remaining edges
> $. last 6 corners



What type of EO? Petrus style?


----------



## zimlit (Mar 15, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> This seems good for a 2 look LSLL approach. However there's an issue with alg count (for comparison, L5CO which only solves five corners is already 614 algorithms).
> Also as I've said on the Discussion page of the wiki article, the name ZZ-EF is already taken so this should be renamed and possibly just be listed as a variant in the ZZ wiki article.


the alg count should be the same as L5CO since I accidentally wrote the wrong thing it just needs to preserve edges. as for the name that is true all though I'm not sure to call it. also it only has those 614 algs since everything else is intuitive and you could reduce the alg count by using heise techniques to solve two more corners leaving you with a heise finish.


----------



## zimlit (Mar 15, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What type of EO? Petrus style?


I would assume that it is petrus style but I've never completely understood the difference


----------



## fortissim2 (Mar 15, 2020)

zimlit said:


> Steps:
> 1. 2x2x3 + eo
> 2. right cross edge and back right f2l pair
> 3. Remaining edges
> $. last 6 corners


Isn't it just 5 corners?


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Mar 16, 2020)

Seems like an interesting method!


----------



## dodecicosidodecahedron (Mar 16, 2020)

Tjacke said:


> The idea is to orient the corners and turn them right with only 2 algorithms. That works everytime nomatter how the LL look like after F2L.
> You apply a trigger algorithm right after F2L and you either have an X or no correct color on the edges. That means you only have 3 OLL pattern left if X and slightly more 12 OLL if no color.


Isn't this basically just CLP + ELL?


----------



## zimlit (Mar 16, 2020)

fortissim2 said:


> Isn't it just 5 corners?


Yes


----------



## mukerflap (Mar 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Welp, there goes 1lll for Petrus-W. I guess CLP->L5EP is your best bet still


Petrus W is now officially unusable


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 16, 2020)

zimlit said:


> the alg count should be the same as L5CO since I accidentally wrote the wrong thing it just needs to preserve edges. as for the name that is true all though I'm not sure to call it. also it only has those 614 algs since everything else is intuitive and you could reduce the alg count by using heise techniques to solve two more corners leaving you with a heise finish.


If we just concentrate on the 2LLSLL after F2L-1 + EO (since the steps before are just Petrus), this would have to be more efficient than already existing approaches to LSLL in two looks (like ZZ-a and ZZ-Zipper) to be viable. (Maybe someone here can calculate the average movecount?).
Also to reduce algorithms, conjugated COLL (the idea is taken from 42) might be possible (although you have to consider that reducing alg count also means raising movecount).


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 16, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Petrus W is now officially unusable


WV HKPLL is usable


----------



## zimlit (Mar 16, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> If we just concentrate on the 2LLSLL after F2L-1 + EO (since the steps before are just Petrus), this would have to be more efficient than already existing approaches to LSLL in two looks (like ZZ-a and ZZ-Zipper) to be viable. (Maybe someone here can calculate the average movecount?).
> Also to reduce algorithms, conjugated COLL (the idea is taken from 42) might be possible (although you have to consider that reducing alg count also means raising movecount).


conjugated coll seams like an interesting Idea it also probably would not take to many moves


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 16, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> If we just concentrate on the 2LLSLL after F2L-1 + EO (since the steps before are just Petrus), this would have to be more efficient than already existing approaches to LSLL in two looks (like ZZ-a and ZZ-Zipper) to be viable. (Maybe someone here can calculate the average movecount?).
> Also to reduce algorithms, conjugated COLL (the idea is taken from 42) might be possible (although you have to consider that reducing alg count also means raising movecount).


Conjugated COLL should work. Then, you would just have L5EP. Although this would probably be better with ZZ than Petrus.

1. EOCross (probably better than EOLine)
2. Left pairs/block
3. BR slot
4. Conjugated COLL (42 algs)
5. L5EP (16 algs, 12 without EPLLs)

Seems pretty good, especially for it's alg count.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 16, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> Conjugated COLL should work. Then, you would just have L5EP. Although this would probably be better with ZZ than Petrus.
> 
> 1. EOCross (probably better than EOLine)
> 2. Left pairs/block
> ...


When is the DFR corner solved?


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 17, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> When is the DFR corner solved?


During conjugated COLL.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 17, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> During conjugated COLL.


What’s that? Is it like COLL but as a conjugate, so x, COLL, x’


----------



## carcass (Mar 17, 2020)

COLL, but only to avoid diagonal plls, so it would be fewer algs and not as bad for the sune and antisune cases


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 17, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> Conjugated COLL should work. Then, you would just have L5EP. Although this would probably be better with ZZ than Petrus.
> 
> 1. EOCross (probably better than EOLine)
> 2. Left pairs/block
> ...


This is the basic idea of ZZ-Zipper. Conjugated COLL should probably be added as an alternative to L5CO though.



zimlit said:


> conjugated coll seams like an interesting Idea it also probably would not take to many moves


After some thought, I've noticed that this won't work. COLL doesn't preserve edge permutation, so L4C would have to be used. The disadvantages are that L4C is 84 algs, recognition will be a lot harder and that it's also considered one of the worst ZBLL subsets. So this seems to be a pretty bad approach.

Edit: For everyone wondering how Conjugated COLL works, I've made a wiki article for it.


----------



## zimlit (Mar 17, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> After some thought, I've noticed that this won't work. COLL doesn't preserve edge permutation, so L4C would have to be used. The disadvantages are that L4C is 84 algs, recognition will be a lot harder and that it's also considered one of the worst ZBLL subsets. So this seems to be a pretty bad approach.
> 
> Edit: For everyone wondering how Conjugated COLL works, I've made a wiki article for it.


True but saving over a hundred algs is still worth it


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 17, 2020)

Yet another HK variant:
FB
SB while solving the DB edge and centers
HKOLL
HKPLL

I will call it Hawaiian Roux


----------



## Chris_Cube (Mar 17, 2020)

We should expand the Wiki with all these Variants with classification Good, Bad, Weird


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 17, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> This is the basic idea of ZZ-Zipper. Conjugated COLL should probably be added as an alternative to L5CO though.
> 
> 
> After some thought, I've noticed that this won't work. COLL doesn't preserve edge permutation, so L4C would have to be used. The disadvantages are that L4C is 84 algs, recognition will be a lot harder and that it's also considered one of the worst ZBLL subsets. So this seems to be a pretty bad approach.
> ...


Conjugated COLL would preserve EO, which allows for L5EP.
Preserving edge permutation would allow for one look for both algs, but L4C has worse algs than COLL.
Both work, but I think that conjugated COLL would be better.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 17, 2020)

I've been thinking for a few years that a new term should be added to the cubing language. In cubing, we use the word conjugation. This is where one performs a setup move, then a sequence, then the setup move is undone. This is a very broad term and there have been more specific developments where conjugation has been applied. For example:

+ CLL
+ ELL, OLLCP, and CLL+1
+ It has been applied to PLL
+ I used it to reduce ZBLL to 160 cases
+ NMCLL/EG
+ NMLL

So, what I propose is that we use the term Transformation when it is used in this way. It is the application of a conjugation with the intent to change one case into another. I've thought about making a Transformation page on the Wiki, but I'm a busier person now than I was years ago and haven't kept up with other developments that could potentially be added to this Transformation wiki page. I explored this concept pretty heavily from 2010 to 2012 with positioning an oriented corner and conjugating CxLL to transform the cases, transforming ZBLL and others to reduce cases or make cases easier, 2x2 methods, and in NMLL. Really transformation can be applied to almost anything, but if anyone knows of other significant developments within this concept, let me know.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 17, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Yet another HK variant:
> FB
> SB while solving the DB edge
> HKOLL
> ...


This seems like it has lots of potential. It's a more "regular" (like CFOP, Petrus, and ZZ) to LL while keeping close to the Roux steps. Can a Roux user try this out when @ProStar finishes his algs?


----------



## ProStar (Mar 17, 2020)

brododragon said:


> @ProStar finishes his algs?



I haven't started yet, I can't get cube explorer to work on my computer for some reason



carcass said:


> COLL, but only to avoid diagonal plls, so it would be fewer algs and not as bad for the sune and antisune cases



SpeedCubeReview has a vid on that, it's called how to learn COLL without algs or something


----------



## ProStar (Mar 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, idea for a different way of teaching beginners method:
> 
> Cross - Normal
> Corners - Solve corners on bottom, use sexy move to insert
> ...



Okay, I posted this a while ago(~1.25 months) as a way to simplify the beginner's method. After some toying with it(don't worry, I haven't devoted my entire life to this for the past month ), I came up with a way to remove the intuitive part from the E layer edges



ProStar said:


> Middle edges - Line the edge up so it makes a bar with the center, then move it away from where it needs to go. Then do the alg(sexy move), then you can just do these three moves(do F' U' F) to insert it. You can make that part use only sexy and a little intuitive part. Use lefty sexy(L' U' L U) for the left side.



Here's what I got:

Middle edges - Line the edge up so it makes a bar with the center, then move it away from where it needs to go. Then do the the sexy move that affects the side where the piece needs to go(i.e: The piece needed to go to the left, so you did a U'(moving it to the right), then did the alg the affected the left side(lefty sexy) (because that's where the piece needs to go). Then rotate the cube towards where the piece needs to go(so if it needed to go to the left, do a y') and do the alg you didn't just use(so if you just did lefty sexy, then do normal sexy this time)

Everything else is the same way as before


----------



## Hazel (Mar 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I haven't started yet, I can't get cube explorer to work on my computer for some reason


If you're using a Mac, it's because Macs don't support 32-bit applications anymore.


----------



## zimlit (Mar 18, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Yet another HK variant:
> FB
> SB while solving the DB edge
> HKOLL
> ...


interesting although I am curious how you solve Db as well as the average move count of the method


----------



## brododragon (Mar 18, 2020)

zimlit said:


> how you solve Db


A pretty move efficient way would no to influence it's orientation during SB and do a 1-2 move place.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 18, 2020)

Aerma said:


> If you're using a Mac, it's because Macs don't support 32-bit applications anymore.



Well that sucks. My computer isn't powerful enough to run a virtual machine with windows, so I guess I won't be able to do that


----------



## Athefre (Mar 19, 2020)

I'm pretty sure this 42, 22, and Conugated CxLL that people are talking a lot about now is the same thing that I already developed eight years ago. I don't think someone else's name should be credited on something that someone did first, even if they "re-developed". I could "re-develop" Roux, CFOP, or PLL then have my name as a proposer on the Wiki pages. I also think that the name Conjugated CxLL isn't a good fit for what is actually happening. The step of building a 1x2x2 block and adding an oriented corner could be a page of its own with a proposer I guess and an L5C page could reference this option of intentionally orienting a corner then using conjugated CLL. But Conjugated CxLL is the concept that I proposed and developed and the page should be updated to describe what it really means.

In 2012 I created this CLL Transformation Table and presented it as a mostly new concept within cubing methods. The idea of conjugating to transform CLL cases into another. Others have used conjugation for steps before, but, as far as I know, not to this extent and hadn't developed anything. A few months later I combined it with my work on NMCLL to use it in corner solving methods, like 2x2. In this Non-Matching CLL/EG post I detailed how this transformation could be used with CLL and EG in combination with the addition of non-matching corners. The first step and even the sequences make use of aligning oriented corners on U, then doing an R turn to transform the case. Using this, a face or layer is almost always already available after a scramble or just one or two moves away.

Even the 42 wiki page has this quote:

"it is possible that the "V" does not need to "correctly" solved. In a similar way to how EG solves only a face, only the one colour of the "V" may need to be solved. It is possible to use other more advanced Briggs3 techniques such as NMLL. With the techniques listed previously it is possible that the first step may frequently become a "skipped" step or have only a 1 or 2 move solution when combined with colour neutrality thereby giving much easier 1-looking." --- After this "V", it is turned into a face or layer, so it is the same concept.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 19, 2020)

Athefre said:


> I guess and the L5CO page could reference this option of intentionally orienting a corner then using conjugated CLL


"To reduce the amount of algorithms to only 42, Conjugated CxLL with COLL can be used. However, this leads to slightly higher movecount and also requires orienting one corner. " (Source: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/L5CO)



Athefre said:


> I also think that the name Conjugated CxLL isn't a good fit for what is actually happening.


I basically invented that name based on Joseph Briggs' Conjugated CMLL because I thought that this would make most sense to someone who already knows about 42.



Athefre said:


> I'm pretty sure this 42, 22, and Conugated CxLL that people are talking a lot about now is the same thing that I already developed eight years ago. I don't think someone else's name should be credited on something that someone did first, even if they "re-developed".


I did not know that you have already thought of this idea, neither do I think that Briggs did. I just created this article based on what I knew about 42, but will ensure to add you as a proposer. I do believe though that Joseph Briggs should be kept as a co-proposer though because I'm almost certain he came up with the idea independently and has also developed it further. (For example, he's created this case list.)
This would be in similar fashion to how his SSC method was proposed by him but both Briggs and Adam are shown as the proposers because Adam independently came up with ECE and brought new ideas like EZD to the method.



Athefre said:


> I could "re-develop" Roux, CFOP, or PLL then have my name as a proposer on the Wiki pages.


Obviously, you aren't a co-proposer just by thinking of a concept someone else has already thought of. There would firstly need to be evidence that you also came up with the idea and you secondly would need to develop it further and think in ways the original proposer did not (compare how you initially invented this concept for 2x2, but Briggs thought of this for Roux and only later applied it to 2x2).

In conclusion, I would say that Conjugated CxLL (or whatever you want to call it) was created independently by both of you at different times, and that therefore, you and @shadowslice e deserve credit for it.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 19, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> I do believe though that Joseph Briggs should be kept as a co-proposer though because I'm almost certain he came up with the idea independently and has also developed it further. (For example, he's created this case list.)
> 
> 
> Obviously, you aren't a co-proposer just by thinking of a concept someone else has already thought of. There would firstly need to be evidence that you also came up with the idea and you secondly would need to develop it further and think in ways the original proposer did not (compare how you initially invented this concept for 2x2, but Briggs thought of this for Roux and only later applied it to 2x2).
> ...



I don't feel like he created anything new or added anything to the concept. He only applied the concept that already exists to the Roux method. That doesn't mean that the concept of CLL Transformation/Conjugated CxLL was developed further. He applied it to Roux and made a list of specific cases. He didn't propose the entire concept. I have done a lot of work developing the Roux method, such as NMCLL, Non-Matching Centers, and others, but I'm never going to say that I co-proposed the whole Roux method or even CMLL or LSE. That is Gilles Roux only. I only developed a part of it. My name is on the NMCLL page proposers only because I didn't see a Developer option. I am not a co-proposer. If there is a way to add a Developer option to wiki pages, then maybe this is ok:

Proposer: James Straughan
Developer: James Straughan, Joseph Briggs



RedstoneTim said:


> I basically invented that name based on Joseph Briggs' Conjugated CMLL because I thought that this would make most sense to someone who already knows about 42.



I have a post a little above where I talk about transformation/conjugation. I'm planning to make a wiki page about Transformation. I think for this, CLL Transformation is a better name. But I guess Conjugated CxLL is ok for now.

I'm passionate about this because this transformation concept that I spent many hours on is something I'm a little proud of. I'm proud to have been the one to really propose it and explore it in various ways.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 19, 2020)

Athefre said:


> I don't feel like he created anything new or added anything to the concept. He only applied the concept that already exists to the Roux method. That doesn't mean that the concept of CLL Transformation/Conjugated CxLL was developed further. He applied it to Roux and made a list of specific cases. He didn't propose the entire concept.


I've asked him on discord whether he had known of your ideas before and his reply was "I had no clue about any of his posts when I proposed stuff".
He did also develop it further just by applying it to Roux because, as far as I can tell, your idea was specifically for 2x2, so I would argue that 42 is fully his creation.



Athefre said:


> I have done a lot of work developing the Roux method, such as NMCLL, Non-Matching Centers, and others, but I'm never going to say that I co-proposed the whole Roux method or even CMLL or LSE. That is Gilles Roux only. I only developed a part of it. My name is on the NMCLL page proposers only because I didn't see a Developer option. I am not a co-proposer.


What I've been trying to say is that Briggs _independently_ came up with the same approach _and _developed it further, for example also by popularizing it (e.g. most people here, me included, would've never heard of that hadn't it been for him).
It's not like he took what was just there, he created this all without any prior knowledge like you, just some years later.



Athefre said:


> If there is a way to add a Developer option to wiki pages, then maybe this is ok:
> 
> Proposer: James Straughan
> Developer: James Straughan, Joseph Briggs


There seems to be no option to do that. It would be possible to add that to the template, but that would add this for all methods and is not really worth it just for that.

Would it be okay for you if we just said that you invented and developed Transformation for 2x2 while Briggs later independently did something similar for Roux?


----------



## Athefre (Mar 19, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> I've asked him on discord whether he had known of your ideas before and his reply was "I had no clue about any of his posts when I proposed stuff".
> He did also develop it further just by applying it to Roux because, as far as I can tell, your idea was specifically for 2x2, so I would argue that 42 is fully his creation.
> 
> Would it be okay for you if we just said that you invented and developed Transformation for 2x2 while Briggs later independently did something similar for Roux?



I think there's a misunderstanding of the concepts and methods. Sorry if I haven't explained well.

Corner Transformation is the conjugation of corners by turning the R layer (or L or anything else) in order to change the current case into another case. This can be used to reduce the number of cases and the move count. Or it can be used for other purposes. I didn't create it only for 2x2. It is an overall concept to be used on any puzzle in any method. I used it in NMLL, ZBLL, and many other applications as can be seen in my signature. Corner Transformation is applied to any number of corners. All eight corners can be involved.

In the 42 method, only five corners are involved. It is an application, or really a small subset, of the Corner Transformation concept.

It's cool that others are now seeing the benefits of this. I just think it's important to show that there's a structure and an origin.


Transformation -> The application of conjugation to change one case to another.
Corner Transformation -> The application of conjugation to change a corner case into another
42 Step 3 -> The application of Corner Transformation to the last five corners to reduce the number of cases to 42
CLL, NMCLL, NMLL, PLL, and other pages can have a section describing how transformation can be applied to those steps
Any other steps or methods that use transformation

Edge Transformation -> The application of conjugation to change an edge case into another
Any steps or methods that use transformation. I used it in ELL and OLLCP for example.



I think the wiki should follow that structure. 42 Step 3 would be the page currently called Conjugated CxLL, so maybe L5C Reduction or BLC from the 42 page would be a better fitting name. Or if there's another name he would like. I wouldn't be listed as a proposer for that step. I'll try to find time tomorrow to make the main Transformation page.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 19, 2020)

Athefre said:


> Stuff


I think the transformation idea you refer to is essentially BTR (which I can't remember if I ever got around to writing an article for). I'm completely fine with allowing you to claim primacy for the whole conjugation idea while I get listed as a developer/also ran/populariser/whatever (although as previously noted, I hadn't heard of your ideas beforehand). I'm especially open to it as I know very well the annoyance of having an idea recreated by someone else who gets credit for it.

Incidentally, I think it's cool that the idea for transformation/conjugation was first proposed so many years ago because I've long considered it the most promising area of method development (and was looking into it a fair amount before uni and work got in the way of meta-cubing stuff).

However, 42 is a speedsolving method rather than a a general concept so I think it should be able to stay up by itself with myself listed as the proposer as I can't seem to find anywhere you proposed it. In this way, I think saying you should be the proposer for it would be akin to listing whoever first hit upon redux for 4x4 as the creator of yau or hoya. You do seem to have hit upon the core ideas of 22 before me though so I'm happy to concede that as well.



Spoiler: fangirling



Also, I think it's really cool that I found ideas along the same lines as you since I've long been a interested in your nmll and lse ideas so the fact that I can think along similar lines makes me quite happy . I'm also somewhat annoyed and disappointed with myself that I hadn't come across your transformation idea before since I have read a not insignificant portion of not only your posts but also the back catalogue of this forum so as not to accidentally duplicate someone else's work and claim it for my own. It also means that the extra time I could've had to develp further was kind of wasted.

But with all that said, I been a fan since not long after I started cubing and love what you've contributed to the method dev community



Edit: you might also be interested in ctls which is another transformation idea that I found after I've already proposed BTR


----------



## Athefre (Mar 20, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> I think the transformation idea you refer to is essentially BTR (which I can't remember if I ever got around to writing an article for). I'm completely fine with allowing you to claim primacy for the whole conjugation idea while I get listed as a developer/also ran/populariser/whatever (although as previously noted, I hadn't heard of your ideas beforehand). I'm especially open to it as I know very well the annoyance of having an idea recreated by someone else who gets credit for it.
> 
> Incidentally, I think it's cool that the idea for transformation/conjugation was first proposed so many years ago because I've long considered it the most promising area of method development (and was looking into it a fair amount before uni and work got in the way of meta-cubing stuff).
> 
> However, 42 is a speedsolving method rather than a a general concept so I think it should be able to stay up by itself with myself listed as the proposer as I can't seem to find anywhere you proposed it. In this way, I think saying you should be the proposer for it would be akin to listing whoever first hit upon redux for 4x4 as the creator of yau or hoya. You do seem to have hit upon the core ideas of 22 before me though so I'm happy to concede that as well.



I completely agree. 42 is your creation, so I don't get any credit for that.



shadowslice e said:


> Also, I think it's really cool that I found ideas along the same lines as you since I've long been a interested in your nmll and lse ideas so the fact that I can think along similar lines makes me quite happy . I'm also somewhat annoyed and disappointed with myself that I hadn't come across your transformation idea before since I have read a not insignificant portion of not only your posts but also the back catalogue of this forum so as not to accidentally duplicate someone else's work and claim it for my own. It also means that the extra time I could've had to develp further was kind of wasted.
> 
> But with all that said, I been a fan since not long after I started cubing and love what you've contributed to the method dev community



Thank you! I wouldn't say you wasted your time at all. You worked on an idea that you think is very useful. You developed something that others are now interested in using. I've seen some of your other developments and I was very surprised. Some of them I had also worked on long ago, but never published. So you got there first. I thought "Wow, we must think very similarly!" You have a lot of good ideas.



shadowslice e said:


> Edit: you might also be interested in ctls which is another transformation idea that I found after I've already proposed BTR



Interesting. I can make a note of this when I make the transformation page.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 20, 2020)

If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 20, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.


Wouldn’t you need a 2x1x1 block in the last layer in which the corner is clockwise of the edge?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 20, 2020)

No. Set up with U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U'
There's an orientated corner in UFR (that's a condition I forgot to put in), so you can do an R' to set up to ZBLL+FR. Then you do the alg R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R'. Then you end the conjugation with an R. (Yes, I can see that you can cancel, no it doesn't matter because this will never be used for anything, but it's fun to theorise).


----------



## Skewbed (Mar 20, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> No. Set up with U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U'
> There's an orientated corner in UFR (that's a condition I forgot to put in), so you can do an R' to set up to ZBLL+FR. Then you do the alg R U R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U' R'. Then you end the conjugation with an R. (Yes, I can see that you can cancel, no it doesn't matter because this will never be used for anything, but it's fun to theorise).


Oh, I though you were conjugating ZBLL, not ZBLL with an extra edge to solve.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 20, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> If you want another super impractical transmormation thing: learn ZBLL+1 edge (a lot of algs, but fewer than 1LLL), solve up to EOF2L-1 (BR slot), do an R', do an alg, AUF, R, AUF. Not practixal at all, but is basically CTLS on steroids.



Interesting. Maybe I'll add this. Is this something that is already developed? Just trying to think if there's a way to add it to the page I'm making without just saying "Another thing that can be done is..." without a name or alg set. Yeah, not practical, so maybe it doesn't matter unless you eventually see some potential.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 20, 2020)

Nothing has been developed at all and I see more potential in ZBLL plus a twisted corner than this, so I don't think there's a good reason to develop it.


----------



## Autumn Variation (Mar 20, 2020)

The closest thing I found to this method on the speedsolving forum is the 335 method. So, I guess I claim this now. Let's call this the "Edge Supertwist Method"

5 algs:
T perm: R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'
Sune: R U R' U R U2 R' 
Sexy move: R U R' U'
Reverse-Sexy move: U R U' R'
Edge Flipping alg (flips UF and UB): M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M U2

8 steps: 

1. Solve the E layer
2. Permute edges on 1 side by doing (AUF+ADF) R2 (Undo AUF-ADF). R2 switches UR to DR
3. Permute edges on the other side by doing (Sune)or(T perm)(Edge cases in the video)
4. Permute corners on 1 side by using commutators (with some sexy moves and some reverse-sexy moves) (also, there's parity. Just do a x rotation and T perm)
5. Permute corners from the other side using T perm+y'+R2 U2 R2 U2 (switches URF with URB)
6. Fix E layer by doing z rotation+M/U2 moves until it gets solved.
7. Orient corners by doing sexy move until corner is oriented, then doing D moves until another corner needs to be oriented. Repeat until all corners are oriented. (also, there's parity. at 10:20)
8. Orient all edges using the edge flipping alg. easy.


----------



## xcross (Mar 20, 2020)

i cant tell if your trying to make a speed solving method or noty


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 20, 2020)

I like permute/orient methods for their algorithm efficiency, i.e. not requiring many algorithms. The downside I see is that it requires commutators for corner permutation. If you can use corner commutators, you can permute and orient the corners at the same time so there is no reason to use two different steps for this.

Having to deal with parity is also a downside. You can avoid both of these problems by permuting corners before edges, which will also reduce the number of algorithms needed. But, then it is just PCMS.

Of course, methods are not all about efficiency. I like trying new methods just to get a unique challenge. I’ll try it out.

Edit: It worked and I solved the cube. I’m not sure who this method is for though. It has a low amount of algorithms, but more than beginner Petrus for example. It requires knowledge of commutators, but uses long algorithms where commutators would be more efficient. Edge permutation on the first side is easy, but it would be almost as easy to permute edges using M moves, which would not disturb corners. I’m not seeing any real advantage to permuting edges first. What were your goals in making the method?

And congratulations on formulating a method btw.


----------



## Autumn Variation (Mar 20, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> I like permute/orient methods for their algorithm efficiency, i.e. not requiring many algorithms. The downside I see is that it requires commutators for corner permutation. If you can use corner commutators, you can permute and orient the corners at the same time so there is no reason to use two different steps for this.
> 
> Having to deal with parity is also a downside. You can avoid both of these problems by permuting corners before edges, which will also reduce the number of algorithms needed. But, then it is just PCMS.
> 
> ...


The reason I made this was that I'm challenging myself to create 10 different 3x3 methods that are completely different from any other method out there. I'll be posting one every day. In the end, I would kinda do a summary/recap of the methods, then I would do a video on how to create your own method to solve a 3x3.
Edit: I have to add to that that it would challenge my creativity and I feel like that could help me in solving other puzzles without tutorials.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Mar 20, 2020)

Autumn Variation said:


> The reason I made this was that I'm challenging myself to create 10 different 3x3 methods that are completely different from any other method out there. I'll be posting one every day. In the end, I would kinda do a summary/recap of the methods, then I would do a video on how to create your own method to solve a 3x3.
> Edit: I have to add to that that it would challenge my creativity and I feel like that could help me in solving other puzzles without tutorials.


In that case you have succeeded! Congratulations. I made my own 4x4 method last year, which was a lot of fun.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 21, 2020)

The Transformation wiki page is complete.

@shadowslice e Let me know if you like the description of the 42 method. Also check the example solve to make sure it is a proper solve.

Do you think that the Conjugated CxLL page should be renamed to better fit that it is the third step of the 42 method? Conjugated CxLL implies something more than a technique for solving the last five corners.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 21, 2020)

Athefre said:


> The Transformation wiki page is complete.
> 
> @shadowslice e Let me know if you like the description of the 42 method. Also check the example solve to make sure it is a proper solve.
> 
> Do you think that the Conjugated CxLL page should be renamed to better fit that it is the third step of the 42 method? Conjugated CxLL implies something more than a technique for solving the last five corners.


Looks mostly good to me. I'll slightly edit the bit about me to mention BTR though it's essentially just a recreation of transformation as a whole


----------



## Autumn Variation (Mar 22, 2020)

some 335 variation I accidentally kinda created


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:
If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).


----------



## ProStar (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:View attachment 11577
> If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).



Yes. Scramble it up and solve it with Roux or Petrus


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Does anybody have any ideas on how to efficiently intuitively solve this:View attachment 11577
> If the picture didn't make it clear, it's solving all edges except E Slice edges and putting all corners on the correct layer (U or D layer).


I would do cross, 3 corners of the D layer, keyhole to make top cross, and then triple sledge to fix the last corners if necessary. I dunno if triple sledge counts as intuitive though lol.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Yes. Scramble it up and solve it with Roux or Petrus


Alright then.


Etotheipi said:


> I would do cross, 3 corners of the D layer, keyhole to make top cross, and then triple sledge to fix the last corners if necessary. I dunno if triple sledge counts as intuitive though lol.


Thanks!


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Alright then.
> 
> Thanks!


Also its quite easy to solve the 3 corners while making cross, so that can help efficiency.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 24, 2020)

variant of ZZ/Petrus-W:

1.) EO. Not EOLine or EOCross or EOArrow, just EO
2.) Build a 2x2x3 in the *back*.
3.) L2P. EO is already solved, so this can be skipped
4.) LL, using whatever you want from Petrus-W

Basically Petrus-W except you do EO at the start. This majorly restricts your 2x2x3 though, as you have to build it in the back. I'd think a good compromise between being able to use pre-build pairs and having to get used to a bunch of EO orientations would to be able to do:

White bottom green front
White bottom blue front
White bottom red front
White bottom orange front

And possibly all of those with yellow on bottom, don't know how hard it is to get good at new orientations.

This eliminates the worst part of Petrus-W(or any Petrus variant), which is having to pause for EO in the middle of your solve


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

ProStar said:


> variant of ZZ/Petrus-W:
> 
> 1.) EO. Not EOLine or EOCross or EOArrow, just EO
> 2.) Build a 2x2x3 in the *back*.
> ...


If the 2x2x3 pieces were in the positions of DF and DB you would have to mess up EO and then fix it. Also, you could build the 2x2x3 anywhere as long as you do the turn the right faces for 3-gen.


----------



## fun at the joy (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> If the 2x2x3 pieces were in the positions of DF and DB you would have to mess up EO and then fix it.


?


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> ?


You can't do F, B, or D moves because EO but you would have to if the 2x2x3 pieces were in DF or DB.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You can't do F, B, or D moves because EO but you would have to if the 2x2x3 pieces were in DF or DB.



You can do D


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 25, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You can't do F, B, or D moves because EO but you would have to if the 2x2x3 pieces were in DF or DB.





ProStar said:


> You can do D


And F2/B2


----------



## brododragon (Mar 25, 2020)

ProStar said:


> And possibly all of those with yellow on bottom, don't know how hard it is to get good at new orientations.


Just be color neutral to start. It's what almost all Petrus users do and it's not that hard.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 25, 2020)

After many many days i have created a method that takes 45 to 60 moves and has 3 algorithms! the only other one i can think of is 8355 and its move count is 100+.
This is very much experimental and don't think is good for a beginner at all also i don't know how fast it can get as its very difficult to look ahead and do block building.
Here's the method:
Its A ROUX+335 method combination
Steps-
Orient/Permute Middle layer(e slice)
do pll on both sides (might run into parity)Put both "messed up corners" on you're right U and right D and do R2 U2 R2' than do a pll on top layer again.
Use R2s and U2s to Orient First two blocks To put one corner in its spot without getting messed up repeat R' F' R F 3 times
EO should be done now do one of two algorithms (O or JB/Y (depending on if there's headlights/one side permuted or not))
Than LSE 
To Use this method you must learn and be able to aplly LSE from Roux.
AGAIN this is NOT a speed method(from what i can tell)
But an experiment to see how viable 335 is.


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Mar 25, 2020)

It really depends on what you consider an algorithm. For example there are methods with 0 algorithms if you aren’t considering commutators to be algorithms, and like is sexy move an algorithm? It really depends. Also there are many methods with <3 algs, it just kinda depends on what you would consider an alg, which can be hard to define on some levels.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 25, 2020)

TipsterTrickster said:


> It really depends on what you consider an algorithm. For example there are methods with 0 algorithms if you aren’t considering commutators to be algorithms, and like is sexy move an algorithm? It really depends. Also there are many methods with <3 algs, it just kinda depends on what you would consider an alg, which can be hard to define on some levels.


This is true the other thing is, this method is based off 335 and this is as far as I could take it as 335 is just straight up trash.

Also if you don't count R2 U2 R2 as an alg it would be 2 which is interesting also this method has 2 parities one which I for got to mention is for edges, you just do m than d's to fix the edge and than m' back. By the way do you know any other methods that have parities? For 3x3 of course


----------



## TNL Cubing (Mar 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> For 3x3 of course



How do you "solve PLL" with no algorithms?


----------



## brododragon (Mar 25, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Than LSE


That takes more than 3 algs.


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 25, 2020)

]


brododragon said:


> That takes more than 3 algs.


It takes no algs.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 25, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> ]
> 
> It takes no algs.


Wait LSE can be done intuitively?


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 25, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Wait LSE can be done intuitively?


Yes. Its an intuitive thing, the only time you'd use algs is EOLR which is almost completely intuitive anyway.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 25, 2020)

The only time "algs" are used in LSE is actually when people take intuitive sequences of moves and teach them non-intuitively.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 25, 2020)

brododragon said:


> That takes more than 3 algs.


lse isnt algorithmic


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 25, 2020)

TNL Cubing said:


> How do you "solve PLL" with no algorithms?


i did this post exitidely at 2 am im sorry it was a bad post, you can technacally do begginers on both sides,
so 1 alg (F R U R' U' F) than R Ds on the corners


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Mar 26, 2020)

Does it seem feasible to achieve fast times by using these steps?
Are the estimated move counts valid?
Am I missing anything?

4 EO
6 Three white corners in place on D, at least One oriented corner on U
10 L5C - Orient and Permute, but preserve EO (126? cases, 42 conjugated C*LL algs)
10 Permute E-Edges + Centers
15 Permute L8E

= 45 moves


thanks,
-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 26, 2020)

Solvador Cubi said:


> Does it seem feasible to achieve fast times by using these steps?
> Are the estimated move counts valid?
> Am I missing anything?
> 
> ...


L5C is 614 algs just saying.


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 26, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> L5C is 614 algs just saying.


Conjugated CxLL reduces the cases by a fair amount. I think thats what they meant.


----------



## Chris_Cube (Mar 26, 2020)

Solvador Cubi said:


> 4 EO
> 6 Three white corners in place on D
> 10 L5C - Orient and Permute, but preserve EO (126? cases, 42 conjugated C*LL algs)
> 10 Permute E-Edges + Centers
> ...



I had this idea also as a ZZ-Corners First hybrid. But instead of L5C I thought of:
1. EO 
2. Corners of first and last layer + preserve EO
3. Inserting the Edges in Pairs or one at a time or more with algs which preserve EO 
4. Permute the Midges


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 27, 2020)

Solvador Cubi said:


> Does it seem feasible to achieve fast times by using these steps?
> Are the estimated move counts valid?
> Am I missing anything?
> 
> ...


I'm somewhat skeptical about your permute e-edges step. Are we meant to have them in the e-slice after eo? Because otherwise there's a lot more than 10 cases. At the same time, that'd make the average movecount for eo much higher than 4. I'd instinctively have a few questions regarding the ergonomics of the permute step too.

Lastly, I'd need to know what movegroups you're expecting for each of the steps.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 27, 2020)

Method Name : "Doesn't want to learn many algs!"

Concept. : I have a method that skips oll and replaces it with T Perm and Modified Y Perm! and brute force skipping pll. for solving the cube you need only 2!!! algorithms, I mean i think that this method is for lazy people that is --- (Um I mean energy efficient on their brain) that only wants to learn around than 2 algorithms. if you are someone who is serious about this method, replacing the skipping OLL part with VLS (Valk Last Slot) and the permutation of the last layer part with t perms (Or if you're serious use pll.)
How to do it :
I'll make a video on youtube, I'll upload link later.
I'm calling this method : (Doesn't want to learn many algs)
Average move count is maybe 100 - 150 for beginner, 80- Intermediate, serious - 50-60 for the 2 f2l and if you're using VLS if you don't know full VLS which is most people, influence and orient the Last layer edges when you're doing f2l I'll be showing bunch of case when influencing the VLS cases during f2l, and use Winter Variation of the Valk Last Slot.

Steps :
1. Line in the bottom layer kind of looks like the EO Line in ZZ (preserving 2 f2l slot in the top face when orienting and permuting second face)
2. Permuting and Orienting and putting the pieces correctly in left face / first face (left face or right face) Using M, M', U2, U' and U moves.
3. Doing f2l in a way that uses T Perm and Orients and Permutes the last face edges (Kind of like Old Pochmann and using buffer spots)
4. Orienting and permuting F2L corner and Last face edges using Y Perm.
(For parity, use Ub or Ua Perm.)
Parity : When doing edges, If having an odd number of incorrectly permuted or oriented edges or both, use Ub or Ua Perm as mentioned above.

This method is I think not similar and very different to other methods, its a blockbuilding, belt and layer by layer method at the same time


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Mar 27, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm somewhat skeptical about your permute e-edges step. Are we meant to have them in the e-slice after eo? Because otherwise there's a lot more than 10 cases. At the same time, that'd make the average movecount for eo much higher than 4. I'd instinctively have a few questions regarding the ergonomics of the permute step too.
> 
> Lastly, I'd need to know what movegroups you're expecting for each of the steps.




Thanks for feedback,

Yes, I thought the "L5C - Orient and Permute" step could use the 42 algs for Conjugated CxLL.
( I edited the original post to note that one oriented corner is needed on U.

The numbers next to each line were estimating an average move count for that step, not the number of cases.

For the "Permute E-Edges + Centers" step...
They are not already in the E-Layer from EO
In my testing, I'm averaging 11.3 moves to permute them, so I'm guessing an actual speedsolver could get to 10 moves. 
I don't love the ergonomics of this step because of E-Slice moves. It's intuitive, but with move sets like these: 
L’ U’ M2 U L ... ... U D R E2 R' ... ... M’ U2 M’ D’ U’ R E2 R' ... ... L E2 L2 E2 L’


-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## ProStar (Mar 27, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Method Name : "Doesn't want to learn many algs!"
> 
> Concept. : I have a method that skips oll and replaces it with T Perm and Modified Y Perm! and brute force skipping pll. for solving the cube you need only 2!!! algorithms, I mean i think that this method is for lazy people that is --- (Um I mean energy efficient on their brain) that only wants to learn around than 2 algorithms. if you are someone who is serious about this method, replacing the skipping OLL part with VLS (Valk Last Slot) and the permutation of the last layer part with t perms (Or if you're serious use pll.)
> How to do it :
> ...



If you're going for little algorithms and don't care about inefficiency, then just use this beginners method, which only uses sexy and lefty sexy(which can be learned wayyy easier than t & y perms):



ProStar said:


> Ok, idea for a different way of teaching beginners method:
> 
> Cross - Normal
> Corners - Solve corners on bottom, use sexy move to insert
> ...




But even this is for beginners, please just stop being lazy and learn 4lll(or CMLL, or whatever the step is for the beginner's version of your method). Plus if you want to make this method remotely decent, you have to learn more 300+ algorithms, so it's not event a low alg count method


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

I'm not making this as a speedsolving method just a really lazy and really intuitive method.
well this method actually teaches you about blockbuilding but you don't have to use it as a main method.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 28, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I'm not making this as a speedsolving method just a really lazy method.



Then why the "advanced steps"?


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

that's if you're serious about using this method


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

or if you want the method to be efficient and you are serious, "Doing f2l in a way that uses T Perm and Orients and Permutes the last face edges (Kind of like Old Pochmann and using buffer spots)"
for the two f2l edges, first in one of the f2l edge just use T Perm, then also when you're doing that do the OLL algorithm that looks like that case when you're doing one of the f2l, example : you're inserting one of the edge of the F2L, then in the top face it looks like an OLL algorithm in this case a T Oll do the T Oll then do the edge of the last f2l and you got an oll skip or use 2 look oll, how to use 2 look oll = influence the last layer edges and make most of them or all of the LL edges oriented then you will get an edges oriented correctly case. then use PLL.

Since I know 2LLL let me experiment that on my method and influencing the OLL case during F2L.
Update: It's good. it's very easy to get color neutral with this method.
I've done my research, yay! this method is original!


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 28, 2020)

@Username: Username: 
If your going to develop methods with the sole purpose of having a low alg count, just make it have no algs. You could just do Roux with sune and J perm if you want a speedish method with a low alg count. It's always great to have people designing methods, but if your method is designed to have a low alg count, unless it has none or is really easy for beginners to grasp, there isn't much point as so many methods can be adapted to have 2 algs or roundabouts.. Sorry. Although I would love to see some more algless methods, especially ones that don't even use comms, as even those are intuitive, they feel like algs to me for some reason. =P


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

atleast this method is original  actually, you can use no commutator on this method regular F2L on the first F2L slot then influence LL edges when doing the last F2L slot. I've tried that and you can optimise the last step of this method so that you will have 2 look oll, I created some triggers to influence the LL Edges while doing F2L.
Update : There are a lot of algorithm to keep track of when doing the influencing the LL Edges step, I'm making a whole subset of them.

I want to propose this method, I might change the name.
any name suggestions?
Document for proposal : https://docs.google.com/document/d/186jhiDKbVxE8ykruVqK22mi2amJ3b-h02UvTu9IAleg/edit?usp=sharing

Improving F2L + Last layer Efficiency on Zuper Cuztomizable method : To improve the efficiency of the Zuper Cuztomizable method when doing the last step which is F2L + last layer use one of the 17 algorithm in 1 Look Line Last Layer https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/i...e_Last_Layer_.281LLLL.29_17_algorithms_subset instead of influencing the last layer edges intuitively, just use one of the 17 algorithms.
and who says I expect to? anyway.

I took me 24.67 secs to solve with the method


----------



## Athefre (Mar 28, 2020)

If you propose a method, don't expect anyone to say yes.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

Improvement to the method : for the F2L + Last layer step of the method, influence the LL Edges in a specific way before doing F2L, then use 1LLLL (1 Look Line Last Layer) to orient and permute the last layer. that should make the method efficient enough to use it for speeds solving, it's 1 look last layer with only 17 algs.
And also who says I expect them to anyway.
Method's already created, I don't need a wiki page for credit.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

Anyone know how to influence a particular edge with two corners? before F2L i know some but anyone suggest some more algs? aka Edge orientation with 2 corner
down : ok.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 28, 2020)

@Username: Username:, please don't post consecutively, if you need to add something to your previous post you can just edit it


----------



## brododragon (Mar 28, 2020)

This seems like a very optimized method. I like it.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

brododragon said:


> This seems like a very optimized method. I like it.


That is why it's called Zuper Cuztomizable method


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

Improvement of the method if you want : Influence LL Edges while doing the last F2L Slot then, Use COLL to get a very easy PLL for example I know some COLL so i tried it out then I got a Z perm, you can use COLL if you want only corners permuted PLLs.
Update : Also since the edges are oriented, you could use ZBLL or the other way round, Influence the corners of the last layer while doing the last F2L slot. to get an ELL or EPLL case.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 28, 2020)

@Username: Username: Can you post a example solve of your method? Also this low alg method is getting more algs every post, VLS and OLLCP??


----------



## brododragon (Mar 28, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Improvement of the method if you want : Influence LL Edges while doing the last F2L Slot then, Use OLLCP to get a very easy PLL for example I know some OLLCP so i tried it out then I got a Z perm, you can use OLLCP if you want only corners permuted PLLs.


If you already oriented edges, you just need COLL. It's only if you don't orient edges that you need OLLCP.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

I change the name and the intent of the method, the T Perm and Y Perm variation of the method is for beginner.
Example solve? you want a video?
I tried noting example solves using paper.
It's like what you said, CFOP has many customizability but the beginner version of the method uses one algs. but my method has a lot of customizability. See the document I have photos on the steps.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

The Algorithm count depends on which variation of Zuper Cuztomizable you're using, beginner version has 2, PLL + 2 Look OLL has 28, et cetera.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 28, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> The Algorithm count depends on which variation of Zuper Cuztomizable you're using, beginner version has 2, PLL + 2 Look OLL has 28, et cetera.


I’m bamboozled with your method. It just keeps changing every 5 minutes.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

And that's another reason why the method is called "Zuper Cuztomizable" You can choose which variation suits you the most, just like which cube suits you the most.
Another cuztomizability incoming! : You could do the second face step first to improve efficiency and do the half belt step using pseudoslotting then do the last 2 F2L + Last layer step, influence during F2L, then do 1 Look Line Last Layer.
Well, ZZ has lots of variation right? just like this method.
Too much?  Well anyway.
Update:
I Kid you not, this is a PERFECT improvement!  : Instead of ZBLL, when influencing the LL edges during Last F2L, Use 2GLL because, it specifically permutes the edge and the edge is already influenced/oriented during F2L and Orients the corner and gives you a corner swap PLL or really frequently skipping PLL thereby making the last layer only 1 LOOK!  I myself know some sune and antisune cases of the 2GLL.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

I could do more with BLE, Brooks Last Edge if you happen to have your edges oriented accidentally. : when doing last F2L simply use one of the BLE algorithms.
This method suits for a wide range of substeps, excluding CMLL because CMLL messes up the M and U layer.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 28, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I could do more with BLE, Brooks Last Edge if you happen to have your edges oriented accidentally. : when doing last F2L simply use one of the BLE algorithms.
> This method suits for a wide range of substeps, excluding CMLL because CMLL messes up the M and U layer.



holy crap is this a method or just a bunch of alg sets thrown together?


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 28, 2020)

This method is perfect for a bunch but actually I've come to a conclusion, Standard Zuper Cuztomizable method uses 2GLL for last layer that ok?
yes
Conclusion :
Steps :
1. Half Belt like ZZ
2. Second face oriented and permuted correctly using M moves and R moves
3. First F2L first pair like regular F2L
4. Final F2L + Last Layer : Influence the LL Edges while doing F2L so that you can use 2GLL. then use one algorithm from 2GLL to solve the entire last layer
Simple Enough? See the document from page 294 for more detail.
One improvement that doesn't involve algs is to start the method with the second face to improve efficiency then do the half belt using pseudoslotting and then continue with regular F2L then influencing LL Edges when doing last F2L slot is to do 2Generator Last Layer (2GLL)


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

In the influencing LL Edges part in my paper I created some triggers to influence the LL Edges when doing F2L.
aka ELS (Edge last slot) aka EO in the last layer


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> 1. Half Belt like ZZ


What is a "half belt"? Do you mean a line or just DF and DB edges? (Belt usually refers to E-slice edges, S-slice edges is a bit rarer and people still wouldn't know whether you mean DF+DB, DR+DF etc.)



Username: Username: said:


> 2. Second face oriented and permuted correctly using M moves and R moves


You can't orient and permute a face using M and R moves. Try it out, there are only 16 possible states you can get with only R and M moves. (Also this interfers with your document where you state that this is solved <MU>-gen, though that doesn't work to solve a whole face either.)



Username: Username: said:


> 3. First F2L first pair like regular F2L


Where is the F2L pair placed? Where is the cross edge?



Username: Username: said:


> 4. Final F2L + Last Layer : Influence the LL Edges while doing F2L so that you can use 2GLL. then use one algorithm from 2GLL to solve the entire last layer
> Simple Enough? See the document from page 294 for more detail.


This is not how 2GLL works. You can only use 2GLL to solve all of the last layer when edges are oriented and _corners are permuted_.
You actually said that 2GLL leaves you with CPLL some comments before, I don't really know why you wrote this comment. Also even if you accidently wrote that, what you're calling 2GLL is a subset of it called OCELL.



Username: Username: said:


> In the influencing LL Edges part in my paper I created some triggers to influence the LL Edges when doing F2L.
> aka ELS (Edge last slot) aka EO in the last layer


Orienting edges during last layer is called EOLL, solving the last F2L edge without caring about the corner and orienting the last layer edges is what you call ELS and lastly orienting last layer edges and solving the last, already built pair is called EOLS or ZBLS.



Username: Username: said:


> I could do more with BLE, Brooks Last Edge if you happen to have your edges oriented accidentally. : when doing last F2L simply use one of the BLE algorithms.
> This method suits for a wide range of substeps, excluding CMLL because CMLL messes up the M and U layer.


Yes, the same goes for CFOP or any method that solves until F2L-1 for that matter.

In conclusion, give us an example solve (e.g. using alg.cubing.net) because it's not exactly clear to me how your method works.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

Since this method has virtually no rotations, It's perfect for one hand and last layer uses a 2 gen algorithm subset.
see the document in page 294 for more detail and I heard that someone said 2GLL is used when edge is already oriented.\
when you're done with second face/ left to the Line and it looks like EO Line face F2L slot are on the top.
anyway thanks for notifying the mistakes.
I am posting example solve later since you didn't get me.
"You can't orient and permute a face using M and R moves. Try it out, there are only 16 possible states you can get with only R and M moves. (Also this interfers with your document where you state that this is solved <MU>-gen, though that doesn't work to solve a whole face either.) " this stage is blockbuilding step.
I'll give you credit for helping improve the method. 
I think I didn't explain the method enough in the document.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> see the document in page 294 for more detail and I heard that someone said 2GLL is used when edge is already oriented.\


When edges are already oriented, ZBLL solves the whole last layer. If additionally, corners are also permuted, 2GLL (a subset of ZBLL) solves the whole layer. If the edges are already oriented, OCELL (subset of 2GLL) solves edge permutation and corner orientation 2-gen, but it leaves you with CPLL to finish the solve.



Username: Username: said:


> I am posting example solve later since you didn't get me.


That would be great.



Username: Username: said:


> "You can't orient and permute a face using M and R moves. Try it out, there are only 16 possible states you can get with only R and M moves. (Also this interfers with your document where you state that this is solved <MU>-gen, though that doesn't work to solve a whole face either.) " this stage is blockbuilding step.


So the <MU>-gen or <RM>-gen part should just be ignored? Because just the fact that it is blockbuilding doesn't change the move group. (E.g. ZZ's right block is usually done <RU>-gen and doesn't use all available turns.)



Username: Username: said:


> I'll give you credit for helping improve the method.


I've only been asking how your method works and haven't improved it in any way.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

Well A Perm is fast, H Perm is fast and E Perm is all fast plus I want to distinguish the last layer from ZZ.
You know when a non cuber tries to make one face/ one layer ? it's like that but wayyyy more efficient in my method.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I want to distinguish the last layer from ZZ


OCELL + CPLL is a ZZ variant.



Username: Username: said:


> You know when a non cuber tries to make one face/ one layer ? it's like that but wayyyy more efficient in my method.


If you want a really efficient method that starts out with one layer, have a look at Waterman.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

anyway. also my method didn't start with a layer it start with a line then the second face/layer
let me try this method for one hand.
I meant I want to use a substep that is not common to other methods.
update : Meh, the method's fine for one hand.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

Another improvement that won't involve using someone else's algs is to orient AND permute LL Edges simultaneously by influencing them during Last F2L, currently I'm making my own alg sub set


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Another improvement that won't involve using someone else's algs is to orient AND permute LL Edges by influencing them during Last F2L, currently I'm making my own alg sub set


Basically everything you can come up with in cubing already exists (and if not, it's really similar). In your case, take a look at this.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

emmm,, noooooooo i didn't know that yet i'm making those algs currently
but those are the substeps not the method itself
I wish I live in the 80's

You know what? for the second face I have an idea that is actually original, while doing the last half of the line (first step), influence for the second face by triggers that I'm creating, put all the pieces of the second face in the second face unoriented but the corners and edges, permuted I'm making triggers.

second improvement I'm going to make cases like F2L when you're doing second face that shows what to do when pieces for the second layer (edges and corners and I'm making substeps for what to do in the second face. are for example in this layer or this layer and that and so on, so that the second face step will be efficient enough for speed solving.

how is that for original? when I searched in speedsolving wiki there's no algs for that.
these are algs for my own method.

I'm changing the steps so it's
1. Line like ZZ in the D layer but no EO then while doing the line also influence the L layer edges so that it's in the place and it's permuted but not oriented and use "Second face triggers" that I'm creating to influence the second face.
2. Orient the second face in the L layer using M Moves and R Moves from the angle of the U layer.
3. F2L. at the U layer, for the first slot, do regular F2L.
4. F2L + Last Layer, last step of the method, influence the LL edges so that it's permuted and oriented and after F2L use *OC(P)ELL* and then because of using OC(P)ELL the chances of a PLL skip has greatly increased, but if not, you will get and A, E, H Permutation and those algorithms are 2 Gen, so making the whole method perfect for one hand.



update : I randomly tried OC(P)ELL in my method and handscrambled the solve because it was just an experimental solve and when I'm on the step of the last F2L slot and influencing the LL Edges I got an OLL and PLL skip making my pb (13.95) second on a method other than CFOP and I turned as fast as possible in that solve when I got an OLL skip. sadly it was not a computer scrambled solve so that's not actually my PB.

for the influencing the second face thing, it's like F2L there are a lot of case, cases where the pieces are in the L layer and it's permuted and cases where it's in the U layer, so you can learn the influencing the second face step intuitively but it's slow at first but you'll gradually improve and eventually do it flawlessly. just like F2L. and about as much as F2L.

still maybe creating bunch more triggers to go whoa the influencing the second face step is definitely the most intuitive and algorithmic step, last layer can't even compete with this step.
I didn't call this method Zuper Cuztomizable for nothing, the Line and Second face step is I think more flexible than cross and F2L step of CFOP.
finally I have algorithm sets and method that IS original. method is also original. I'm going to call the permuting the L layer edges while Line step algs hmm "Zuper Edge Influence (ZEI) " and if you don't want to use that one that one, I'm also making another Alg set and I'm going to call it hmm "Zuper Second Face (ZSF)"


> second improvement I'm going to make cases like F2L when you're doing second face that shows what to do when pieces for the second layer (edges and corners and I'm making substeps for what to do in the second face. are for example in this layer or this layer and that and so on, so that the second face step will be efficient enough for speed solving.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> You know what? for the second face I have an idea that is actually original, while doing the last half of the line (first step), influence for the second face by triggers that I'm creating, put all the pieces of the second face in the second face unoriented but the corners and edges, permuted I'm making triggers.
> 
> second improvement I'm going to make cases like F2L when you're doing second face that shows what to do when pieces for the second layer (edges and corners and I'm making substeps for what to do in the second face. are for example in this layer or this layer and that and so on, so that the second face step will be efficient enough for speed solving.
> 
> ...


I, again, have not understood a word of how your method works or what your new idea is. Please enlighten us with an example solve.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

wait. I'm going to learn Full Zuper Cuztomizable by learning OC(P)ELL and some intuitive cases of ZEI and LPELL six cases one.
you know when people call F2L algs, same thing for my Zuper Edge Influencing It's just an Intuitive alg set.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 29, 2020)

I have an idea for a method finally. First I have a question, how many algs would there be for PBL on 3x3?

1. Solve a side but there are no regards to permutation.
2. Solve the E Layer like you would in HF.
3. Orient the opposite side with an OLL.
4. IF there aren’t to many algs, do a PBL to solve both layers at once.
4b. If there are to many algs, do one alg to permute corners and one to permute edges.

VARIATION:
1. Solve a cross with no regard to permutation.
2. Then do Pseudo F2L BUT the E layer must be solved.
The do steps 3-4 like the one above.
Gimme your ideas!


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 29, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> I have an idea for a method finally. First I have a question, how many algs would there be for PBL on 3x3?
> 
> 1. Solve a side but there are no regards to permutation.
> 2. Solve the E Layer like you would in HF.
> ...


PBL would be more than 400 algs.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 29, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> PBL would be more than 400 algs.


Well scratch 1 Step pbl. Guess 2 steps, but I don’t know if that would still be good.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 29, 2020)

The method variation on page 294 was really inefficient, why? because it's the beginner variation of Zuper Cuztomizable.
wai da minute, when I came out of bed I thought of a variation of your method without the pseudof2l coincidence maybe.
also that other variation with the cross that disregards to permutation thing, A method has already been created btw.
isn't 2 step pbl a bit inefficient?

can anybody help me with efficiency in the second face step?
also, I want to point out that in my method the influencing the LL Edges when doing F2L for the first time when doing that step, you may not be fluent at the permuting the edges stage but that fluency just comes to experience when I'm doing intuitive F2L for the first time, I was not very fast at it and took me a couple of trial and errors, that's the same to my influencing the LL Edges stage of my method.
Example solve of the method incoming.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> The method variation on page 294 was really inefficient, why? because it's the beginner variation of Zuper Cuztomizable.
> wai da minute, when I came out of bed I thought of a variation of your method without the pseudof2l coincidence maybe.
> also that other variation with the cross that disregards to permutation thing, A method has already been created btw.
> isn't 2 step pbl a bit inefficient?


Wut I’m honestly so confused I have no idea what you are saying


----------



## ProStar (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> can anybody help me with efficiency in the second face step?
> also, I want to point out that in my method the influencing the LL Edges when doing F2L for the first time when doing that step, you may not be fluent at the permuting the edges stage but that fluency just comes to experience when I'm doing intuitive F2L for the first time, I was not very fast at it and took me a couple of trial and errors, that's the same to my influencing the LL Edges stage of my method.
> Example solve of the method incoming.



No one can help you because you're spouting off random words and phrases, no one understands your method because it keeps changing


----------



## Chris_Cube (Mar 29, 2020)

He is talking with himself discussing his method. I am confused. It sounds like an aprils fool


----------



## brododragon (Mar 29, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> influencing the LL Edges


What do you mean by that?


----------



## ProStar (Mar 29, 2020)

This method is more complicated than zeroing...


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What do you mean by that?


When you're doing the last F2L slot, you simultaneously orient and permute the Last layer edges.
Wellp I'm recording an example solve.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

New method concept (I think??):
Step 1:solve 3 cross edges and f2l (can also do block building) do this with no full rotations make sure the not solved cross piece is in the front or back slot.
Step 2: CMLL
Step 3: EO
Step 4: Either do LSE or put the cross edges in their slots and do one of the 2look plls(1/8 chance of pll skip btw).
(Normally average 18 with roux and have been averaging 25 or so with this.)
some advantages are you wont get six flip and no rotations and cross takes less time but its harder to do block building quickly.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

doubts on the method :
1. Line : put edges of the DF and DB edges in the bottom layer and after doing DB edge, you try to assemble and orient the pieces of the second face (2nd step) which is in the L layer example : there's edge pieces, LU, LF, LD, LB on the R layer, bring it to the permuted spot, unoriented on their respective spot but also don't mess up the line you've made on the bottom layer which is the DB edge piece. after that insert the DF edge piece to the line without messing up the edge pieces on the left/ L layer.

2. Go to the second layer/ left by only rotating once to the U layer and L Layer on the bottom this time, this is the part where it gets tricky, if you see an un oriented edge/ corner if the edge's sticker (sticker of the face) is on the front now bring it to the DF spot by doing a D move if it is on the DL spot or D' when it is on the DR do a D' move and when it is on DB do a D2 to bring the piece to the DF spot and do the following trigger, you know in roux where you use triggers to orient the arrow mine is like that but not on the U layer, on the D layer. (M' U2 M U M' U' M) (all of this is relative to you because you rotated once means that what was the L layer in the first step is now your D layer.) that orients the piece that you are currently doing that is on the DF spot then for corners if it is on the U layer (relative to you) insert the corners to it's correct place, if you see a corner on it's place but un oriented, and the sticker is on the front not the bottom, bring it to the FDR spot and do the following trigger, (R U R' U' R U2 R' U' R U R') .

3. F2L + Last Layer : because you are already facing what was of the U layer on the first step = Line, now there is 2 F2L slots, on the FR edge and FDR (Front down right) corner and on the FL and FDL (Front down left) corner why I say F and not the U layer is because you rotated when transitioning from the 1'st step to the 2nd step what was your U layer are now your F layer, So back to the 3rd step, in the right F2L slot do it regularly and now on the last F2L slot pair the corner edge pair, then what you are going to do is to orient and permute the Last layer edges simultaneously.
like (LPELL)
now, do OC(P)ELL last layer using one alg, if you use that algs subset for last layer on this method, you will only get A perm, E, or H perm or very likely a PLL skip! learning the subset isn't hard infact I'm learning the alg subset (OC(P)ELL) right now , the sune and anti sune cases.


I hope your doubts are cleared now.
because you only rotate once in the method and uses 2 gen algs in the last layer step, this is good for OH.


UPDATE : actually I just find out that you don't need to permute the Last layer edges for OC(P)ELL just orient the LL edges. making the method much easier


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 30, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> New method concept (I think??):
> Step 1:solve 3 cross edges and f2l (can also do block building) do this with no full rotations make sure the not solved cross piece is in the front or back slot.
> Step 2: CMLL
> Step 3: EO
> ...


Having DB solved restricts LSE a little bit, and having it solved also restricts blocks, which doesn't quite make up for an extra one piece being solved.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Having DB solved restricts LSE a little bit, and having it solved also restricts blocks, which doesn't quite make up for an extra one piece being solved.


I can see that but i was trying to make a cfop roux hybrid, and i didnt want it to be like oh just do f2l and than lse or oh just do blocks and than pll you know? i still think its pretty usable but not as good as cfop or roux
also you dont have to reserve that back edge if you dont want to. you can just do normal lse
also eo has less cases and the cases are all good ones.


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 30, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I can see that but i was trying to make a cfop roux hybrid, and i didnt want it to be like oh just do f2l and than lse or oh just do blocks and than pll you know? i still think its pretty usable but not as good as cfop or roux
> also you dont have to reserve that back edge if you dont want to. you can just do normal lse


Ya, its definetly better than blocks, line, OLL PLL lol. One thing I forgot is you do get better look ahead since pieces can't hide in DB.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Ya, its definetly better than blocks, line, OLL PLL lol. One thing I forgot is you do get better look ahead since pieces can't hide in DB.


Cfop+Lse is also a little silly cause it messes up the whole point of doing the cross lol


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

My word document's a mess because I didn't stick to one particular version of the method but now I am.
I'm trying to do sub 28 atleast sub 40 seconds using my method, I have a low TPS though.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> My word document's a mess because I didn't stick to one particular version of the method but now I am.
> I'm trying to do sub 28 atleast sub 40 seconds using my method, I have a low TPS though.


if youre going for sub 40 its probably not a good method
with the worst method ive made with a terrible base i was able to get sub 35 averages


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

I said that my worst goal is sub 40 but my real goal is sub 28. my TPS is bit slow and this method needs a bit more brainpower (means you need to use all inspection time) than other methods, if you turn fast enough like 6 TPS you maybe able to be sub 20 or even sub 10 with this method.
also because this method's last layer uses OC(P)ELL, i frequently get PLL skips with this method.
Also how to increase your tps?


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I said that my worst goal is sub 40 but my real goal is sub 28.


thats more sensible (=


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I said that my worst goal is sub 40 but my real goal is sub 28. my TPS is bit slow and this method needs a bit more brainpower (means you need to use all inspection time) than other methods, if you turn fast enough like 6 TPS you maybe able to be sub 20 or even sub 10 with this method.
> also because this method's last layer uses OC(P)ELL, i frequently get PLL skips with this method.
> Also how to increase your tps?


kindve a hard thing to anwser it could be bad tps or pauses in lookahead if its lookahead turn slower and try to lookahead more to slowly increase tps


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I said that my worst goal is sub 40 but my real goal is sub 28. my TPS is bit slow and this method needs a bit more brainpower (means you need to use all inspection time) than other methods, if you turn fast enough like 6 TPS you maybe able to be sub 20 or even sub 10 with this method.
> also because this method's last layer uses OC(P)ELL, i frequently get PLL skips with this method.
> Also how to increase your tps?


could you message me a step list for this method so i can try it out please?


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

The list on page 296.
3 PLL SKIP ON A ROW!!!


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

got a 23 ao5 and ao12 with my method i proposed earlier!
also got a 17 single!


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

17 Single in which method?
if it's very good, you should propose btw.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> 17 Single in which method?


ya
average movecount 40-55 btw


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

26 second Average!!! w my method.
6/ 10 times PLL skip.
although sometimes I paused a lot because as I said this method requires a bit of brainpower.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

Also, I'm naming the last step of the method L2F (Last 2 Face) which is the F face and the U face instead of F2L + Last layer.
Has nobody noticed something about the speedsolving.com's logo, it gives me an idea about another method haha anyway.
do you think this method is similar to another method?
It's not similar to ZZ because I'm not doing F2L immediately after the line step and also in my method i'm not doing EO for orientation but for permutation of L layer edges during first step, line step. overall there's only one similarity to ZZ, it's the line step. the last 2 face step you can use T perms for the first F2L slot and also for the 2nd step which is the second face step, I'm creating my own substep inbetween the Line step and the Second face step.

Is that Enough to distinguish it from the ZZ method? also for last layer it's not using ZBLL. more evidence : when you're doing F2L in ZZ it's doing blockbuilding while my method uses F2L in the last step and it's has a more algorithmic approach than ZZ when doing F2L.

I've used this method so much that I'm thrown off now in CFOP. but still using CFOP as my main method.

I came up with an edges first parody method that only uses T perms hahah it's like Old pochmann but instead of two algs it's only one algs, don't take this seriously, it's a parody method you know that when JPerm uses only JPerm to solve a cube, instead of that it uses T perm and it's edges first.

What's LSLL? Ohh nvm. and now I can confirm that my method is original YAY!!

In this month I am going to try to only use this method and the goal is a sub 28 average and a (maybe at least once) sub 20 single, I also need to increase my TPS since this method is a bit TPS and brainpower intensive.

Another thing I want to say, in the L2F -> (Last 2 Face step) (last step) of my method in the last F2L slot -> (which is in FL and FDL slot) after the first F2L -> (which is in the FR and FDR slot), if all the Last layer edges are oriented just insert the F2L edge that is (in the last layer/ U layer) using only R, U, L moves to preserve orientation.
but that is only when you have all the U layer edges oriented.

Overall, this method to me has got some potential in speedsolving and OH.
also do you think that this method deserves its own thread?


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Also, I'm naming the last step of the method L2F (Last 2 Face) which is the F face and the U face instead of F2L + Last layer.
> Has nobody noticed something about the speedsolving.com's logo, it gives me an idea about another method haha anyway.
> do you think this method is similar to another method?
> It's not similar to ZZ because I'm not doing F2L immediately after the line step and also in my method i'm not doing EO for orientation but for permutation of L layer edges during first step, line step. overall there's only one similarity to ZZ, it's the line step. the last 2 face step you can use T perms for the first F2L slot and also for the 2nd step which is the second face step, I'm creating my own substep inbetween the Line step and the Second face step.
> ...


If you don't have any form of edge orientation before LSLL, it isn't ZZ in my opinion. Just as a note: you don't always blockbuild in ZZ, e.g. in EOCross (which is what most people use).

Also please, if you've got something new to tell and the latest post is yours, just edit it like @ProStar has already said. That clutters the thread less and makes it easier to read through everything.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

A document for the Zuper Cuztomizable method that is much up to par for standard Zuper Cuztomizable : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1shG6eskiOJdW72-50hvkI63h4PRF4ax55o4wB67HpZ8/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## brododragon (Mar 30, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Step 2: CMLL


Won't that mess up the FD/BD cross edge?


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

why are the document for Zuper Cuztomizable method's detail that I'm trying to post has been delaying? its been a long time "This message is awaiting moderator approval, and is invisible to normal visitors."
this is an issue moderators should address. I'm not trying to spam by hiding ads in the link.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> why are the document that I'm trying to post has been delaying? its been a long time "This message is awaiting moderator approval, and is invisible to normal visitors."


Because the moderators don’t put that as there priority. I remember I tried to post something on here and it took a while to get approved.


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 30, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> if youre going for sub 40 its probably not a good method
> with the worst method ive made with a terrible base i was able to get sub 35 averages


Well it depends on what they average with a stqndard method.


----------



## Username: Username: (Mar 30, 2020)

I averaged around 26 seconds. in CFOP
sometimes I average around sub- 20 alot during lucky sessions. in CFOP
so that means that if Feliks Zemdegs used my method (probably never) he would probably average around sub - 10 using it?
also another question, is this method good enough to have its own thread?


(Generated By csTimer on 2020-03-30
avg of 5: 25.48)
I turned like crazy on that average but not a high TPS because of some big pauses. done learning H cases of OC(P)ELL cases, they were pretty easy.
Okay i will not again.

but now i sticked to the standard version of my method, learning Full Zuper Cuztomizable and planning to get sub 28 averages with this method.
atleast I still got bunch more methods under my belt. this is just one of them.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 30, 2020)

I have come to this thread with a load of unclear messages that don't make any sense, as well as loads of double posting happening. @Username: Username: please sort out your posts. Be clearer, more concise, and realise that you're splurging ideas out onto the forum with little regard of anything. It's good to see you have a document, but even that isn't super clear.
Here are some criticisims: all you're doing is making a fixed way to solve a 2x2x3 block then forcing bad F2L cases - the method is an inferior version of Petrus without the EO, so therefore it has an inferior LL and F2L and blocks.
@ObscureCuber please don't double (triple) post either. It fills up the forums and leads to spam. 
So to everyone, please use this thread properly to develop proper methods. I know most of you are, but it's frustrating how what was once one of the best threads turned into a splurging of incoherent ideas onto the page.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 30, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I have come to this thread with a load of unclear messages that don't make any sense, as well as loads of double posting happening. @Username: Username: please sort out your posts. Be clearer, more concise, and realise that you're splurging ideas out onto the forum with little regard of anything. It's good to see you have a document, but even that isn't super clear.
> Here are some criticisims: all you're doing is making a fixed way to solve a 2x2x3 block then forcing bad F2L cases - the method is an inferior version of Petrus without the EO, so therefore it has an inferior LL and F2L and blocks.
> @ObscureCuber please don't double (triple) post either. It fills up the forums and leads to spam.
> So to everyone, please use this thread properly to develop proper methods. I know most of you are, but it's frustrating how what was once one of the best threads turned into a splurging of incoherent ideas onto the page.



I wholeheartedly agree. I've almost stopped paying attention to this thread because of those reasons


----------



## brododragon (Mar 30, 2020)

Speaking of OC(P)ELL, why is @Cride5 credited for the method when @Weston thought of it:








Orienting corners while permuting edges instead of COLL for OH


This might have been thought of before, but this idea occurred to me. Some people use COLL for one handed solves so that they have an some sort of edge cycle as their PLL, which is very fast. One down side of this is that the COLL algorithms are generally not as fast as the corner OLL...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 30, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Also, I'm naming the last step of the method L2F (Last 2 Face) which is the F face and the U face instead of F2L + Last layer.
> Has nobody noticed something about the speedsolving.com's logo, it gives me an idea about another method haha anyway.
> do you think this method is similar to another method?
> It's not similar to ZZ because I'm not doing F2L immediately after the line step and also in my method i'm not doing EO for orientation but for permutation of L layer edges during first step, line step. overall there's only one similarity to ZZ, it's the line step. the last 2 face step you can use T perms for the first F2L slot and also for the 2nd step which is the second face step, I'm creating my own substep inbetween the Line step and the Second face step.
> ...


simular to 335


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 31, 2020)

Is it possible to do EO on a pyraminx? I’ve been thinking that if there’s a way to do EO on pyraminx, it may create some blocks that will lead to a better solve.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 31, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Is it possible to do EO on a pyraminx? I’ve been thinking that if there’s a way to do EO on pyraminx, it may create some blocks that will lead to a better solve.


Yes, it is possible (if you consider only needing to move 2 sides oriented after the "spine" is solved), but no, it's not worth it to use it as a fixed method since pyra is simple enough to 1-look consistently.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 31, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> Yes, it is possible (if you consider only needing to move 2 sides oriented after the "spine" is solved), but no, it's not worth it to use it as a fixed method since pyra is simple enough to 1-look consistently.


Thanks.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 31, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Is it possible to do EO on a pyraminx? I’ve been thinking that if there’s a way to do EO on pyraminx, it may create some blocks that will lead to a better solve.


Methods like Petrus (for pyra) and Backbone use EO.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 1, 2020)

When a method or idea is the same or almost the same as a previous one, how does everyone think this should be handled? It used to be that when someone proposed something, that person would be let known that the idea already exists. I've noticed a lot of new methods that have already been proposed before. Now there are so many methods and ideas, maybe not everyone can keep track of them. So it's understandable that things can go unnoticed. If something older is later found, do we let the newer proposer know? Or do we just edit the Wiki and change the name and date? For example, the Skis method. The idea of two 1x1x3s on the D layer is very old. Maybe that can be forgiven, but there is already a full method in the wiki that is exactly the same called VDW. It was developed four years prior to Skis. I feel that the Skis page should be deleted and the VDW page updated. With the Step 3 section mentioning WoowyBaby's alternate way of solving the E edges by pairing them.





__





VDW method - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com








__





VDW method - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com












NEW SUPER AMAZING 3X3 METHOD: TICT


Ok so i was experimenting with some stuff and i came up with this super awsome amazing method which i like to call: TICT it stands for T: Twins. You will see more about this if you read on IC: Intuitive corners T: T perm!!!!!! STEP 1: ok so the first step is to get a 1x1x3 block. You can do...




www.speedsolving.com





Two more examples:
1. LEG-1. I developed and posted full EG-1 with bar on the left two years prior to Christopher Olson. Shouldn't the credit go to the first to complete, especially when nothing new is added by the person that has the idea later? In this case, Christopher Olson only popularized it and wasn't the proposer.
2. OC(P)ELL. brododragon recently posted about this. In this case, maybe both deserve proposer credit because Weston posted the idea first without much development, but Conrad had algorithms in his post.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 1, 2020)

Athefre said:


> When a method or idea is the same or almost the same as a previous one, how does everyone think this should be handled? It used to be that when someone proposed something, that person would be let known that the idea already exists. I've noticed a lot of new methods that have already been proposed before. Now there are so many methods and ideas, maybe not everyone can keep track of them. So it's understandable that things can go unnoticed. If something older is later found, do we let the newer proposer know? Or do we just edit the Wiki and change the name and date? For example, the Skis method. The idea of two 1x1x3s on the D layer is very old. Maybe that can be forgiven, but there is already a full method in the wiki that is exactly the same called VDW. It was developed four years prior to Skis. I feel that the Skis page should be deleted and the VDW page updated. With the Step 3 section mentioning WoowyBaby's alternate way of solving the E edges by pairing them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I say we take down the duplicate method wiki page, add their name as a proposer, and make a seperately section for them including any unique additions.


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 1, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I say we take down the duplicate method wiki page, add their name as a proposer, and make a seperately section for them including any unique additions.


I agree with this, but we should only add their name as a proposer if they actually add something to it.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 1, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> I agree with this, but we should only add their name as a proposer if they actually add something to it.


What we really need is another section in the description called "Re-inventors/Developers". @pjk?


----------



## Athefre (Apr 1, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What we really need is another section in the description called "Re-inventors/Developers". @pjk?



Yeah, a few pages back I suggested having a Developer section in the Method box. RedstoneTim said it can be added to the template. Looks like you just edit the template like any other page. I think just adding Developer is enough. Then it can be mentioned somewhere else on the page that the method/step/idea was re-invented. The first paragraph, in a History section, or wherever.





__





Template:Method Infobox - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com


----------



## Neuro (Apr 1, 2020)

Fantastic new method: ZZ-NEO

Steps consist of:
1. NEO Cross
2. F2L
3. EO+OCLL
4. ZBLL subset

One major theme of this method is to put off EO until a later time when it's more easily recognizable and can be fingertricked easily w/o hurting the rest of the solve.

1. NEO Cross
As one major innovation in ZZ is to approach an EO Cross rather than an EO Line, it seemed necessary to include this in an optimized method. However, one clear issue was the lack of ability for most cubers to properly see how to construct an EO Cross, and even then these aren't usually pretty solutions. Then, it seemed necessary to take one of the elements out: EO or Cross. Unfortunately, the EO Line posed quite a few issues as did the EO 3/4 cross in terms of lookahead. Given the excellent lookahead EO Cross gave in F2L, it seemed this was more necessary to approach the solution. To bypass the issue of inspection then, we've foregone EO when solving the cross.

2. F2L
This is one of the major areas of difference from a normal ZZ solve. Because we haven't done EO, we can't use solely RUL moves to solve the puzzle. This may seem like a major drawback, but there are some advantages. For one, the lookahead is practically identical while solving, and a simplified cross allows us to look further into F2L during inspection. Also, the rotations and extra <F> moves we may have to do are only about as negative as regrips when solving pure RUL. Also, since regrips are less common compared to pure RUL, TPS can be improved quite a bit.

3. EO+OCLL
It's in this third step where we finally approach EO after much delay. However, instead of simply solving the EO of four edges on the U face, which is substantially faster than solving EO at the beginning of the solve, we can use this opportunity to simplify the rest of the solving process. We could simply do EO into ZBLL, but this algset is much too large for the average user. Instead, by solving EO and OCLL at the same time, we can not only one-look the step but also provide a significantly easier to manage last step. Because we have corners oriented on the top, recognition is easier and we drop from over 1,000 ZBLLs to a subset of 21.

4. ZBLL-O
This is the subset of ZBLL where all the corners are oriented. Also, the set is quite small (at 21 algs) with extremely simple recognition. In fact, one can recognize every case by looking at only two sides. Also, this is one of the most optimized ZBLL sets around, so it's quite easy to find good algorithms to use.

I hope you like the method and consider switching, I think this is the next revolution in the ZZ solving experience. It might be a little less efficient than normal, but the sheer speed and ease of execution/lookahead makes for a very fluid and fast solving experience.

To learn more and see my list of algorithms, check this spoiler


Spoiler



Happy April Fools Day!


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 2, 2020)

Neuro said:


> Fantastic new method: ZZ-NEO
> 
> Steps consist of:
> 1. NEO Cross
> ...


I was gonna say wait, this is just CFOP but then I remembered the date lol. GJ man.


----------



## sqAree (Apr 2, 2020)

Neuro said:


> Fantastic new method: ZZ-NEO
> 
> Steps consist of:
> 1. NEO Cross
> ...



Well done, except for one thing, COLL solves CP, so we would have only EPLL left. I guess you mean OCLL so.


----------



## Neuro (Apr 2, 2020)

sqAree said:


> Well done, except for one thing, COLL solves CP, so we would have only EPLL left. I guess you mean OCLL so.


You’re right, changed to OCLL. Cubing terms are so similar but so specific


----------



## EvanTheCuber (Apr 2, 2020)

I just signed up today. I forgot how to make my own post. How do you do that again? sorry.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 2, 2020)

EvanTheCuber said:


> I just signed up today. I forgot how to make my own post. How do you do that again? sorry.


Method 1:
Go to the section you want to make a post. Then, where you see 'Thread Title', write the name of the post and a text box will pop up a little bit lower where you can write.
Method 2:
On the Forum page, click 'create thread'. Then, select where you want it to go. Finally, make the post.


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 2, 2020)

EvanTheCuber said:


> I just signed up today. I forgot how to make my own post. How do you do that again? sorry.


Oh wait I thought you meant I forgot how to post as an april fools joke.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 2, 2020)

(I previously posted a little about this on a few different threads, but I wanted to expand on that and let it have its own place now.)

The *EoCoL8 *Method solves the 3x3 cube in the following order of these 3 general steps:
*Eo - Orient 12 Edges
Co - Build the 4 Columns
L8 - Permute Last 8 Edges*

The first attempt was to assemble already-known cubing steps, that are short and easy to recognize in a fun and simple method.
That is the now the "Beginner" variation. I have since wanted to lower the move count, hence there are now more variations.

I also looked at using algorithms from such sets as: Guimond, L5C, SOAP, Sortega, HD, VOP, etc.
But none of them seemed to provide significant enough improvement.

I have put the variations and other notes in a google doc called "EoCoL8 - Variations" at: http://tinyurl.com/Solvexio


The main variations...

*Beginner:*
EO - (5) Orient All 12 Edges
CO D - (3) Orient Any 4 Corners on D
CO U - (7) Orient the Other 4 Corners on U (7 algs)
CS - (3) Separate Corners to U and D by Matching Color
CP - (9) Permute Corners Both Layers (8 algs)
E-lyr - (11) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges
DL/DR - (7) Permute the 2 D L/R Edges + centers
UL/UR - (6) Permute the 2 U L/R Edges
EP(m) - (4) Permute the 4 Midges
*------------
55 moves (15 algs)*


*Intermediate 1:*
EO - (4) Orient All 12 Edges
CO 3/4 D - (4) Orient 3 D corners, and put the 4th D corner in DRF (oriented or UNoriented)
OL5C - (8)
if DRF is UNoriented... subSS but preserve EO (16 algs)
if all D oriented... OCLL (7 algs)
CP - (9) Permute Corners Both Layers (8 algs)
E-lyr - (10) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges + centers
L8E - (16) Permute the 2 D L/R Edges, 2 U L/R Edges and the 4 Midges
*------------
51 moves (31 algs)*


*Intermediate 2:*
EO - (4) Orient All 12 Edges
CDL - (9) Orient and Permute 4 D corners
CMLL - (11) Orient and Permute 4 U corners (42 algs)
E-lyr - (10) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges + centers
L8E - (16) Permute the 2 D L/R Edges, 2 U L/R Edges and the 4 Midges
*------------
50 moves (42 algs)


Advanced:*
EO - (4) Orient All 12 Edges
3DC - (6) Orient and Permute 3 D corners, (4th white on U) and orient at least one U corner on U
L5C - (10) Orient and Permute (preserve EO) (162? cases, 42 conjugated CxLL algs)
E-lyr - (10) Permute the 4 E-Layer Edges + centers
L8E - (15) Permute Last 8 Edges
*------------
45 moves (42 algs, but 160+ cases)*



I'm open to feedback, corrections, suggestions, etc. if anyone wants to comment.

Thanks!

-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Apr 2, 2020)

This is very similar to SSC.


----------



## Hazel (Apr 2, 2020)

Example solves?


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 2, 2020)

I agree, and I now see that there are general similarities to SSC, since both have EO, Columns and L8E. ha! 
But here the EO is plain and the middle column steps have some differences.
Perhaps these are better classified as SSC variants, That's fine with me.

I'll try to get some example solves up here soon.


----------



## zimlit (Apr 3, 2020)

I created this method as a variant of cf especially lmcf but tried to improve lmcfs lookahead


Spoiler: Steps



1. EG+lines, in this step you make an EG style first face plus the left and right edges then perform EG(you may have to reposition the left and right edges at the end of the alg.
2. Transition phase, this step is basically identical to lmcf's transition phase.
3.solve one more edge on each layer(preferably in a pair)
4.L7E





Spoiler: pros



ergonomic
good lookahead
alg carryover from 2x2





Spoiler: cons



reliant on slice moves 
high alg count


----------



## ProStar (Apr 3, 2020)

L7E in one step is almost impossible because of alg count, plus recognition is dreadful


----------



## zimlit (Apr 3, 2020)

ProStar said:


> L7E in one step is impossible because of algs


I suppose it's technically 3 substeps but I still consider one step(like L6E)


----------



## ProStar (Apr 3, 2020)

zimlit said:


> I suppose it's technically 3 substeps but I still consider one step(like L6E)



What substeps would you use to accomplish this?


----------



## zimlit (Apr 3, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What substeps would you use to accomplish this?


crafto's method O2E, OL5E, and L6EP


----------



## brododragon (Apr 3, 2020)

What are the advantages?


----------



## ProStar (Apr 3, 2020)

zimlit said:


> crafto's method O2E, OL5E, and L6EP



I may be understanding this wrong, but f you orient 2 edges, then orient 5(leaving all oriented), then permute 6, you'd have one edge unaccounted for


----------



## efattah (Apr 3, 2020)

As the creator of LMCF I would say I like this variant suggestion and in fact it parallels some recent developments I've made in LMCF. Solving extra edges on the EG face is very useful, then, after than, I have started solving more and more edges during the transition phase (i.e. solving edges on U/D faces and ignoring the E-slice). In fact in some solves I actually solve all the required edges during the transition phase because this has much better ergonomics than solving edges on the R/L. During U/D solving, you can do U+D moves at the same time, and there are absolutely zero regrips. The only problem is that as you finish solving all the edges this way, you must still do a Z/Z' rotation to enter the L6E phase, converting the E-slice, to the M-slice.

During U/D edge solving, I solve edges mostly in pairs but I've started solving triplets lately as well. The important reason to solve extra edges on the EG or CLL face is because during U/D solving, your EG-face is still on D, and you can't see the D-face that well, so the fewer edges that need to be solved there, the better.


----------



## zimlit (Apr 3, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I may be understanding this wrong, but f you orient 2 edges, then orient 5(leaving all oriented), then permute 6, you'd have one edge unaccounted for


During OL5E you place one edge


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 3, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What are the advantages?



My initial goals (for EoCoL8) were:
around 55 moves
fewer than 20 algorithms
short steps
some intuitiveness 

and that is how the beginner variant was settled on.
I then wanted to lower the move count, so I looked into different steps and assembled the other variants.

Those also have low numbers of algs and no new alg sets to learn.


-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## Username: Username: (Apr 3, 2020)

I came up with this method a looonng time ago but I realised it was the SSC method.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 3, 2020)

Solvador Cubi said:


> My initial goals (for EoCoL8) were:
> around 55 moves
> fewer than 20 algorithms
> short steps
> ...


The beginner's makes sense. It's a low move count, low alg count, somewhat intuitive. The problem is that you can solve the cube with less algorithms and less moves with SSC, which this method is very similar to.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Apr 3, 2020)

All good points, thank you all for taking a look.

I suppose to me, the beginner SSC variant seemed a little complex for a true beginner, so I started down other paths.
One that had defined steps that focused on a few pieces at a time.

There was also a request for an example solve, so here is one:

*Scramble: *D2 F2 U' R2 U' L2 D2 R2 D' B2 U L' B' D2 F' D U2 L' B U2

*Beginner:*
B U' L R' B // EO (5/5) 
U L U L2 // CO D (4/9) 
U' R U R' U' R U2 R // CO U (8/17) 
U' L2 U L2 // CS (4/21) 
R' D R' F2 R D' R // CP (7/28) 
R2 D2 L' E2 L D L' U M2 U' L S2 D R2 // E-lyr (14/42) 
D U M' U2 M' D' // DL/DR (6/48)
U2 M' U2 M U' M2 U // UL/UR (7/55) 
F2 M F2 M' // EP(m) (4/59) 

It's not the most efficient example since I did E-Layer poorly, but you get the idea.


thanks again!


----------



## fun at the joy (Apr 3, 2020)

Solvador Cubi said:


> F2 M F2 M' // EP(m) (4/59)


M' U2 M U2 // EP(m)


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Apr 4, 2020)

I know this is a bad method so you don’t need to tell me: Hawaiian Francisco:
Triangle
E-Slice with DR instead of FR edge
Insert DR
Last pair
HKOLL
HKPLL

Also I think that the WV/HKPLL variant of Petrus-W should be called Hawaiian Petrus


----------



## ProStar (Apr 4, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Also I think that the WV/HKPLL variant of Petrus-W should be called Hawaiian Petrus



I think it'd be Hawaiian Petrus-W, because it's still Petrus-W instead of Petrus


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Apr 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I think it'd be Hawaiian Petrus-W, because it's still Petrus-W instead of Petrus


Yes


Cubingcubecuber said:


> 2x2x3 + pair( can be done in many ways, i.e. 3/4 cross and pairs, 1x2x3 + 2x2x2)
> Last pair with corner orientation(like ZBLS with corner)(could be WV or SV)
> L5EO
> HKPLL


With some tweaking:
2x2x3 in back
Pairs
HKOLL
HKPLL

But is that just Hawaiian CFOP with blockbuilding?

How about
2x2x3
EO
Pairs
HKZBLL(how many algs would it be?)

Or Pair + other edge
CPLS
HK2GLL(Again, how many algs?)(also not actually 2 gen, cuz DF edge, so I will name it HKLLL)


----------



## brododragon (Apr 5, 2020)

Can you intuitively solve all corners?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Apr 5, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Can you intuitively solve all corners?


You just use ZZ-d style stuff.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 5, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Can you intuitively solve all corners?



You just use commutators.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> You just use ZZ-d style stuff.


Doesn't that require algs?


WoowyBaby said:


> You just use commutators.


I meant without commutators. I'm to make a beginner-friendly CF without algs and commutators.


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Doesn't that require algs?
> 
> I meant without commutators. I'm to make a beginner-friendly CF without algs and commutators.


You can do CO->CP, which is decently easy to do, but I don't know how beginner friendly it would be.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 6, 2020)

There is a way of solving corners intuitively without using commutators or algorithms that hundreds of people use. (In FMC, DR/CO -> Solved Corners w/ intuition)

But, it isn't as easy on beginners. In fact, algorithms are actually the best for beginners. Memorizing 2 short 8 move algs is much, much easier for beginners than using intuition to solve corners, as they don't really know how the cube works in the same way that you do.

People have this misconception that algorithms are harder on beginners than nice intuition, but the actual fact is, it is exactly the opposite.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> There is a way of solving corners intuitively without using commutators or algorithms that hundreds of people use. (In FMC, DR/CO -> Solved Corners w/ intuition)
> 
> But, it isn't as easy on beginners. In fact, algorithms are actually the best for beginners. Memorizing 2 short 8 move algs is much, much easier for beginners than using intuition to solve corners, as they don't really know how the cube works in the same way that you do.
> 
> People have this misconception that algorithms are harder on beginners than nice intuition, but the actual fact is, it is exactly the opposite.


Ya, I can of figured while developing this it would have to be not beginner friendly. But because of what you said in the first part, It's possible to do algless/commutatorless CF.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 6, 2020)

Beginner's CF Method

Step 1: Orient Corners
Step 2: Permute Corners
Step 3: Solve 3 Edges On One Layer
Step 4: Solve All Edges On Opposite
Step 5: Align & Do Intuitive L5E In Some Way

0 Algorithms

I taught this way of solving edges to a real person and they understood it very quickly. I taught them layer -> CP -> CO for the corners first step though. I was surprised how fast he picked up this way of solving edges. The only difficult part was doing EO during L5E/LSE.

R2 B2 F2 D' F2 U F2 L2 U' L D2 R' B F R' D2 B U F2

(z2 y)
F R2 U R // CO
D' R2 D' R2 U R2 U' L2 U2 D // CP
F E F' u R E R' y2 U M' U' M // 3 Edges of Layer
x2 z' M U M' U' R M2 U M' U' r U M' U' r U M' U' // Full Opposite Layer
M' U M' U' M U M' // EO
U M' U2 M U M2 U' // LR
M2 U2 M' U2 M // Finish the cube
(61 moves total, 0 algorithms whatsoever)


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Beginner's CF Method
> 
> Step 1: Orient Corners
> Step 2: Permute Corners
> ...


Wait didn't you just say that you had to use A FMC method to solve corners intuitively?


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Wait didn't you just say that you had to use A FMC method to solve corners intuitively?


I dont think he did, but you can defi do it w/o domino redux.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 6, 2020)

I solve corners after CO intuitively, it doesn't matter whether it's in FMC or not.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

Anyway, here's what I came up with. No algs, but takes no CF knowledge to do, except for maybe CO and CP.
1. CO
2. CP
3. Solve BR and FR
4a. Put the BL edge in the FL place correctly oriented.
4b. Solve FL. This automatically solves BL.
5. Solve FD and BD
6. Intuitive L6E
You can put the FL edge in the BL spot and solve BL if it's more convenient. Also color neutrality isn't too hard.


Spoiler: More Details



These are some more details on how I solve with this.
1. Dunno how to do it
2. Dunno how to do it
3. First edge: You can insert to E slice with M and S
3. Second edge: Move edge to M slice, then use R (insert with M) R' or R' (insert with M) R, depending on it's orientation.
4a. Move to S slice and do the same idea in 3 but with R moves and the S slice.
4b. Same idea as 4a but you can't insert FL from UL.
5. Same idea as the others except E Slice and L/R moves.
6. Just do it.
This is by no means how you have to do it, just how do it.


It's really not the greatest, but at least I came up with it. @WoowyBaby if you don't mind, can you do a few example solves?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Anyway, here's what I came up with. No algs, but takes no CF knowledge to do, except for maybe CO and CP.
> 1. CO
> 2. CP
> 3. Solve BR and FR
> ...



I'll do one-

Scramble: F' R D2 L2 B2 L2 U R2 D' F2 D2 R2 B2 L' U B D2 B U' B'

R' F U' F' // CO
U F2 U F2 R2 U R2 U' R2 // CP
U2 D' R' E2 R u' y' // BR+FR
L' U2 S U S' U L // BL+FL
// DL+DR
U M U' M' U' M U M // EO
U' M2 U // LR
E2 M E2 M // 4C

This scramble literally has 5 c/e pairs to start out with lmaoo. And after I solved corners I already had like 3 edges solved. But there's the example solve of your method!


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> I'll do one-
> 
> Scramble: F' R D2 L2 B2 L2 U R2 D' F2 D2 R2 B2 L' U B D2 B U' B'
> 
> ...


Well I guess if got nothing better to do during quarentine, do I'll learn my method. Do you know of any good CO/CP resources?


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Well I guess if got nothing better to do during quarentine, do I'll learn my method. Do you know of any good CO/CP resources?


I would say just look at how triggers affect CO, and then work your way down through cases to a simple case, kinda like LSE EO, you work yoir way down to an arrow case. Then there are probably better things to do but it could be a good start.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Apr 6, 2020)

Could I put someone in the task of generating algorithims for 2 part PBL on a 3x3?


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> I would say just look at how triggers affect CO, and then work your way down through cases to a simple case, kinda like LSE EO, you work yoir way down to an arrow case. Then there are probably better things to do but it could be a good start.


Thanks! I guess now that this method is actually working, I've gotta give it a name... I'll give it one later.


Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Could I put someone in the task of generating algorithims for 2 part PBL on a 3x3?


Isn't that just PLL, rotate, PLL?


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Apr 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Thanks! I guess now that this method is actually working, I've gotta give it a name... I'll give it one later.
> 
> Isn't that just PLL, rotate, PLL?


No, because both layers are unsolved, and I need an alg that will solve all the corners at the same time for every case, and then an alg that will solve all the edges in both layers at the same time.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> No, because both layers are unsolved, and I need an alg that will solve all the corners at the same time for every case, and then an alg that will solve all the edges in both layers at the same time.


L8C and L8E seems like a nightmare to do algs.


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 6, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> No, because both layers are unsolved, and I need an alg that will solve all the corners at the same time for every case, and then an alg that will solve all the edges in both layers at the same time.


I don't you should do L8C L8E. Then corners will have way fewer cases and edges will have too many. Some midway could be better.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Apr 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> L8C and L8E seems like a nightmare to do algs.


Keep in mind, that corners and edges are already oriented. In square 1 EP there are 100 algs, but that can have A third taken out of it because there’s no parity on 3x3.
these are the steps:

1. Solve a side but there are no regards to permutation.
2. Solve the E Layer like you would in HF.
3. Orient the opposite side with an OLL.
4. IF there aren’t to many algs, do a PBL to solve both layers at once.
4b. If there are to many algs, do one alg to permute corners and one to permute edges.

VARIATION:
1. Solve a cross with no regard to permutation.
2. Then do Pseudo F2L BUT the E layer must be solved.
The do steps 3-4 like the one above.

Technically on the variation, you don’t have to do pseudo F2l you can just pair corners with edges even if they don’t create a proper f2l pair.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 6, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Could I put someone in the task of generating algorithims for 2 part PBL on a 3x3?


A very solid maybe, but definitely a good idea.


----------



## ProStar (Apr 6, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Could I put someone in the task of generating algorithims for 2 part PBL on a 3x3?



I think that just doing PLL z2 PLL would be decent for a 2-look PBL. I'm probably way wrong though


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Apr 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I think that just doing PLL z2 PLL would be decent for a 2-look PBL. I'm probably way wrong though


No it wouldn’t be, because sometimes there will be a impossible case on one side but you still don’t have parity, cuz that impossible case (or one like it) is on the other side As well.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 6, 2020)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> No it wouldn’t be, because sometimes there will be a impossible case on one side but you still don’t have parity, cuz that impossible case (or one like it) is on the other side As well.


That would only be 48 cases for the first PLL, 21 of which are just PLL. The second face would just be PLL.

4! x 2 = 48


----------



## brododragon (Apr 7, 2020)

Is there a LS substep that permutes oriented edges?


----------



## Skewbed (Apr 7, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Is there a LS substep that permutes oriented edges?


I guess something close to that would be ZZ-b phasing, but that doesn't always solve the edges.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 7, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> I guess something close to that would be ZZ-b phasing, but that doesn't always solve the edges.


How many cases would it be for a R U R insert? All i can think of is Ua, Ub, Single diagonal swap with UL and UF, single diagonal swap with UR and UF, and opposite swap (5 cases).


----------



## RedstoneTim (Apr 8, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Is there a LS substep that permutes oriented edges?


It's called LPEPLL which has 6 cases (or 24 for full slot neutrality) and is a subset of LPELL.
While it is very useful for FMC and can basically be done intuitively, the step after it, L4C, is considered one of the worst ZBLL subsets and also requires twice as many algorithms as CxLL. (L4C in two looks is pretty good for a 3LLL like BLL though.)
Better alternatives are inserting the pair Heise-style either intuitively or using Speed-Heise to permute all edges and solve one U layer corner so that you're left with L3C, one of the best ZBLL subsets since most of its algorithms are ergonomic commutators.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 9, 2020)

Is using the H-Perm for BLD a thing? You could do 2 swaps at once (with two setups) and could just switch buffers when you ran into a solved buffer. You can do the same thing for corners but just add on a U2 after the H-Perm.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 9, 2020)

I decided to classify the various types of pairs that can be formed on the 2x2. This is mostly useful for the A2 Method to show everything that is possible with A2. Technically, CLL, EG, TCLL, and many other 2x2 methods are subsets of A2. This is because the first step in those methods is to solve four pieces. Looking at what is left after taking out the CLL, EG, and TCLL equivalents, that means there are still a few 2x2x2 methods that have yet to be developed. I'm already working on the twisted swapped subset, which is the equivalent of NMLL on 2x2. I might work on the others or make a combined method for those later. I named the pairs after thinking of the U and D layer as opposite dimensions. So there is the normal dimension, pairs from opposite dimensions, pairs that are linked dimensions, twisted dimensions, and so on.



Spoiler: Normal



= CLL





Spoiler: Opposite



->= R2 (NMCLL)
->->= U' R2
->->= U2 R2





Spoiler: Linked



->= R' (NMCLL)





Spoiler: Swapped



= EG





Spoiler: Twisted



= TCLL





Spoiler: Twisted Swapped



= Two Twisted EG (cool sounding name lol)
= NMLL on 2x2 equivalent



And then there are mixtures of each type, such as twisted linked, twisted twisted, twisted swapped opposites, and so on.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 9, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Is using the H-Perm for BLD a thing? You could do 2 swaps at once (with two setups) and could just switch buffers when you ran into a solved buffer. You can do the same thing for corners but just add on a U2 after the H-Perm.






He sets up to H perm, which is kinda close to what you were saying.


----------



## zimlit (Apr 13, 2020)

edges first idea



Spoiler: overview



1. solve all edges
2. separate corners
3. orient corners
4. permute corners





Spoiler: detailed explanation



step one is to solve all the edges this can be done a lot of ways but the way I normally do it is by solving eocros than 3 eslice edges then solve the rest
step two is to separate corners this can be don with an alg or with commutators.
step three is to orient corners this can be don with an alg or with commutators
step four is to permute everything


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 13, 2020)

zimlit said:


> edges first idea
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This won’t be very good, because comms Aren’t good in speedsolving, and it would probably be at least 100 algs, maybe more.


----------



## Username: Username: (Apr 13, 2020)

PizzaCuber said:


> This won’t be very good, because comms Aren’t good in speedsolving, and it would probably be at least 100 algs, maybe more.


Nobody :
Not even a being :
3 Style :
*Watch what you are saying!


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 13, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Nobody :
> Not even a being :
> 3 Style :
> *Watch what you are saying!


*confused reaction*


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 13, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Nobody :
> Not even a being :
> 3 Style :
> *Watch what you are saying!


But you know what comms your gonna do because of memo, whereas you have to find a comm suddenly and do it intuitively. Most 3stlyers have memorized a bunch of comms.


----------



## zimlit (Apr 13, 2020)

PizzaCuber said:


> This won’t be very good, because comms Aren’t good in speedsolving, and it would probably be at least 100 algs, maybe more.


true but cfop is almost a hundred algs and still gets used so i don't see the problem. I do however agree that commutators are bad for spedsolving they exist more for beginners.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 13, 2020)

Just do intuitive comms.


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 13, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Just do intuitive comms.


*comfused reaction*


----------



## brododragon (Apr 13, 2020)

PizzaCuber said:


> *comfused reaction*


You can learn how to do intuitive commutators in 10-20 minutes.


----------



## Username: Username: (Apr 13, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You can learn how to do intuitive commutators in 10-20 minutes.


I actually made a whole corners first method with no algs an just comms. (but many algs if you think a commutator is an alg


----------



## brododragon (Apr 13, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I actually made a whole corners first method with no algs an just comms. (but many algs if you think a commutator is an alg


The whole point of commutators is you don't generate them, but make them up on the spot.


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 13, 2020)

brododragon said:


> The whole point of commutators is you don't generate them, but make them up on the spot.


I know What you mean but we already covered the point the intuitive comms aren’t fast, so it wouldn’t make for a good method


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 13, 2020)

brododragon said:


> You can learn how to do intuitive commutators in 10-20 minutes.


'Intuitive comms" is redundant lol, just say comms.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 13, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> 'Intuitive comms" is redundant lol, just say comms.


Blue is better, but I agree.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 13, 2020)

What do you guys think about a collection of cubing resources for intuitive solvers? I've found that there is a dearth of resources for intuitive solving. Here's what I was thinking of:


Links to helpful intuitive resources that already exist, e.g. Heise method, commutator tutorials, and intuitive guides for other puzzles.
Video tutorial of Heise for beginners (this was my first method). There is no good Heise tutorial video.
The intuitive and semi-intuitive CMLL methods that I use. One uses only commutators and one uses 2 commutators and 2 algorithms (both of which are technically commutators).
Explanation of odd and even parity, and why it matters when using commutators. Suggestion for learning how to convert odd to even parity.
My completely intuitive 4x4 and NxN method which uses no algorithms.
My intuitive and semi-intuitive 3BLD parity methods, which either use no algorithms at all, or just Niklas and Sune.
Explanation of why I don't learn algorithms (because I want my skills to last for the rest of my life, and I will forget algorithms when I take a few years off from cubing).
It took me some time to find, understand, or create all of these things, since the vast majority of cubing resources are based on memorized algorithms. I think it would be helpful to have these in one place, which would also help intuitive solvers to exchange information with each other (assuming there are other intuitive solvers besides me).


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 13, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> What do you guys think about a collection of cubing resources for intuitive solvers? I've found that there is a dearth of resources for intuitive solving. Here's what I was thinking of:
> 
> 
> Links to helpful intuitive resources that already exist, e.g. Heise method, commutator tutorials, and intuitive guides for other puzzles.
> ...


That sounds great! I'm not really an intuitive solver, though I do enjoy doing it, and it would be great to have a bunch of resources in one place. it could also help new cubers with more advanced cubing topics if they are all in one place, so they have an easy time finding info, and don't shy away from intuitive methods.


----------



## Imam Alam (Apr 14, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> What do you guys think about a collection of cubing resources for intuitive solvers?



great idea!

I also consider myself an intuitive solver, and for similar reasons as you mentioned (don't want to lose my skills after a long break). and yes, I had a hard time finding resources too.

please let me know how I can contribute.


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 14, 2020)

I have a ZZ-Spike variation for petrus solvers, @GenTheThief i need your permission to make this a thing, but here’s the idea:
For uses of demonstration, build first layer in white.
1. Do Cross and F2L or make a Petrus block and expand all through the bottom layer.
2. Make a ballint block on the lime green face.
3. Solve the pink side and the orange side next to it (but make sure your not purposefully solving light blue and cream pieces)
4. Solve the grey green, grey pink, and grey orange pieces
5. Do EO like normal ZZ-Spike (which can be found Here)
6. CO
7. EP 
8. CP


----------



## brododragon (Apr 14, 2020)

PizzaCuber said:


> ballint block


What's that?


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 14, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What's that?


get a megaminx, go to the lime green side. You solve the yellow lime green edge and then the yellow blue lime green pair.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 15, 2020)

I often wonder why ZZ users don't incorporate non-matching blocks into their solves. Unlike Roux, there isn't much of a penalty for doing so. In Roux, CMLL recognition is different or you use the NMCLL recognition system. EO is also difficult to recognize. But in ZZ, it's not as difficult. There's NMLL, a last layer method designed specifically for this. Or users can learn tricks for recognizing OLL/PLL. I'm going to show a complete polar system for ZZ. This includes the method itself, the free blockbuilding, and the LL method. The blockbuilding can be taken to various depths, from normal blocks to non-matching blocks to blocks with varying pairs and pieces. As the solver learns these, they can add additional algorithms to the LL method.



Spoiler: Polar ZZ



Non-Matching Blocks

Scramble: F' D2 F2 D2 R F2 L D2 F2 D2 B2 L R' D' L' F' R F' L B D' 
EOLine: L B' D2 L' R' F L D
1x2x2: L U2 R U' R U2
1x2x2: L U2 R' U2
Pair: R' U R' U' R U2 R'
Pair: U2 L U L' U' L U2 L'
Separation: U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R
Permutation: U2 F R2 U' L' U R2 U' L U F' (U r')

Any Pair

Scramble: R2 F' R2 D F2 U F2 D2 B2 U R2 U2 B L F2 D' U' L2 R' D2 
EOLine: F U2 L R F L' D'
1x2x3: L' R' U' L' U' L R' U2 R U L
1x2x3: R' U R' U R'
Separation: U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R 
Permutation: L' U2 L R U2 R' U2 R2

It can be taken further with pairs from the opposite side in the 1x2x3s, just 1x1x3s, no pairs at all and just pieces, and so on. Of course the deeper you go, the more algorithms for the LL permutation step. This provides a lot of freedom for how you want to blockbuild and gives choices for how many algorithms you want to learn.





Spoiler: Polar Roux



Scramble: L B' R' F L U2 F' U' L2 B2 R2 U' L2 D' L2 D2 B2 F' 
FB: y2 x' F U' L' U x L' U M' F'
1x2x2: U r U' R
Last Pair + Polar Variation: U R U2 R' U2 r U' R'
EO+ Edge Separation: U2 M U' M2
Permutation: F' U' L' U2 L U F U L' U2 L U2 L'



This can also be applied to Petrus, even starting with a non-matching 2x2x2 and progressing to a non-matching Step 4 1x2x3. It would also work in Heise for even more insanity.

Maybe it's one of those things that takes time. 8-10 years ago I developed what's now called EOLR and was heavily promoting it because it seemed greatly beneficial. But most Roux users back then weren't very interested and only used a few cases. Now every Roux user sees it as a necessity. Maybe the future of ZZ is this freedom of blockbuilding.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 15, 2020)

I've just had an idea. It's to do with NM blocks and LL. Firstly, EOCross+1 suddenly becomes a lot easier. Sceondly, F2L becomes better. There are only 2 problems: the extra moves at the end (but this is made up by being easier to do cool stuff), secondly ZBLL and F2L recog. The solution for F2L is to practice, the solution to ZBLL is quite easy. Learn to recog NM PLL, then use the twist+PLL method of ZBLL recog. This could be amazing, but equally, too over complicated. I'll have a play around.



Spoiler: [EDIT] Example solve












alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net


----------



## Athefre (Apr 15, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I've just had an idea. It's to do with NM blocks and LL. Firstly, EOCross+1 suddenly becomes a lot easier. Sceondly, F2L becomes better. There are only 2 problems: the extra moves at the end (but this is made up by being easier to do cool stuff), secondly ZBLL and F2L recog. The solution for F2L is to practice, the solution to ZBLL is quite easy. Learn to recog NM PLL, then use the twist+PLL method of ZBLL recog. This could be amazing, but equally, too over complicated. I'll have a play around.



Exactly. More options for the first edges, pair, 1x2x2, or anything. At the end it is only < .75 moves. If the final algorithm ends in an R or L move, there is a chance of cancellation. Cancellations can also be caused at the beginning or the middle of an algorithm.


----------



## wassekaran (Apr 16, 2020)

*Three Cycle Method [BLD]

By – Md Shahil Ahmed

Date: 04-16-2020 (alpha version )*​
*3C(3 Cycle Method)*

The general idea is that you solve one piece at a time using 3 cycle algorithm.This is an advanced version of Old Pochmann(as it uses the BUFFER of OP)..It uses the concept of Orozco method and BH method.The memo should be done in pairs.There are three important terms used in this method.


*Buffer (Corner: ULB Edge: UR)*
*Helper (Corner: UBR Edge: UL)*
*Target*
The piece in Buffer/Helper is needed to shoot to the target.All the pieces need to move into the target by using setup move to solve.

*Corners: ULB/UBR 

Edges: UR/UL *

Target: Target can be its original location(like BH Method).But for beginner Target for Corner is UFL or URF and Target for Edge is UF or UB.

The most important concept is CYCLE.There are two types of cycles

*ODD CYCLE:*

In odd cycle we shoot BUFFER to the TARGET Making sure that the HELPER ends in the BUFFER.The piece in the the TARGET will move to the HELPER.

*BUFFER->TARGET->HELPER



EVEN CYCLE:*

In even cycle we shoot HELPER to the TARGET Making sure that the BUFFER ends in the HELPER.The piece in the the TARGET will move to the BUFFER.

*HELPER->TARGET->BUFFER*

Note:The original piece in the HELPER is always switches with BUFFER.

*Algorithms*:

*Note: Previously I had used UF as Helper for edges.This had slows down the setup moves very much.For this reason I had changed my Helper for edges to UL.For most of the pieces can setup to UB by doing B Layer move and UF by doing F Layer move.For Special Targets like DL/LD,DR/RD you can use special algorithms or use two move setups.

Edges Cycle(Normal – Odd Cycle)*

UR->UF->UL: (M2 U') (M U2 M') (U' M2)
UR->UB->UL: (M2 U) (M' U2 M) (U M2)
UR->FU->UL: (M U M') U2 (M U M')
UR->BU->UL: (M' U' M) U2 (M' U' M)
UR->DL->UL: y U2 M U2 M' y'
UR->DR->UL : y M' U2 M U2 y'
UR->LD->UL: y U (M' U' M') U2 (M U' M) U' y'
UR->RD->UL : y U (M U M) U2 (M' U M') U' y'
*Edges Cycle(Inverse – Even Cycle)*

UL->UF->UR: (M2 U) (M U2 M') (U M2)
UL->UB->UR: (M2 U') (M' U2 M) (U' M2)
UL->FU->UR: (M U' M') U2 (M U' M')
UL->BU->UR: (M' U M) U2 (M' U M)
UR->DL->UL: y M U2 M' U2 y'
UR->DR->UL: y U2 M' U2 M y'
UR->LD->UL : y U (M' U M') U2 (M U M) U' y'
UR->RD->UL: y U (M U' M) U2 (M' U' M') U' y'
*Corner Cycle(Normal – Odd Cycle)*

ULB->URF->UBR: x R2 D2 (R U R') D2 (R U' R) x'
ULB->RFU->UBR: (F R F' L F) R2 (F' L' F R F')
ULB->FUR->UBR: (F' L F) R' (F' L' F) R
ULB->UFL->UBR: x (L U' L) D2 (L' U L) D2 L2 x'
ULB->FLU->UBR: L (F R' F') L' (F R F')
ULB->LUF->UBR: (F' L F R' F') L2 (F R F' L F)
*Corner Cycle(Inverse – Even Cycle)*

UBR->URF->ULB: x (R' U R') D2 (R U' R') D2 R2 x'
UBR->RFU->ULB: (F R' F' L F) R2 (F' L' F R' F')
UBR->FUR->ULB: R' (F' L F) R (F' L' F)
UBR->UFL->ULB: x L2 D2 (L' U' L) D2 (L' U L') x'
UBR->FLU->ULB: (F R' F') L (F R F') L'
UBR->LUF->ULB: (F' L' F R' F') L2 (F R F' L' F)

*Parity:*

Since For solving corner ULB and UBR are affected.And For Solving Edges UR and UL are affected.When you have a parity you must do F Perm in order to swap the corners(ULB and UBR) and edges(UR and UL).

*F Prem:* y R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R y'

*Alg for Flipping edges(UR and UL): *M U M U M U2 M' U M' U M' U2

*Alg for Twistwing corners(ULB+ and UBR-)*

Notation: LBU->ULB and RUB->UBR
y (R U2 R' U' R U' R') (L' U2 L U L' U L) y'
y (R' D' R D R' D' R) U (R' D R D' R' D R) U' y'
*Alg for Twisting corners(ULB- and UBR+)*

Notation: BUL->ULB and BRU->UBR
y (L' U' L U' L' U2 L) (R U R' U R U2 R') y'
y (R' D R D' R' D R) U (R' D' R D R' D' R) U' y'
Notice:

Shoot the buffer to any unsolved location
When you see the helper piece during memo eg: UL add the piece UL and the piece that is in UL not LU.During Execution just skip the UL piece and continue to solve normally.
For advanced cuber you can shoot to the original location using BH commutators.

PS:If my english is bad,sorry for that.Also I request to contribute examples using 3 Cycle method..Inform me if some algs are incorrect..Try to contribute this 3C method to wiki...
I am making documentation I will release it when it is finnished.

It can be used to beginner BLD method solving..

This method is invented by Me(Md Shahil Ahmed) during Lockdown days of Corona Virus..

Credits:
1.Erno Rubiks
2.Inventor of Pochmann Method
3.Inventor of BH Method
4.Inventor of Orozco method
5.You

Thank you.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 17, 2020)

Since I completed the A2 method, I've thought a lot about what A3 would be. I'm sure there's a precise, technical answer, but I have a pretty good idea of the system. There are already many 3x3 methods and people are averaging 5-6 seconds with those. And we don't really need any more 3x3 methods. But I think this is useful in that the system can be applied to existing methods as I outlined a few posts before this one. Anyway, here is A3, or the extension of A2 to 3x3.


*Passive Blockbuilding: *Using normal, non-matching, and misoriented pieces, freely blockbuild what is necessary to reach an algorithm step in the method. What is built may be F2L, two 1x2x3s, or any other option. This step means being method neutral or applying this blockbuilding style to the currently used method. See the ZZ and Roux examples a few posts before this one.
In F2L for example, this could be pairs in various slots, cross pieces from a different layer, and other possibilities. In ZZ, the left and right side could consist of pairs put together in any way from either side or even not have complete pairs at all. The same for Roux.

*Resolve: *Use an LL, CLL, or any final algorithm and simultaneously correctly order the pieces from step 1. In Roux this would be CMLL and in CFOP this would be PLL. This step has more freedom than it may seem.
There are many chances for cancellations during performance of the algorithm.
The number of cases in large algorithm sets can be greatly reduced by taking advantage of the LL pieces and the misplaced pieces, and other techniques.
There is a freedom of progression. Users can start by learning simple types of misplaced pairs and the associated algorithms. Then they can continue to progress, learning more situations and the algorithms that fix them.

*Remainder:* If the method has remaining steps, as in Roux LSE, those can be completed now, or sometimes completed intuitively during the algorithm performed in step 2.



Spoiler: ZZ Example Images







Then after PLL, EPLL, NMLL, or ZBLL the F2L would be solved.





Spoiler: Roux Example Images



->CMLL->
->CMLL->
->CMLL->



People have made use of purposefully having a misoriented corner in F2L, there is the PEG method which places pairs in any F2L slot, and non-matching blocks exist in Heise and Roux. There is also freedom of blockbuilding in the FreeFOP method and freestyle. I think this can be taken further with non-matching and misorientation and implemented into speedsolves in a way that provides improvement. Of course a solver wouldn't use everything and freely build whatever they see. That's just too much effort for little or no gain. At first, only simple mismatched pairs and non-matching blocks would be great for speedsolves.

What do you think about this system? Obviously there are positives and negatives like any other. The difficulty would be in learning additional tricks for case recognition in the more advanced block types and no one is really method neutral. So for now the system is probably best applied to someone's currently used method. And obviously it requires learning more algorithms for each case, which means algorithm sets with few cases will be easiest. For standard Roux, it may not be worth it to go any deeper than simple non-matching blocks. ZBLL would be extremely difficult because that would mean learning a large number of cases for each type of mismatched pair. For other methods, it makes for a good fit because the second step in two-look LL methods often has very few cases. The second step of NMLL is only 15 algorithms and the recognition for both steps is a perfect match for this. COLL and EPLL may be good too because EPLL is only four algorithms.


----------



## GenTheThief (Apr 17, 2020)

PizzaCuber said:


> I have a ZZ-Spike variation for petrus solvers, @GenTheThief i need your permission to make this a thing, but here’s the idea:
> For uses of demonstration, build first layer in white.
> 1. Do Cross and F2L or make a Petrus block and expand all through the bottom layer.
> 2. Make a ballint block on the lime green face.
> ...



This sounds like the first iteration of spike that I proposed, and also how Oscar Roth Anderson solves, getting to the last two faces, doing EO and then solving them. I think that overall it's not a good idea to try and have a method halfway between two--I initially had EO on only 3 faces but shadowslice pointed out that it wasn't really worth it, so I expanded the EO step so that it would include another face and more pieces and be more worthwhile. Also, from a direct solving view point, I don't think that that's the best order either.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 17, 2020)

wassekaran said:


> *Three Cycle Method [BLD]
> 
> By – Md Shahil Ahmed
> 
> ...


This is literally orozco with a different buffer.


----------



## ProStar (Apr 18, 2020)

(2x2)

If you have 3/4 of a face completed, how many algs to solve the rest? (basically 1LLSLL except with a face and not a layer)


----------



## Sub1Hour (Apr 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> (2x2)
> 
> If you have 3/4 of a face completed, how many algs to solve the rest? (basically 1LLSLL except with a face and not a layer)


Ok so there are 27 vls cases for winter variation. There are 3 2x2 pll cases. Y, T, and Solved. 27x3=81
if my math is correct the subset would have 81 cases


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 18, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Ok so there are 27 vls cases for winter variation. There are 3 2x2 pll cases. Y, T, and Solved. 27x3=81
> if my math is correct the subset would have 81 cases


You didn't. There would be at least 3!x5!x3^4/4=14580 distinct cases up to auf.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Apr 18, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> You didn't. There would be at least 3!x5!x3^4/4=14580 distinct cases up to auf.


ok yeah let's not do this method


----------



## Chris_Cube (Apr 19, 2020)

So I designed a new Method called EOCF. 
Edge Orientation Corners First. The hardest part is indeed step one and after it its just CF with some other algs.
Step 1 Edge Orientation
Step 2 Corners of the First Layer with R U L and CLL in the Style of R U L moves to not destroy EO (maybe i have to gen new algs for that)
Step 3. Edges of the first layer done in pairs
Step 4. Edges of the last layer (gen new algs or use U-Perm) 
Step 5. Insert last redge or last ledge by U M U2 M U or U' M' U2 M' U' and midge permuation. It can be really fast to execute and has in the End not much algs maybe 42 (Step 2) + ~10 (Step 4) + 2 (Step 5) ~ 54 Algs. And the movecount is fairly good as EO takes around 6 STM, maybe 15 STM max for whole step 2 and step 3 and 4 can be combined together max 15 STM maybe Step 5 takes no more than 8 STM whole. So you get your cube in around 44 STM which is fairly good. And Fingertricks and no real need for rotations are also really noticeable. 
So what do you think? Should I reasearch this method more?


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 19, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> So I designed a new Method called EOCF.
> Edge Orientation Corners First. The hardest part is indeed step one and after it its just CF with some other algs.
> Step 1 Edge Orientation
> Step 2 Corners of the First Layer with R U L and CLL in the Style of R U L moves to not destroy EO (maybe i have to gen new algs for that)
> ...


Step 2 would not need any new algs genned, because you can use coll instead of totally new algs. Also, you can’t us u perms for step 4 because you still have to orient those edges before permuting them. What you could do is use ELL for this step, but ell isn’t the best subset. This method is a pretty interesting method, I would recommend you learn ell and coll and do some solves with it and see what you think.


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 19, 2020)

PizzaCuber said:


> Step 2 would not need any new algs genned, because you can use coll instead of totally new algs. Also, you can’t us u perms for step 4 because you still have to orient those edges before permuting them. What you could do is use ELL for this step, but ell isn’t the best subset. This method is a pretty interesting method, I would recommend you learn ell and coll and do some solves with it and see what you think.


Eo is solved in the first step, so you could use U perms.


----------



## PizzaCuber (Apr 19, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Eo is solved in the first step, so you could use U perms.


Hm, im Stupid. Why did I say ell.


----------



## Chris_Cube (Apr 19, 2020)

So i wanted to use some spicy edge permutation algs to speed up the last steps. Maybe in the style of L5EP. But with Edges of FL and LL. I will try some other things. Maybe this method can be real good or am I wrong?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 19, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> So i wanted to use some spicy edge permutation algs to speed up the last steps. Maybe in the style of L5EP. But with Edges of FL and LL. I will try some other things. Maybe this method can be real good or am I wrong?


Unless you're a fan of 1980s hardware, I don't think this will be particularly good as because you've solved corners, all of your algs will have to destroy and restore the corners with every step. That means that you'll either end up with questionable ergonomics or a really high movecount. The problem is compounded as you solved the D-layer edges first which means that you'll need to destroy and restore even more.

But like I say to most new methods, I'd like to be proven wrong. I'm confident that I'm not, but try to do it if you believe in it enough.


----------



## Chris_Cube (Apr 19, 2020)

Hey shadowslice,
This is a good point I thought about this while trying this method. Corners won't be destroyed while solving if you use M and U moves or reverse the moves on the R or L layers while doing the edges. Also you won't solve LBL, I found in some testsolves that some D and U Lines can be solved together
I just need good permutation algs


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> (2x2)
> 
> If you have 3/4 of a face completed, how many algs to solve the rest? (basically 1LLSLL except with a face and not a layer)


614 unique cases plus 1 solved for a layer, then multiply that by 6, so 3689 plus 1 solved.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 19, 2020)

Chris_Cube said:


> Hey shadowslice,
> This is a good point I thought about this while trying this method. Corners won't be destroyed while solving if you use M and U moves or reverse the moves on the R or L layers while doing the edges. Also you won't solve LBL, I found in some testsolves that some D and U Lines can be solved together
> I just need good permutation algs


I wasn't saying that you'd destroy the corners and have to resolve them with an alg. I'm well aware that you can solve edges using setup/slice/undosetup. My point is that having to do the setup and undo the setup every time solve a couple of edges will mean that you either have to do more moves/piece than most methods or you'll have to resort to a lot of weird ergonomics involving S/E/M/B movegroups or something (a la bld). While these weird movegroups were fine in the earlier days of cubing when hardware sucked, now that hardware is good enough that the main obstacled to fast solving are lookahead and tps, having a weird movegroup is a far bigger detriment than it used to be.

There is a reason more or less pure cf methods died out.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 20, 2020)

How does WV/SV > PLL compare to ZBLL in methods where EO is solved.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Apr 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> How does WV/SV > PLL compare to ZBLL in methods where EO is solved.


better recognition and less algs. ZBLL is still kinda worth to learn if you are up to the task though.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Apr 20, 2020)

guys i have an idea which is based on L2L (Last 2 Layers). i called this variant L2L-P, the P at the end stands for Parrot, cause some people on a different social media called me that. 

Steps:
1. Make a layer(probably could block build a part of it to make it more efficient)
2. L2L
2a. Solve edges using comms (might have special cases because of the corners)
2b. L4C


This method isn’t for normal speedsolving, because lookahead would be terrible, but could be a decent method for FMC. Has this method been thought of and/or proposed before though?


----------



## Athefre (Apr 20, 2020)

After the layer, if you do the middle layer edges, CLL, then last four edges, you've got K4 on 3x3.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Apr 20, 2020)

Athefre said:


> After the layer, if you do the middle layer edges, CLL, then last four edges, you've got K4 on 3x3.


Thats nice, but I’m going more towards the L2L4 approach than that.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> How does WV/SV > PLL compare to ZBLL in methods where EO is solved.


Insert+ZBLL is better. More efficient and fewer looks (set up pair, WV/SV, PLL vs solve pair, ZBLL). Also, a higher proportion of WV/SV cases are bad than normal last slot.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 20, 2020)

Triangles_are_cubers said:


> Steps:
> 1. Make a layer(probably could block build a part of it to make it more efficient)
> 2. L2L
> 2a. Solve edges using comms (might have special cases because of the corners)
> 2b. L4C


What does L2L solve? Also, blockbuilding doesn't really work in only 2 dimensions.


PapaSmurf said:


> Insert+ZBLL is better. More efficient and fewer looks (set up pair, WV/SV, PLL vs solve pair, ZBLL). Also, a higher proportion of WV/SV cases are bad than normal last slot.


Is WV/SV > PLL worse than just OCLL > PLL?


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Apr 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What does L2L solve? Also, blockbuilding doesn't really work in only 2 dimensions.
> 
> Is WV/SV > PLL worse than just OCLL > PLL?


L2L solves last 2 layers of the cube. Blockbuilding could work in some cases, but not all. I’ll probably think of that.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 20, 2020)

Triangles_are_cubers said:


> L2L solves last 2 layers of the cube. Blockbuilding could work in some cases, but not all. I’ll probably think of that.


If L2L solves the rest of the cube, what's the point of solving edges and L4C? Also, I meant blockbuilding isn't that efficient in only 2 dimensions.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Apr 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> If L2L solves the rest of the cube, what's the point of solving edges and L4C? Also, I meant blockbuilding isn't that efficient in only 2 dimensions.


I’m trying to make the method still a little bit efficient movecount wise and not making it have ~200 algs (comparison to other L2L variants). Ok, I’ll keep that into account for this method.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 20, 2020)

Triangles_are_cubers said:


> I’m trying to make the method still a little bit efficient movecount wise and not making it have ~200 algs (comparison to other L2L variants). Ok, I’ll keep that into account for this method.


Is this method supposed to be efficient or good for speedsolving?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What does L2L solve? Also, blockbuilding doesn't really work in only 2 dimensions.


L2L solves the last 2 layers (so LBL but you solve the last 2 layers at the same time in some sort of way). There have been some really cool ideas, but one that I think could work is: layer, 3 edges in 2 algs, the rest of the corners, L5E. Even better, layer minus corner, keyhole 2 edges, pseudoslot the third plus solve the layer, solve corners, L5E (these both finish the same way as the Zipper-b method). There's certainly a lot of dabbling and experimentation that could be useful.


Triangles_are_cubers said:


> I’m trying to make the method still a little bit efficient movecount wise and not making it have ~200 algs (comparison to other L2L variants). Ok, I’ll keep that into account for this method.


Make 500 algs the limit, as 500 algs is totally human learnable and you don't want to miss anything really good for the sake of alg count.


brododragon said:


> Is WV/SV > PLL worse than just OCLL > PLL?


Depends on the case, but full WV/SV->PLL is slightly worse imo.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Depends on the case, but full WV/SV->PLL is slightly worse imo.


What about Speed-Heise > algorithmic L3C? I've heard L3C is one of the best ZBLL substeps, and Speed-Heise isn't that bad.

(Sorry about all the is x or y better questions)


----------



## Chris_Cube (Apr 22, 2020)

Speed Heise and L3C is Snyder-Method in some sense. But snyder never wrote down his algs


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 22, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What about Speed-Heise > algorithmic L3C? I've heard L3C is one of the best ZBLL substeps, and Speed-Heise isn't that bad.
> 
> (Sorry about all the is x or y better questions)


Yeah, speed heise isn't that bad, but for the majority of cases, full ZBLL is better (also, slot neutrality is important too).


----------



## Username: Username: (Apr 22, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Yeah, speed heise isn't that bad, but for the majority of cases, full ZBLL is better (also, slot neutrality is important too).



what is slot neutrality?



brododragon said:


> I'm pretty sure it means you can do the alg for any slot.



So you mean, slot neutrality means that you can do like, back slot, diagonal slot and front slot comfortably right?


----------



## brododragon (Apr 22, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> what is slot neutrality?


I'm pretty sure it means you can do the alg for any slot.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 22, 2020)

So, for insert->ZBLL, you can do that for any slot. The more you influence LL in LS, the less likely you'll be able to be slot neutral (take the extreme example of L5C->L5EP, you'd either have to be really good at mirroring algs that are bad from BL, or you just solve to FR every time, which makes your F2L worse).


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Apr 24, 2020)

Alright so I’ve been experimenting with the PCMS method for solving a 3x3 (link below), and I noticed that the first steps for building columns are great, but realised that the Last eight edges step needs development. And with experimentation for a week, I now average 22.5 seconds with this version of PCMS and believe it could be a viable speedcubing method for years to come. It averages well under 50 moves, whilst speedcubing, and has extremely good lookahead. Without further ado, here’s what I propose


----------



## ProStar (Apr 24, 2020)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> Alright so I’ve been experimenting with the PCMS method for solving a 3x3 (link below), and I noticed that the first steps for building columns are great, but realised that the Last eight edges step needs development. And with experimentation for a week, I now average 22.5 seconds with this version of PCMS and believe it could be a viable speedcubing method for years to come. Without further ado, here’s what I propose



This is similar to what me and @WarriorCatCuber came up with for L8E:

EO
DL+DR
UL+UR
Roux L4E


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Apr 24, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This is similar to what me and @WarriorCatCuber came up with for L8E:
> 
> EO
> DL+DR
> ...




Yes I did briefly mention that during the document, though, for many reasons listed in the document, is slightly worse than my proposed method. Though it is a viable way to approach it especially since no Algs.

Edit: It would be greatly appreciated if you guys let me know whether the 8 example solves work and whether they explain the method. I think I’ve provided enough information as to why this could be a seriously top method throughout the document too.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 24, 2020)

Here's an idea I've been thinking about:
*1. EOCross
2. Sort remaining edges into the correct layer/slice
3. Orient First Layer Corners
4. Permute first layer corners and E-slice edges
5. ZBLL*

Phasing (ZZLL) and other strategies can be used to significantly decrease move-count. For example, you could solve the E-slice or U-layer edges to get a band with EO and solved D-layer for an easy finish or COLL, respectively. Actually, now that I think about it, the COLL version would be great.


----------



## TheRouxGuy (Apr 24, 2020)

@brododragon How many moves on an average?


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Apr 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Here's an idea I've been thinking about:
> *1. EOCross
> 2. Sort remaining edges into the correct layer/slice
> 3. Orient First Layer Corners
> ...



The only problem I can see in this method is how on earth are you going to orient the first layer corners. If it is in a way we’re you kind of do F2L with the E layer edges, then I think CFOP would outdo it. I just don’t think it would be easy at all to orient the first layer corners without knocking out an e layer and edg or stuffing up orientation of edges.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Here's an idea I've been thinking about:
> *1. EOCross
> 2. Sort remaining edges into the correct layer/slice
> 3. Orient First Layer Corners
> ...


Ngl, this sounds like a much worse ZZ. EOCross F2L is super good and there are much better ways to solve it than that. Also, phasing doesn't decrease the movecount, it increases it. It only reduces the alg count (but you're better off just learning ZBLL anyway).


----------



## brododragon (Apr 24, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Ngl, this sounds like a much worse ZZ. EOCross F2L is super good and there are much better ways to solve it than that. Also, phasing doesn't decrease the movecount, it increases it. It only reduces the alg count (but you're better off just learning ZBLL anyway).


Oops I meant alg count. how does the COLL/EPLL compare?


TheRouxGuy said:


> @brododragon How many moves on an average?


I don't know; Some algs need genning. I'll open up Cube Explorer and gen algs as I need them to see the move-count.


The Pocket Cuber said:


> The only problem I can see in this method is how on earth are you going to orient the first layer corners. If it is in a way we’re you kind of do F2L with the E layer edges, then I think CFOP would outdo it. I just don’t think it would be easy at all to orient the first layer corners without knocking out an e layer and edg or stuffing up orientation of edges.


It would be just like ZZ EO except whenever you do an R/L move you would have to undo it. I tested it out a few times and it was fine.

Also, one advantage to this is that it requires very little skill. Roux has F2B, ZZ has ZZF2L and EO, Petrus has F2L and EO, and CFOP has F2L. All you have to understand in this method is EOCross (there are good tutorials) and sorting edges (Ryan Heise has a great tutorial on it). This makes it extremely easy to understand the method and get to it's full potential quickly.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 24, 2020)

OCLL/PLL is 28 algs and is faster than COLL/EPLL for TH. Anyway, I still think that normal F2L would be faster.


----------



## slowhandzboi (Apr 27, 2020)

im proposing an algset

Called L5C which solves the Final f2l corner
and The Last layer corner's orientationa and permutation
which leaves you with an ELL case


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Apr 27, 2020)

slowhandzboi said:


> im proposing an algset
> 
> Called L5C which solves the Final f2l corner
> and The Last layer corner's orientationa and permutation
> which leaves you with an ELL case


pretty sure this already exists


----------



## slowhandzboi (Apr 27, 2020)

the only downside is the number of algs which range about 500-600


slowhandzboi said:


> im proposing an algset
> 
> Called L5C which solves the Final f2l corner
> and The Last layer corner's orientationa and permutation
> which leaves you with an ELL case





AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> pretty sure this already exists


you sure about that

if youre gonna say CLS


CLS only solves the orientation

and if youre gonna say CPLS

CPLS only solves last layer corner permutation and not orientation


----------



## Hazel (Apr 27, 2020)

slowhandzboi said:


> im proposing an algset
> 
> Called L5C which solves the Final f2l corner
> and The Last layer corner's orientationa and permutation
> which leaves you with an ELL case


Another member posted this same idea before. It's generally regarded to be not worth learning, as solving LS normally followed by regular last layer is just faster. ELL isn't a great set either, some of the recognition is really iffy.


----------



## slowhandzboi (Apr 27, 2020)

Aerma said:


> Another member posted this same idea before. It's generally regarded to be not worth learning, as solving LS normally followed by regular last layer is just faster. ELL isn't a great set either, some of the recognition is really iffy.


aw man


----------



## ProStar (Apr 28, 2020)

Best way to do L5C would probably be with comms anyway because of the alg count. Also, please remember to search the forums before posting a thread, as often there will be a thread meant for such topics. For example, here is the thread for new method/concept/substep proposals.


----------



## ProStar (Apr 28, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> OCLL/PLL is 28 algs and is faster than COLL/EPLL for TH. Anyway, I still think that normal F2L would be faster.



What about for OH?


----------



## Sub1Hour (Apr 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What about for OH?


Just use YruRU


----------



## brododragon (Apr 28, 2020)

Ok, similar to my last proposal, but more of a Band type of thing.
*1. EOHoop* - Just a vertical EO band.
*2. F4C *- solve First Layer Corners.
*3. L4E *- Solve the E-Slice Edges.
*4. COLL *- Nothing special.

Also, for a higher alg-count (~200-300), you can combine 3 and 4. Can someone do the math on the number of cases?


----------



## Username: Username: (Apr 28, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Ok, similar to my last proposal, but more of a Band type of thing.
> *1. EOHoop* - Just a vertical EO band.
> *2. F4C *- solve First Layer Corners.
> *3. L4E *- Solve the E-Slice Edges.
> ...



@xyzzy



xyzzy said:


> I have no idea what exactly each step is supposed to be doing, so no.
> 
> Solve E-slice edges? From where? Which edges are already solved? Are DL and DR solved??



oh well

for your requested information, please press @brododragon until spaghetti beeps


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 28, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> @xyzzy


I have no idea what exactly each step is supposed to be doing, so no.

Solve E-slice edges? From where? Which edges are already solved? Are DL and DR solved??


----------



## RedstoneTim (Apr 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What about for OH?


For OH, COLL + EPLL is generally regarded as faster by pretty much all top OH solvers because of the 2-gen finish. For a more thorough explanation, have a look at Antoine Cantin's video about the topic.



brododragon said:


> Ok, similar to my last proposal, but more of a Band type of thing.
> *1. EOHoop* - Just a vertical EO band.
> *2. F4C *- solve First Layer Corners.
> *3. L4E *- Solve the E-Slice Edges.
> ...


If EOHoop is orienting all the edges and permuting all U and D layer edges:

EOHoop would be very hard to inspect, probably comparable to XEOCross.
If you're solving the first four corners with commutators, the movecount would just be way too high.
While L4E would be very fast (it's basically 4c but offset by a z rotation), <E, R>-gen is (in my opinion) worse than Roux's <M, U>-gen.
The last step should be L4C, which has twice as many algorithms as COLL (84).
Not sure about this, but algorithm count for combining the last two steps would probably be a bit higher than for ZBLL.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 29, 2020)

Ok my last idea was pretty bad (used L4C, had no real way to solve F4C, and never solved S-slice edges). I just had a brainwave and I'd thought I could jot it down before going to bed.

*1. EOBelt
2. Sort Corners
3. ZBLL
(rotate)
4. ZBLL*

There could be parity, in which there are two impossible ZBLLs, but a simple alg (E-Perm would be perfect because you can easily predict ZBLL, and don't have to rotate because E-Perm starts with x) would fix it up.




Spoiler: Pros




Very algorithmic, so it's easy to reach full move-count potential quickly.
Algorithmic methods have higher TPS.
Only one alg set is used.






Spoiler: Cons




High alg-count (493), so hard to learn. You could just learn COLL/EPLL (or OCLL/PLL), but since you have to use that twice, your move-count is significantly higher.
EOBand is very hard.
Unavoidable rotation.



Also, you could do Band + Sort Corners, then EO. This would be significantly easier, and then you can use slice moves for EO.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Apr 29, 2020)

brododragon said:


> S-slice corners


Think about this


----------



## brododragon (Apr 29, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Think about this


Edited lol.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Apr 29, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Ok my last idea was pretty bad (used L4C, had no real way to solve F4C, and never solved S-slice corners). I just had a brainwave and I'd thought I could jot it down before going to bed.
> 
> *1. EOBand
> 2. Sort Corners
> ...



I'll try to go through all steps and give my opinions on them:

EOBand (maybe EOBelt?) seems to be way better than EOHoop because it only permutes four edges, probably somewhere in the EOCross region regarding difficulty.
Sorting corners is ergonomic because of <U, D, R2>-gen, but lookahead is hindered because corners are on top and bottom and, most importantly, unoriented.
Instead of E perm, you can also just use the standard Belt method parity alg M2 U2 M2 U2 which does a two swap of edges on both sides, so ZBLL doesn't need to be recoged three times.
ZBLL is a bad choice here because of recognition. For some solvers who know full ZBLL, recognition can sometimes take up to a second if not more, so one would have to spend about two seconds just for recog here. Another issue is also parity. Most people either use blocks or recognition from two sides (probably fixed orientation), but not all sides, to recog the algorithms, so performing the wrong algorithm or long pauses would be very common.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 29, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> I'll try to go through all steps and give my opinions on them:
> 
> EOBand (maybe EOBelt?) seems to be way better than EOHoop because it only permutes four edges, probably somewhere in the EOCross region regarding difficulty.
> Sorting corners is ergonomic because of <U, D, R2>-gen, but lookahead is hindered because corners are on top and bottom and, most importantly, unoriented.
> ...


Could you recog parity, then, just imagine the two edges swapped and recall it _while _doing parity? This could drop recog times by a bit. Also, I don't know if this is feasible because I don't know ZBLL recognition, but, like you predict PLL during OLL, could you predict ZBLL or maybe just start recognizing it based off your prediction? This might (and probably is) unreasonable, but I just want to throw it out there.

Also, yes, I meant Belt, just wrote that at 12:00 AM.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Apr 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Could you recog parity, then, just imagine the two edges swapped and recall it _while _doing parity? This could drop recog times by a bit. Also, I don't know if this is feasible because I don't know ZBLL recognition, but, like you predict PLL during OLL, could you predict ZBLL or maybe just start recognizing it based off your prediction? This might (and probably is) unreasonable, but I just want to throw it out there.
> 
> Also, yes, I meant Belt, just wrote that at 12:00 AM.


I don't know ZBLL recognition myself, but I've heard that there are two main ways to recognize it after recognizing the coll: either find patterns/blocks or choose a reference corner and recognize the edge cycle.
If one were to use the former, the whole system would probably break with parity since there are lots of cases, so it might take a while to realize that you have parity and that you're not recognizing incorrectly.
With the latter, one can recognize parity. That, however, makes the recognition three-sided instead of two-sided, so the solver needs to know which third edge means parity and which one doesn't, which adds another layer of complexity.
There's also another way to recognize which would make seeing parity a lot easier. That is recognizing OCLL/COLL and then flipping the corners in your head and recognize the PLL case. Here, parity recog would be the same as for PLL parity on 4x4 (which would still require three sides though).

So theoretically it is possible to recall during parity, but that still doesn't make your recall time faster. (That's similar to saying that recognizing and recalling PLL during PLL parity on 4x4 makes your PLL faster, which it doesn't.) That means that you still have those two seconds (or how long it takes two recog and recall ZBLL times two) and the rotation added to your solving time.
(Also I hope you're fully awake by 12 AM, lol)


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> So theoretically it is possible to recall during parity, but that still doesn't make your recall time faster. (That's similar to saying that recognizing and recalling PLL during PLL parity on 4x4 makes your PLL faster, which it doesn't.) That means that you still have those two seconds (or how long it takes two recog and recall ZBLL times two) and the rotation added to your solving time.
> (Also I hope you're fully awake by 12 AM, lol)


How does doing recog during the parity alg not make the rest shorter? Instead of having 2 seconds where you don't turn, you'll have 1.25 (2 minus parity execution) seconds where you don't turn.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Apr 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> How does doing recog during the parity alg not make the rest shorter? Instead of having 2 seconds where you don't turn, you'll have 1.25 (2 minus parity execution) seconds where you don't turn.


I think I worded that badly.
My point is that you have 2 seconds or so added to your solve because of ZBLL recog and recall.
When there is parity, you still need those 2 seconds to recog and recall, but in the mean time you're also executing the parity alg. That means that in optimal circumstances, a solve with parity would be as fast as a solve without it. That doesn't mean, however, that getting parity makes your whole solve faster than if you didn't get it.
And therefore, your method still has those 2 seconds added because of ZBLL, which means that another variant with better recog and recall but longer algs/more steps might be better if recog + recall + execution of it would be faster than that of ZBLL.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> I think I worded that badly.
> My point is that you have 2 seconds or so added to your solve because of ZBLL recog and recall.
> When there is parity, you still need those 2 seconds to recog and recall, but in the mean time you're also executing the parity alg. That means that in optimal circumstances, a solve with parity would be as fast as a solve without it. That doesn't mean, however, that getting parity makes your whole solve faster than if you didn't get it.
> And therefore, your method still has those 2 seconds added because of ZBLL, which means that another variant with better recog and recall but longer algs/more steps might be better if recog + recall + execution of it would be faster than that of ZBLL.


Ok. So, do you think OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL could be faster? I think something like this that's 3-look could be just as fast/faster.
1. COLL
2. (rotate) COLL
3. Parity
4. PBLE (Permute both layer edges)

This would keep down on alg count, allow for PBLE recognition during parity, and make parity easy to recog. The reason I would choose this over OCLL/PLL x2 is that that is 4-Look.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Apr 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Ok. So, do you think OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL could be faster? I think something like this that's 3-look could be just as fast/faster.
> 1. COLL
> 2. (rotate) COLL
> 3. Parity
> ...


That seems better, though maybe there's a way to do both COLL algorithms rotationlessly? (Like CO on both sides + CP on both sides, but that would probably be a worse variant of SSC.)
Also do you know how many algorithms PBLE is? (Since I've heard that it's a lot for Square-1 and the number of algs is probably similar.)


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Apr 30, 2020)

All right, I'm trying to find a viable waterman variant with EO at the beginning.
1. EOFirstLayerMinusOneEdge
2. COLL
3. Do z so the empty first layer edge is a at LU, then Solve the BR, DR and BD edges, as well as the M centers
4. Finish the cube using L6EP


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> That seems better, though maybe there's a way to do both COLL algorithms rotationlessly? (Like CO on both sides + CP on both sides, but that would probably be a worse variant of SSC.)


People can mirror an alg on the fly, so I wonder if with a little training you could flip an alg upside down.



RedstoneTim said:


> Also do you know how many algorithms PBLE is? (Since I've heard that it's a lot for Square-1 and the number of algs is probably similar.)


Woah. My math has gotta be off. It's 20,160, according to my (almost certainly wrong) calculations. 8! (Number of edges) / 2 (permutation parity) = 20,160. I guess you could solve DL and DR for intuitive L6EP. This would help with the rest of the solve, as you wouldn't need to solve F and B centers to for EOBand.


----------



## Devagio (Apr 30, 2020)

This thread is based off the idea of *CP-line* as found here:








Roux-breaker? The YruRU method


Inspecting CP in inspection allows us to solve the entire cube 2-gen. Many cubers, notably Jayden and Bhargav are particularly excited by this idea; and this can potentially beat Roux for One-handed solving. If you find it game-changing, or otherwise, let me know. I'll be putting this up along...




www.speedsolving.com





While the *YruRU* method has great potential in theory, by far its *biggest drawback* is doing EO of 9 edges midsolve (compared to 6 in *Roux*), which may not be very TPS friendly.
The idea here is to eliminate this, albeit at the cost of giving up RU turning for MU turning and trading an RU algset for an rRU algset of similar size. The movecount remains similar.
This could technically count as a variation of Roux, or a fusion of YruRU and Roux, however you prefer.

Scramble: D2 F2 R B2 D2 B2 R’ F2 L’ B2 F2 U F D L’ F’ D B’ U L2

Solution: 

z y // inspection
F U’ f’ U F // CP-line (5/5)
This is identical to the first step from YruRU. This step could in general always be done as 2-gen 4-6 mover followed by a rotation (though that may not always be the fastest solution).

R' u2 U R u' // Craddle (5/10)
This is basically Roux FB with misaligned centres. Since we will be finishing with MU turning, this is can be fixed then.
An intermediate solver should be fairly consistently be able to plan the CP line and track the remaining two cradle edges.
Note that this step is quite trivial to do, which should give ample opportunity to find and track the DR edge and proceed with second block identically as in Roux.

U r' R U' R2 // square of 2nd block minus centre (5/15)
U R U2 R' // final pair (4/19)
At this point, we only need to insert the pair to finish SB; upto here generally takes ~20 moves.

We can have 3 kinds of pairs at this point, the R U R' insert, the R U' R' insert, or the r U r' insert

Now, we insert this pair using algorithm, that also orients all corners on top.
This is like winter variation/summer variation on roux, but it turns out that most of the long algorithms become much better due to the freedom of M slice and no top layer orientation to care about. 
For example, the WV case solved in CFOP with [U R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R] can be solved in roux using [U2 r U2 r' U2 R U' R']
There will be 81 algs in this set, 27 for each insert; the algset so far seems to be *much* faster than CMLL both in recognition (since only CO needs to be checked) and execution (rRU turns only, lower average move-count).
[I am currently generating algs for all these cases, the above statement is based off of the 27/81 algs that I have generated so far]

U' r U R2 U' R U' R' U2 r // 4-seasons(?) alg (10/29)

This alg is a decent representation of the set, and now we are left with centres and L6E. (Since CP was done initially and CO was done now, we have no CMLL of course).

Now, we can fix centres like we do in the misaligned centres version of roux; and quite often, we can force an arrow, or even EO skip. The cases are obvious to figure out on your own over time. Here, there is a straight forward way to do so as follows (Note, now we will only have M moves instead of R and r):

U u M' u' // fixed centres and forced arrow (4/33)

Now, the usual L6E follows.

Transition to this method will be very simple for Roux users.


PS. While by no means did YruRU "break" Roux yet, this title for the thread is chosen to simply go with the theme; and the funny similarity in the phonetics of the two method names.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 30, 2020)

Devagio said:


> EO of 9 edges midsolve


Actually, it would only be 8, as at least one edge will always be pre-oriented, making it compareable to Petrus EO. Petrus EO, contrary to popular belief, isn't that hard or time consuming. You only need to find two flipped edges and then you can recognize the next two while fixing the first two, and keep repeating this.


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 30, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Actually, it would only be 8, as at least one edge will always be pre-oriented, making it compareable to Petrus EO. Petrus EO, contrary to popular belief, isn't that hard or time consuming. You only need to find two flipped edges and then you can recognize the next two while fixing the first two, and keep repeating this.


Yeah, it's much harder to do that with YruRU though, which was kinda the point.


----------



## mukerflap (Apr 30, 2020)

this is literally briggs2 but with non matching centers for some reason


----------



## Cuberstache (Apr 30, 2020)

Yeah, what exactly is the point of not solving the L/R centers?


----------



## ProStar (Apr 30, 2020)

This probably already exists as a variant of Guimond, but here it goes:

CO - similar to Roux EO, where two opposite colors should be pointing up/down. This can be done by solving 4 of them into a face then doing an OLL(probably could be done algorithmically also)
Separate - Separate white and yellow into their correct layers, like making the squares on a 2x2x3
PBL


----------



## Etotheipi (Apr 30, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This can be done by solving 4 of them into a face then doing an OLL(probably could be done algorithmically also)


Did you mean intuitively?


----------



## ProStar (Apr 30, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Did you mean intuitively?



Probably worded that wrong, I meant it could probably be done algorithmically in one step instead of make one face then OLL


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 1, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Probably worded that wrong, I meant it could probably be done algorithmically in one step instead of make one face then OLL



CO can be done intuitively in less than 4 moves on average (3.7) with ease. Doing any intermediary steps like making a face and then OLL on the other side is a huge, like HUGE, waste of moves, time, and effort.
If you're wondering how to go about doing this, I'm happy to explain.


----------



## ProStar (May 1, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> CO can be done intuitively in less than 4 moves on average (3.7). Doing any intermediary steps like making a face and then OLL on the other side is a huge, like HUGE, waste of moves, time, and effort.
> If you're wondering how to go about doing this, I'm happy to explain.



Wait really? I'd love for you to explain how


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 1, 2020)

First off, grab a 2x2 cube. (Do NOT use a 3x3 right now, it will be harder)

Then, apply the sequence R2 U F2 U' F2 R2. (Or you could do any other sequence that also preserves CO)

Now, do R U R'. You will notice that you have 3 corners that are not oriented. You can use moves that preserve CO to set your 3 'bad' corners up to this case.
For example, solve your 2x2 cube and apply R' U' R U' R' U2 R. This is an antisune, but you can definitely orient the corners in less than 7. Notice that you can do R2 U' to set up the 3 corner / R U' R' case, and then simply do the R U' R' trigger. So, your CO solution would be R2 U' R U' R' (5).

Are you still following me?
Haha I hope so.
If you have 3 misoriented corners, you can also use the trigger R U R'. So R U R' / R U' R' both work to setup 3 bad, but also they are literally just different by an R2 move so not very different. Again, use the moveset that preserves CO (R2, U, F2) to set these up.

Now, there is also the R U2 R' trigger for 4 corners and the single move trigger R, also for 4 corners.
Yes, you can orient 4 corners in 1 move. I won't get into as much detail for these because you know the drill by now. Set up and trigger.

Try these setup exercises for 4 bad corners:
Apply R2 U' F2 U2 R U2 R' U2 L2 U2. Solve CO on white/yellow in only 4 moves by setting up to and using the R U2 R' trigger.
Apply F2 U R2 U' F2 R' U2 F2 U' R2. Solve CO on white/yellow in only 3 moves by setting up to using the single move R trigger.

Now, here are some random 2x2 scrambles and efficient CO examples.
R' F U' F U R F' U2 F ----- y' U2 R2 U R // CO (4)
U' F2 U2 F2 R F' R2 F' R ----- z x R2 U2 R // CO (3)
F' R' U2 F' U F R U2 F ----- y z R U' R' // CO (3)
U F' R2 U' R U R' F' R2 ----- y F R U' R' // CO (4)

Very useful tip: If it isn't easy to set things up, just look at a different axis / colors and most likely it will be a much easier case.

If you have any questions then feel free to ask!


----------



## brododragon (May 1, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> First off, grab a 2x2 cube. (Do NOT use a 3x3 right now, it will be harder)
> 
> Then, apply the sequence R2 U F2 U' F2 R2. (Or you could do any other sequence that also preserves CO)
> 
> ...


Thank you so much. Bookmarked. I have been trying to do this for a while now. Another thing that the masterful Neptunian could explain is CP.


----------



## Skewbed (May 1, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> First off, grab a 2x2 cube. (Do NOT use a 3x3 right now, it will be harder)
> 
> Then, apply the sequence R2 U F2 U' F2 R2. (Or you could do any other sequence that also preserves CO)
> 
> ...


It’s just like domino reduction for corners only, because it is!


----------



## Athefre (May 1, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> First off, grab a 2x2 cube. (Do NOT use a 3x3 right now, it will be harder)
> 
> Then, apply the sequence R2 U F2 U' F2 R2. (Or you could do any other sequence that also preserves CO)
> 
> ...



Some years ago I used this technique, and a little more, in an attempt to make a simple beginner 2x2 method. Simple enough that anyone without solving knowledge could easily use. Not sure if I succeeded or not because I never asked anyone to try.









Random Cubing Discussion


btw, here's the scramble from Minh Thai's 22.95 world record solve. U L2 D' B2 U' R2 B2 F2 D' F2 L2 R2 F R2 D L2 R2 B' L' D' R F' A reconstruction is in the works :O




www.speedsolving.com





I used 3x3 scrambles in that post for some reason lol.


----------



## brododragon (May 1, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> R2 U' R U' R' (5)


Wait that doesn't solve CO...


----------



## Devagio (May 1, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> this is literally briggs2 but with non matching centers for some reason


This is probably the natural thought progression then. Nonetheless I just had a look at B2 and it’s quite different.
CP is done quite differently in B2. Planning a block while predicting CP is extremely complicated; and the B2 way of doing it is quite inflexible. 
Here, CP is done best while forming a line. Unlike in B2, CP here requires an entire trigger rather than a single move, but that is a more human way of doing it. The flexibility of the trigger facilitates forming a line, and it can be done in inspection much more realistically (and efficently).
Now extending a line to a block (like in YruRU) is possible, but it is much simpler to simply ignore the centre. This will firstly ensure you always figure out the most efficient way of doing it (since only two pieces are involved, the system remains simple); moreover since we are doing M moves to finish anyway, we can solve the centre when we have relatively lesser pressure of looking ahead. This doesn't cost any moves or major regrips, enhances lookahead and efficiency during the start of the solve, and moreover enables us to influence EO much more realistically and consistently compared to as intended by BLS.
Off the point, a minor variation is also that the 4-seasons(?) algset includes the R U R' insertion which is what a lot of pairs will set up to (and potentially the r U' r' if people use it often enough, thus the name "4"-seasons).
The long and short of it is, the way CP is done in both methods is vastly different, and that completely changes the texture of the rest of the solve.


----------



## Devagio (May 1, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Actually, it would only be 8, as at least one edge will always be pre-oriented, making it compareable to Petrus EO. Petrus EO, contrary to popular belief, isn't that hard or time consuming. You only need to find two flipped edges and then you can recognize the next two while fixing the first two, and keep repeating this.


Not the point, but it does make a difference if its 8 edges or 9. While there can be a maximum of 8 misoriented edges, we will need to check the orientation of at least 8 edges in YruRU to determine the EO case. If there were actually only 8 edges, the task would simplify as we could look at 7 edges and be sure. This difference of checking 1 edge is much larger than it looks.


----------



## brododragon (May 1, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Not the point, but it does make a difference if its 8 edges or 9. While there can be a maximum of 8 misoriented edges, we will need to check the orientation of at least 8 edges in YruRU to determine the EO case. If there were actually only 8 edges, the task would simplify as we could look at 7 edges and be sure. This difference of checking 1 edge is much larger than it looks.


You don't need to check it because you can deduce what it is from the other edges. (Odd number of flipped edges = 9th edge is flipped, Even number = Not flipped)


----------



## Ayce (May 2, 2020)

So, you might be thinking, what does CFLIP mean and why is it flawed. Well CFLIP means corner flip but a bit shorter and better to distinct a corner flip, and my substep. I'll get to why it is flawed towards the end. CFLIP is a substep where you flip one corner at the start of your solve to get a better OLL. This* will not *help you if all of your OLL is within a reasonable time between the hard and easy. (or at all but again I'll get to that.) But for those who have stupidly varying OLL times then this might make a bit more sense. Here is a simple layout

Plan out your cross like you usually would.
Since you know your cross color, go ahead and do the cursed thing and flip your corner.
Solve the cube just like you usually would but stop at OLL
Flip the corner again into an easier case.
Continue onto PLL ignoring the crime you just committed.
*BUT *this concept is a direct violation of Regulation 3h3 "Any modifications to a puzzle that result in poor performance by a competitor are not grounds for additional attempts." 
Not only that but it would be hard to explain this in a reconstruction.
Did I write an article about a useless substep because I was bored in quarantine? *Absolutely yes.*

I do have one request. If you could try this out and tell me what you usually average and then do an Ao5 using my concept that would be great.


----------



## ProStar (May 2, 2020)

You can make it even better: If you get a bad F2L case then you can flip then. Also when I did this my flip in F2L solved a pair and the flip at OLL gave me a CLL skip and a super easy ELL XD


----------



## Ayce (May 2, 2020)

ProStar said:


> You can make it even better: If you get a bad F2L case then you can flip then. Also when I did this my flip in F2L solved a pair and the flip at OLL gave me a CLL skip and a super easy ELL XD


Still not complete legal, but if you are sneaky and with dishonest intentions then most judges won’t notice anything besides a few weird corner twists


----------



## brododragon (May 2, 2020)

Ayce said:


> "Any modifications to a puzzle that result in poor performance by a competitor are not grounds for additional attempts."


That has nothing to do with it. That says you can't make your puzzle intentionally worse just so you get extra solves.


----------



## ProStar (May 3, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> First off, grab a 2x2 cube. (Do NOT use a 3x3 right now, it will be harder)
> 
> Then, apply the sequence R2 U F2 U' F2 R2. (Or you could do any other sequence that also preserves CO)
> 
> ...



I've been using your advice, and it's made my CO way more efficient. There are a couple cases that I have trouble with though, one where I have 2 bad corners in different layers and one where 4 corners are flipped, but I can't set it up to R U2 R' or R easily. Any tips for those cases?


----------



## Username: Username: (May 3, 2020)

I think this is a very common columns-first method variant, I also came up with this exact same idea except the LL is CLL and ELL.


----------



## SirCuberCat (May 3, 2020)

well, I might as well put my method here
UPDATE: I made some changes, it follows more of a roux way now



Username: Username: said:


> I think this is a very common columns-first method variant, I also came up with this exact same idea except the LL is CLL and ELL.


Oh yeah, however the cross can also be included and the LL step is morphed with CFOP. Should I name this a hybrid instead of a original method?


----------



## Username: Username: (May 3, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> Oh yeah, however the cross can also be included and the LL step is morphed with CFOP. Should I name this a hybrid instead of a original method?



If there is a cross, and same CFOP LL, it is just CFOP.


----------



## SirCuberCat (May 3, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> If there is a cross, and same CFOP LL, it is just CFOP.


I think I haven't worded it correctly (well), the cross is meant to be a line


----------



## Username: Username: (May 3, 2020)

Wait, If you have a line across it, I think it is Roux? can you give me an example solve?

because you have a horizontal line, and then near the corresponding edges (DR and DB edges) there are two F2L pairs on each edge (the DR and DL edge), which makes two blocks, Roux does that.


----------



## SirCuberCat (May 3, 2020)

Lol I can only do pictures, the order is in ascending order.
The Line is made with two good edges. Then F2L is made. Turns out this is slightly different way of F2B in Roux
Then you have CMLL, then OLL.
I think I created a Roux CFOP Hybrid.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 3, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> Lol I can only do pictures, the order is in ascending order.
> The Line is made with two good edges. Then F2L is made. Turns out this is slightly different way of F2B in Roux
> Then you have CMLL, then OLL.
> I think I created a Roux CFOP Hybrid.



What about PLL? it's only the EPLLs right?


----------



## ProStar (May 3, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> well, I might as well put my method here



This is a PCMS variant

I already replied to your post in the new method thread, but this is a variant of PCMS. Also, doing ELL would be much better than doing EO EPLL.


----------



## Ayce (May 3, 2020)

I’ll try an Ao5 with my variant and see how poorly this goes


----------



## brododragon (May 3, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> well, I might as well put my method here


When do you solve D edges? Also, what keeps H and Z Perms from happening?

When are DF and DB solved?


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 3, 2020)

brododragon said:


> When are DF and DB solved?


Step 3a


----------



## SirCuberCat (May 3, 2020)

brododragon said:


> When do you solve D edges? Also, what keeps H and Z Perms from happening?
> 
> When are DF and DB solved?


bro h perms and z perms still happen, it's just edge cycles at the last step. You can use ELL, but frankly I don't feel like learning algorithms


----------



## ProStar (May 3, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> bro h perms and z perms still happen, it's just edge cycles at the last step. You can use ELL, but frankly I don't feel like learning algorithms



This is still just a common PCMS variant:

Pairs
CMSLL (CMLL except it also ignores S)
B4E (bottom 4 edges, not an official term)
ELL (or in your case, 2-look ELL)


----------



## SirCuberCat (May 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This is still just a common PCMS variant:
> 
> Pairs
> CMSLL (CMLL except it also ignores S)
> ...


I'm having trouble finding out why the method is a "common variant", since I've never seen it before. It is a variant, but I can't find it anywhere\

By the way I did edit it a bit.

So:

Two Cross edges
F2L Pairs
CLL
Insertion of B2E
ELL


----------



## ProStar (May 4, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> I'm having trouble finding out why the method is a "common variant", since I've never seen it before. It is a variant, but I can't find it anywhere\



It's the most popular variant, check the wiki page



SirCuberCat said:


> By the way I did edit it a bit.
> 
> So:
> 
> ...



This is bad CFCE, similar to how F2B->B2E->OLL->PLL is bad CFOP. Check @Timecard47's profile, he made this also


----------



## brododragon (May 4, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> bro h perms and z perms still happen, it's just edge cycles at the last step. You can use ELL, but frankly I don't feel like learning algorithms


Then why'd you say only U perms?


----------



## SirCuberCat (May 4, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Then why'd you say only U perms?


? It doesn't say that if you go check


----------



## ProStar (May 4, 2020)

SirCuberCat said:


> ? It doesn't say that if you go check



Originally you said after EO you'd end up with a U-Perm


----------



## SirCuberCat (May 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Originally you said after EO you'd end up with a U-Perm


I think I messed up or something, anyway Im still sticking to CFOP

But I might look into Roux


----------



## Athefre (May 5, 2020)

Some interesting method-related quotes from the now closed speedsolvingrubikscube group. I've known about these for years, but haven't posted them until now.



Spoiler: Ryan Heise's EOLine and EOCross



1/07/2003

This is another idea I had a while ago. It similar to the Petrus idea of
orienting edges early so that you only need to turn two sides.

Instead, we orient all edges right at the beginning, create a "line" on
the D side from front to back (or a cross if you wish), then we only
need to turn three sides to solve the rest of the cube (L, U, R). This
also means you don't ever need to rotate the cube.

To see what I mean, have a look at this video by AdaM:



http://borntodie.free.fr/videos/solvedin16.avi



Either by plan or by chance, all of your F2L edges must have been
oriented after your first few opening moves. We can deduce this because
after that you only used L,U,R turns to solve the rest of the F2L. On
the other hand, not all of your LL edges were oriented. I have to say
seeing you solve the cube without rotating it looks pretty cool.

Note, it only takes 4.6 moves on average to orient all edges at the
beginning, and maybe you can combine this with placing parts of the
"line" or "cross".





Spoiler: Gilles Roux's CP Line (In reply to the above)



1/07/2003

If you don't want to rotate the cube or move your left hand, here's
something you can do too:
- Make a 1x1x3 line: DLB, DL, DLF (4 moves)
- Make the 6 remaining corners solvable in <R,U> (3 moves)
- Then, solve everything using R, U, r and u only. (Hint: siamese cubes)

As an example, see my solution on this page:


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dan_j_harris/fmcresults/230503results.html



Gilles.

PS: This method is useless for sub20 cubing.





Spoiler: Ryan Heise Non-Matching Blocks



11/12/2002

I have thought of a possible improvement that may apply to more than
just one method.

To demonstrate, consider the petrus method:

1. solve a 2x2x3 block
2. complete the first two layers by adding a 3x2x1 slice
3. complete the last layer

One approach for step 2 is:

a. build a 2x2x1 section
b. add on a 1x2x1 section

For (a), you can choose between 4 starting points and pick the easiest one. If
you find a good one, it can be done in 2, 3 or 4 moves. Otherwise it can take
about 8 moves. Sometimes there are no good options among the 4 starting
points.

But now consider that there are actually 8 different 3x2x1 slices to choose
from in step 2. The slice you choose doesn't have to join with step 1 with
matching colours, it just needs to be the same shape. In the final step, you
can slide this slice back to where it should go in just one move.

This gives you 8 different options for step 2a, greatly increasing your
chances of finding a good option.

Once you get to the final layer, you have to be able to recognise all the
patterns with three of the pieces being a different colour, but it's not as
difficult as you might think - try it. Of course, some systems for the last
layer may be easier to handle than others.

This idea also applies, with more opportunities, in the tripod approach
described in my last email.





Spoiler: Jessica Fridrich on Developing F2L



23/07/2003

I am quite sure that there are many people who came up with this 
idea for solving the F2L independently, so it will be next to 
impossible to find the "inventor". I learned about it when I joined 
the college. There were at least 5 guys (all coming from the same 
high school) doing the F2L this way. However, they solved the F2L 
kind of intuitively using lots of auxiliary moves with only a 
handful of basic intuitive moves. As a result, they were not too 
fast, and so I did not pay attention to this idea at first. Then, 
one day just for fun I tried to solve the F2L using this approach 
and quickly saw the _potential_ of this approach. However, it needed 
a substantial "overhaul". Thus, I developed over a dozen new, less 
obvious algorithms that you can see on my page.

It must have been somebody from that high school from which the 5 
guys came who "invented" the idea. Perhaps, we could find out the 
name if I contact those 5 guys and talk to them. Then, we would have 
to ask Guus about the origin of his system and try to decide who 
was "first" ... Any volunteers for this?



I thought Gilles Roux's CP line was an interesting find considering a recent topic and debate about the viability. The others show that Ryan Heise proposed EOLine three years before Zbigniew Zborowski, the first proposal for non-matching blocks in a speedsolve, and that Jessica Fridrich did more than just use the F2L method she learned from others - she developed it to a more advanced form.

I've always thought Ryan Heise is one of the greatest method developers. His completely intuitive Heise method with non-matching blocks and EO built in, HTA, Tripod, said that he experimented with an EO form of the Roux method before 2003, and the first to propose the EOLine/EOCross idea.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 5, 2020)

Athefre said:


> Some interesting method-related quotes from the now closed speedsolvingrubikscube group. I've known about these for years, but haven't posted them until now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


'This method is useless for sub-20 cubing' lol. I'm sure sub-20 is doable.


----------



## Athefre (May 5, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> 'This method is useless for sub-20 cubing' lol. I'm sure sub-20 is doable.



You have to think of the times. Back then we saw things as having limits. The idea of someone solving the cube under eight seconds was viewed as impossible by most people. Methods have improved in small ways, techniques have been developed, new fingertricks have been discovered, and hardware has improved dramatically.


----------



## ProStar (May 5, 2020)

Yau5 for 4x4? It could work for Petrus, because at 3x3 stage 2x2x3 is done, and you could just not place the final cross edge


----------



## fun at the joy (May 5, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Yau5 for 4x4? It could work for Petrus, because at 3x3 stage 2x2x3 is done, and you could just not place the final cross edge


lol I did some solves with this and on the 4th or 5th I was confused that I had 1 misoriented edge during EO and wasted like 15s until I finally realized the there is something called OLL Parity.


----------



## gogozerg (May 5, 2020)

Athefre said:


> I thought Gilles Roux's CP line was


Wow, did I write this 17 years ago?


> The others show that Ryan Heise proposed EOLine three years before Zbigniew Zborowski


Many people discussed this method (i.e. 1/ Solve DF+DB while orienting edges 2/ Finish F2L in <U, L, R> 3/ Finish last layer with Petrus 5+6+7) long before. Look at the link in Ryan's post (borntodie...), it's a link to Adam Géhin, the fastest speedcuber I knew in 2003, we thought a lot about this technique together at that time, and dismissed it for the same reasons I would dismiss it today.


----------



## Athefre (May 5, 2020)

gogozerg said:


> Wow, did I write this 17 years ago?
> 
> Many people discussed this method (i.e. 1/ Solve DF+DB while orienting edges 2/ Finish F2L in <U, L, R> 3/ Finish last layer with Petrus 5+6+7) long before. Look at the link in Ryan's post (borntodie...), it's a link to Adam Géhin, the fastest speedcuber I knew in 2003, we thought a lot about this technique together at that time, and dismissed it for same reasons I would dismiss it today.



Interesting. I had heard that you thought about this before. It's good to have confirmation.


----------



## gogozerg (May 6, 2020)

Athefre said:


> I had heard that you thought about this before.



Again, not just me, many others.
With Adam, it was natural to think about it. We were both using Lars' approach (but with a PLL ending - AKA "Petrich"). In those times, the early edge orientation trick and <R,U> abuse looked nice (especially with our old rusted cubes), and thinking about applying it even earlier was rather straightforward. He decided to go full Fridrich, I was lazy.
By the way, we used to call "Petrus 5+6+7" the principle of solving the last layer with 1 sequence, once the LL edges oriented. Bernard Helmstetter was the first to generate all those LL cases, with multiple solving sequences (possibly in the 90's).


----------



## Athefre (May 6, 2020)

gogozerg said:


> Again, not just me, many others.
> With Adam, it was natural to think about it. We were both using Lars' approach (but with a PLL ending - AKA "Petrich"). In those times, the early edge orientation trick and <R,U> abuse looked nice (especially with our old rusted cubes), and thinking about applying it even earlier was rather straightforward. He decided to go full Fridrich, I was lazy.
> By the way, we used to call "Petrus 5+6+7" the principle of solving the last layer with 1 sequence, once the LL edges oriented. Bernard Helmstetter was the first to generate all those LL cases, with multiple solving sequences (possibly in the 90's).



I see what you mean. There are many ideas, and even things that were completely developed before, that now have other people's names attached. Sometimes there is no overlap for people to carry knowledge over so things become lost to history. Then someone reinvents and they get most of the credit. I've gone through many posts in the archives to find the origins of things so that I can restore them to the proper person, as best as possible.



gogozerg said:


> Wow, did I write this 17 years ago?



Time has really gone by fast. It doesn't feel so long ago when we were gathered in that discussion group.


----------



## gogozerg (May 6, 2020)

Athefre said:


> Sometimes there is no overlap for people to carry knowledge over so things become lost to history.


And sometimes, people seem to decide what History has to be.
I gave you the insane last-layer approach as an example among many others.
When you read https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLL , it seems that someone suddenly thought about solving the last layer with oriented edges in 2002.
Not only hundreds of people had this basic idea before, but it was already developed, and absolutely everybody knew about it thanks to http://speedcubing.com/ .

In the meantime, some have done a great job making people forget Jessica's name...


----------



## Athefre (May 7, 2020)

gogozerg said:


> And sometimes, people seem to decide what History has to be.
> I gave you the insane last-layer approach as an example among many others.
> When you read https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLL , it seems that someone suddenly thought about solving the last layer with oriented edges in 2002.
> Not only hundreds of people had this basic idea before, but it was already developed, and absolutely everybody knew about it thanks to http://speedcubing.com/ .
> ...



What do you propose that we do? What other things have you noticed have been recreated, or, in the case of oriented edges LL, have been taken over? Maybe we could put together a few things or some sort of history timeline. That could go toward helping the community understand that people didn't suddenly start having ideas only 15-20 years ago. I feel like the community thinks that the puzzle was introduced in the 70's and people only ever thought about layer-by-layer and corners first until the internet was invented.

We're in an age of reinvention. There are so many recent methods on the wiki that aren't unique at all, yet have someone listed as the proposer in 2020. I've even noticed it recently in a few of the things I've done. People have recreated my developments and I have tried to bring awareness. It is difficult because the tendency is to associate something with the one who popularized. It's also possible that some of the things I've created have been developed before.

Feel free to send me a PM or email ([email protected]) if you have ideas.


----------



## PizzaCuber (May 7, 2020)

I didn’t know Giles was on the forums! That’s pretty cool! Do people treat you like a celebrity when they meet you or what?


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 7, 2020)

Please make a timeline, then we can have a kinda database of "The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea"s, so people can actually have a look at what's happened. I wonder what cubing would be like if all you first generation people carried on cubing consistently, because it's clear that cubing would most likely be in a different (and probably better due to lack of method stagnation) place. Only really now is method stagnation less of a thing due to people theory crafting new ideas (that might not be new) again.


----------



## Athefre (May 7, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Please make a timeline, then we can have a kinda database of "The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea"s, so people can actually have a look at what's happened. I wonder what cubing would be like if all you first generation people carried on cubing consistently, because it's clear that cubing would most likely be in a different (and probably better due to lack of method stagnation) place. Only really now is method stagnation less of a thing due to people theory crafting new ideas (that might not be new) again.



I've got some things written so far. I also have a plan for what it should be like. It won't happen really soon because this requires and deserves time. It needs to be done the right way.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 8, 2020)

According to @ProStar , I never posted this, so here: I am officially posting HK+. Read the wiki article if you want to know what it is.


----------



## Athefre (May 9, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> According to @ProStar , I never posted this, so here: I am officially posting HK+. Read the wiki article if you want to know what it is.



Are there any differences between the first four steps of this and the first four steps of Yau? The fifth and final step of Yau is to solve F2L+LL. As it is now, based on the HK+ wiki page, it appears to be a suggestion to use Yau as the big cube method for HK. Is it a stretch of the Yau wiki page's wording, the F2L acronym, leaving out one edge in F2L and calling it a new method? Or is there more to be changed/added to the HK+ wiki page?


----------



## ProStar (May 9, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> According to @ProStar , I never posted this, so here: I am officially posting HK+. Read the wiki article if you want to know what it is.



This looks exactly like Yau, with the only differences being:

You don't solve the last cross edge after centers
You solve 3x3 different


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 9, 2020)

Athefre said:


> Are there any differences between the first four steps of this and the first four steps of Yau? The fifth and final step of Yau is to solve F2L+LL. As it is now, based on the HK+ wiki page, it appears to be a suggestion to use Yau as the big cube method for HK. Is it a stretch of the Yau wiki page's wording, the F2L acronym, leaving out one edge in F2L and calling it a new method? Or is there more to be changed/added to the HK+ wiki page?





ProStar said:


> This looks exactly like Yau, with the only differences being:
> 
> You don't solve the last cross edge after centers
> You solve 3x3 different


It is basically Yau. Only difference is what @ProStar said. It allows you to do 4-2-3 edge pairing(which I might have come up with). If you want, you can call it a Yau variant. It is just a way to make a reduction good for Hawaiian Kociemba.


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 9, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> According to @ProStar , I never posted this, so here: I am officially posting HK+. Read the wiki article if you want to know what it is.


What about EOArrow? It seems like your method only allows for CFOP-style DougLi block.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 9, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> What about EOArrow? It seems like your method only allows for CFOP-style DougLi block.


That is basically true. One could do the back pairs first(or do them during edge pairing like Yau5) and then do Petrus style EO


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 9, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> That is basically true. One could do the back pairs first(or do them during edge pairing like Yau5) and then do Petrus style EO


Another possible approach is to use 4Z4 without placing the DR edge. That would make the DougLi block fully <RUL>-gen instead of only the right block.


----------



## FinnTheCuber (May 11, 2020)

My idea is to start with the first blocks on roux. Then continue to sole the other two cross edges. Then proceed with normal oll and ppl. Dont know if this is new or not. And if it is, could someone please test it for me?


----------



## ProStar (May 11, 2020)

This is proposed a lot, it's not nearly as good as normal CFOP or Roux. Also, future method ideas should probably be posted in the new method thread.


----------



## brododragon (May 11, 2020)

Could an adapted version of Yau5 be used on 4x4 for Petrus? It would be the exact same except you don't solve the last cross edge and you make sure EO is correct while edge pairing. You could do OLL parity with a shortened alg because you don't have to preserve the Last Block, making parity a bit easier.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 11, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Could an adapted version of Yau5 be used on 4x4 for Petrus? It would be the exact same except you don't solve the last cross edge and you make sure EO is correct while edge pairing. You could do OLL parity with a shortened alg because you don't have to preserve the Last Block, making parity a bit easier.


I think that could work but I'm not sure if it's as good as existing methods for Petrus. I think that instead of doing a 3rd cross edge you could do the final edge in the beginning 2x2 and then move that over after so there is more freedom during a modified 323. I also think that doing something like this but with Hoya could also have some promise.


----------



## ProStar (May 11, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Could an adapted version of Yau5 be used on 4x4 for Petrus? It would be the exact same except you don't solve the last cross edge and you make sure EO is correct while edge pairing. You could do OLL parity with a shortened alg because you don't have to preserve the Last Block, making parity a bit easier.



I've suggested this on here twice...


----------



## brododragon (May 12, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I've suggested this on here twice...


I know but I wanted to add the forced EO skip and the easy parity part. Also, I wanted to give it some more publicity.


----------



## brododragon (May 12, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I think that could work but I'm not sure if it's as good as existing methods for Petrus. I think that instead of doing a 3rd cross edge you could do the final edge in the beginning 2x2 and then move that over after so there is more freedom during a modified 323. I also think that doing something like this but with Hoya could also have some promise.


Can you elaborate? (Maybe a numbered list would help)

Here's something I came up with:

*1*. Hoya F4C (L/R centers, B/D centers).
*2*. Blockbuild a 1x3x4 on the D layer, and make sure it touches L/B/R, pairing dedged when needed.
*3a*. Pair 3 dedges simultaneously (like in 3-2-3), making sure to only pair one back slot.
*3b*. Do an F move, then pair up another 3 dedges. You should now have 3 dedges unpaired and 2x2x3 done.
*3c*. Somehow simultaneously do L3E and EO. Maybe an alg? I would imagine it wouldn't be too many.
*OLL Parity*: Use a shortened alg that doesn't preserve Last Block.
*4*. 3x3 stage with only 2-3 shortish steps! (LB, OLL, PLL or LB, ZBLL).


3x3 stage is massively faster than Yau 3x3 stage because F2L is only 2 pairs (plus an edge, but that takes no time at all), has super easy OLL, and then some normal PLL. The dedge pairing might still need some work; I'm no 4x4 expert.

*EDIT: *I forgot how to English.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 12, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Can you elaborate? (Maybe a numbered list would help)


Okay here we go

1. F2C // Standard F2C nothing fancy here
2. 2x2 edges // Make the 3 edges used in your 2x2 like you would in yau for cross in the same position as cross
3. L4C // Do this exactly like yau
4 Solve 2x2 // Solve the 2x2 block like you would in petrus
5 2-2-2-3 // Solve 2 edges using a 3 cycle and put those in the bottom slots, then proceed to do 3-2-3 but there is a pre-solved edge so its actually 2-2-3
6 3x3 stage // Self explanitory
6a Parity // Recognize OLL parity during your EO and use a shorter alg than the standard Drew or Lucas parity. PLL parity should be taken care of during PLL

If this method does not already exist I would like to coin the name of the method as Pau (Pronounced POW)


----------



## brododragon (May 12, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Okay here we go
> 
> 1. F2C // Standard F2C nothing fancy here
> 2. 2x2 edges // Make the 3 edges used in your 2x2 like you would in yau for cross in the same position as cross
> ...


So in 3x3 you end up with XCross?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 12, 2020)

brododragon said:


> So in 3x3 you end up with XCross?


No. You have your 2x2 and then once you finish the reduction part then you make a 2x2x3, then do EO+Parity, Then you finish your F2L, OLL, And PLL like a regular Petrus solve.


----------



## ProStar (May 12, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Okay here we go
> 
> 1. F2C // Standard F2C nothing fancy here
> 2. 2x2 edges // Make the 3 edges used in your 2x2 like you would in yau for cross in the same position as cross
> ...



I made something very similar to this, it was my first version of a Petrus/Petrus-W method for 4x4. If you go back, I'm sure you can find it


----------



## xcross (May 15, 2020)

This idea probably exists already, and even if it doesn't, its horribly inefficent, but

1. first face -1 corner (face can be made of any 2 colors, but they must be opposite, ie: red and orange.)
2. CO
3. Seperate
4. PBL


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

xcross said:


> This idea probably exists already, and even if it doesn't, its horribly inefficent, but
> 
> 1. first face -1 corner (face can be made of any 2 colors, but they must be opposite, ie: red and orange.)
> 2. CO
> ...



This is Guimond


----------



## FinnTheCuber (May 15, 2020)

Maybe new idea. Do a roux solve through eo. then transfer all of the edges to the correct face intuitively to get a normal pll case.


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

FinnTheCuber said:


> Maybe new idea. Do a roux solve through eo. then transfer all of the edges to the correct face intuitively to get a normal pll case.



This has been proposed, F2B->OLL->B2E->PLL, it's not as good as plain CFOP or Roux


----------



## FinnTheCuber (May 15, 2020)

Would anybody try it tho? I want someone whose better than me to see how fast they could get with it


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

FinnTheCuber said:


> Would anybody try it tho? I want someone whose better than me to see how fast they could get with it



Trust me, people have tried it, and it's not as good. I got 23.49


----------



## FinnTheCuber (May 15, 2020)

k


----------



## Alexander (May 17, 2020)

On my new website i have made a view Blog post about some ideas that i have fopr a view puzzles like 3x3 and 4x4

3x3

PLL headlight on the left
1SR (1 side recognition)
 4x4

building center and edges at the same time possible extetion for YAU






HOME | Speedcubing


Speedcubing ideas and methods this is the place for solving your rubiks cube.




apajoooms.wixsite.com




or





HOME | Speedcubing


Speedcubing ideas and methods this is the place for solving your rubiks cube.




sc.apajo.nl


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 17, 2020)

Just in general on your website, it looks good but there are definitely a lot better PLL algs out there. Check these ones out. In terms of PLL recognition, that's already a commonly used thing but your OLL 1SR would definitely be useful for someone trying to seriously optimise their LL. The 4x4 yau thing isn't very clear, but from the dates on the website I can tell that your native language isn't English and is probably Dutch. From what I can gather though, it's just influencing the edges so that when you solve the centres you skip the edge pairing step, which would definitely be a useful trick in some cases.


----------



## Alexander (May 17, 2020)

The pll is what i User for HL in the left recogintion is like 2sr nut less to learn. I dont have to think wherre the HL in the left while doping auf 

for the build center and edges together is my method and extensions to Yau. The (rR)2 can also en just with r2.


----------



## Alexander (May 17, 2020)

English is not my main language its dutch yes.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

I'm a dummy when it comes to this stuff but is there a viable LS+EO subset for OH?


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I'm a dummy when it comes to this stuff but is there a viable LS+EO subset for OH?



Last pair made or no?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Last pair made or no?


Yes.

Also no if there is a way to do it semi-intuitivley


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Yes.
> 
> Also no if there is a way to do it semi-intuitivley



Only way to do it while pair is made is VHLS, so I guess you could do OH optimized algs for it. Though honestly your best option is just OLL->PLL


----------



## brododragon (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Also no if there is a way to do it semi-intuitivley


Sure. Use <RU> to insert a bad edge into the LS, then use <FU> to flip it along with another bad edge. If there are still bad edges, repeat. Then just do LS with <RU>.


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Sure. Use <RU> to insert a bad edge into the LS, then use <FU> to flip it along with another bad edge. If there are still bad edges, repeat. Then just do LS with <RU>.



*Or you could just use Petrus*


This is literally Petrus EO


----------



## brododragon (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *Or you could just use Petrus*
> 
> 
> This is literally Petrus EO


Yeah, just Petrus with a block skip.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *Or you could just use Petrus*
> 
> 
> This is literally Petrus EO


Im honestly considering using petrus for OH. I think my biggest problem is I only know like 20 olls and that is magnified in my OH solves. @PetrusQuber you got a copy of EO for dummies?


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Im honestly considering using petrus for OH



Please note it will be very hard to use different methods for OH and TH, although at least it's not like Roux and CFOP where it's totally different



Sub1Hour said:


> I think my biggest problem is I only know like 20 olls and that is magnified in my OH solves.



What?



Sub1Hour said:


> @PetrusQuber you got a copy of EO for dummies?



Best resource to learn EO right now is Lars' website: https://lar5.com/cube/fas3.html

(*cough cough* Silgo *cough cough* Porquipine *cough cough* hurry up *cough cough*)


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Please note it will be very hard to use different methods for OH and TH, although at least it's not like Roux and CFOP where it's totally different
> 
> 
> 
> What?


I like Petrus since the fundamentals are mostly the same and they are much closer together than most other 3x3 methods. It's not too hard for a Petrus user to switch to CFOP and vice versa since the concepts are quite similar.



literally everyone else that is in the "Fast Category" in my state won't stop telling me to learn OLL. I know its good for me and stuff but 3x3 is not my favorite or best event and I'm not looking to improve all that much quite yet until I am able to secure my spot in the square-1 hierarchy


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I like Petrus since the fundamentals are mostly the same and they are much closer together than most other 3x3 methods. It's not too hard for a Petrus user to switch to CFOP and vice versa since the concepts are quite similar.



Not trying to discourage you, but even the steps are similar, the way you do them is way different. 222+223 are done with blockbuilding instead of pairs , same with L2P. 



Sub1Hour said:


> literally everyone else that is in the "Fast Category" in my state won't stop telling me to learn OLL. I know its good for me and stuff but 3x3 is not my favorite or best event and I'm not looking to improve all that much quite yet until I am able to secure my spot in the square-1 hierarchy



What does this have to do with using Petrus for OH lol


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> What does this have to do with using Petrus for OH lol


So I don't have to learn OLL


----------



## ProStar (May 17, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> So I don't have to learn OLL



For TH you still do(I mean, you don't have to, but to get fast it's highly recommended)


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> For TH you still do(I mean, you don't have to, but to get fast it's highly recommended)


Eh, ill do that once I'm done with CSP and L2E


ProStar said:


> Not trying to discourage you, but even the steps are similar, the way you do them is way different. 222+223 are done with blockbuilding instead of pairs , same with L2P.


I use Bálint for megaminx so I'm quite comfortable with block building


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 17, 2020)

Just got a 25 on OH with Petrus, I'm definitely switching.


----------



## Athefre (May 19, 2020)

*Time Travel Solving

CFOP:*

Normal

Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
X-Cross: z’ y’ D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’
OLL: U’ F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f'
PLL: U2 R' U' R U' L R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R2 U R U

TTS (POCF)

Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
PLL: z’ y’ R' U2 D2 B2 R D' R' U B2 D' B2 R2 D' R U
OLL: U D F' D' R D' F R' D B' D F B U' D' R
X-Cross: D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’

LL Skip!

*Roux:*

Normal:

Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x3: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r
CMLL: R’ U’ R’ F R F’ R U’ R’ U2 R
LSE: M’ U2 M’ U2 M U M’ U M U2 M U M’ U2 M’

TTS:

Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
4c+4b (EPLR): E2 M’ E2 M U D M B' M' B2 M' B' M U' D'
4a: R2 U M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U’ R2
Corners: F' U F U' R2 U2 F' D' F U2 D R2 F
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x2: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r

CMLL+LSE Skip!

This is like traveling to the future, seeing the problems that will occur, then coming back and preventing those problems in the present. An alternate way of doing this is of course to do a setup to place the pieces in the same positions as they would be in a normal solve, perform the normal alg, then undo the setup. I don't yet see any useful applications for this concept. Just something interesting to think about. Maybe the opposite version of this, traveling to the past, would be altering the solved cube in such a way that the scramble will result back in the solved state. Or altering the scramble itself if that would be allowable.


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 19, 2020)

Athefre said:


> *Time Travel Solving
> 
> CFOP:*
> 
> ...



Travelling to the future seems similar to insertions: you solve up to a certain point and then try to solve the remaining pieces somewhere else in your current solution/skeleton.
I wonder if it's possible to apply it to something other than FMC and blindfolded solving. Maybe events where you can sometimes predict the whole solve like 2x2 and Pyraminx?


----------



## Athefre (May 19, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> Travelling to the future seems similar to insertions: you solve up to a certain point and then try to solve the remaining pieces somewhere else in your current solution/skeleton.
> I wonder if it's possible to apply it to something other than FMC and blindfolded solving. Maybe events where you can sometimes predict the whole solve like 2x2 and Pyraminx?



After I posted, I did think that it is similar to FMC techniques, though with more involvement. Interesting point about using it for the easy events. It has me thinking that there could be a method where the first step is to maybe solve a few pieces, see what the final case will be, then choose the best of several memorized paths to reduce the move count. Or follow that path before the first step, making that the actual first step. Maybe it would be fast or maybe it would require a lot of thinking. I'll think about this more.


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (May 19, 2020)

I had this idea for last layer where you solve two "J"s, so Im calling the idea JJLL. You start by doing an auf to permute the UB edge, and then an alg to orient that edge and permute and orient the UR edge, ULB corner, and URB corner, this forms a little "J". The next part you basically do the same thing without the auf at the beginning, and it solves the rest of the last layer, but there are likely less algs because of only 2 possible EOs. I think this would be a lot of algs and I dont really know if it would be useful. The number of algs could be reduced by doing beginners variations, such as doing EO first. Some of the algs would already be familiar, such as J perms. Thoughts?


----------



## brododragon (May 19, 2020)

PingPongCuber said:


> I had this idea for last layer where you solve two "J"s, so Im calling the idea JJLL. You start by doing an auf to permute the UB edge, and then an alg to orient that edge and permute and orient the UR edge, ULB corner, and URB corner, this forms a little "J". The next part you basically do the same thing without the auf at the beginning, and it solves the rest of the last layer, but there are likely less algs because of only 2 possible EOs. I think this would be a lot of algs and I dont really know if it would be useful. The number of algs could be reduced by doing beginners variations, such as doing EO first. Some of the algs would already be familiar, such as J perms. Thoughts?


Too many algs. For the first step alone, there is (I think my math is off, but it gives an idea.) 864 algs: 3 (UR edge positions) x (2^2) (EO) x (4 x 3) (corner permutation) x (3 x 2) (corner orientation) = 864. Could someone with a better understanding of theory check my math?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 19, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Too many algs. For the first step alone, there is (I think my math is off, but it gives an idea.) 864 algs: 3 (UR edge positions) x (2^2) (EO) x (4 x 3) (corner permissions) x (3 x 2) (corner orientation) = 864. Could someone with a better understanding of theory check my math?


How come you average 50 and I'm like sub-20 and I don't understand this?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> How come you average 50 and I'm like sub-20 and I don't understand this?


"But you can solve the Rubiks cube fast so you must be good at math"
That is what you sound like.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 19, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> "But you can solve the Rubiks cube fast so you must be good at math"
> That is what you sound like.


Wait let me try to calculate this : UB Edge : 2 cases : UR edge : 6 cases Corner permutation : 6 Corner orientation : 9 
2*6*6*9=648 (different then brodo for some reason


----------



## brododragon (May 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Corner orientation : 6


No. 9. You did 3 + 3 instead of 3 x 3.

EDIT 2: I'm dumb it's 3 x 2 so you're right.
EDIT 3: I thought you said it was 6 but you said 9 so you're wrong.


WarriorCatCuber said:


> How come you average 50 and I'm like sub-20 and I don't understand this?


I don't particularly like 3x3, but love math.

EDIT:


WarriorCatCuber said:


> 6 cases Corner permutation


Nope. 4 positions for first corner times 3 for second equals 12.
EDIT 4: With all those edits, we arrive at the same number.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 19, 2020)

brododragon said:


> No. 9. You did 3 + 3 instead of 3 x 3.
> 
> I don't particularly like 3x3, but love math.


If you don't like 3x3, then why are you on these forums? (not trying to roast or anything, just asking why if you don't like cubing)


----------



## brododragon (May 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> If you don't like 3x3, then why are you on these forums? (not trying to roast or anything, just asking why if you don't like cubing)


I still like cubing, just not especially 3x3.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 19, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I still like cubing, just not especially 3x3.


What events do you prefer?


----------



## brododragon (May 19, 2020)

brododragon said:


> No. 9. You did 3 + 3 instead of 3 x 3.
> 
> EDIT 2: I'm dumb it's 3 x 2 so you're right.
> EDIT 3: I thought you said it was 6 but you said 9 so you're wrong.
> ...


This is proof that I love math, but my brain just can't deal.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 20, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I still like cubing, just not especially 3x3.


SAME. I avg like 12-11 on 3x3 and the only reason I do 3x3 is when I get new hardware to break in or if I don't feel like doing mega squan or big cubes.


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> SAME. I avg like 12-11 on 3x3 and the only reason I do 3x3 is when I get new hardware to break in or if I don't feel like doing mega squan or big cubes.


It kinda feels like it's trying to be a somewhat long event, but it's just too short. I dunno if that's why, but that's what I make of it.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 20, 2020)

This conversation is all about new methods...
Let's get back on topic.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 20, 2020)

Spoiler: Some Thoughts



There are so many kinds of methods that it seems like no one has thought of before. I don't want to generalize all people into one category, but I think most people are more fixated on ideas that they already know about. Like you see people thinking of variants of already existing methods, or mixing methods, but I rarely really see ideas that are truly unique, which, I'm not saying is a terrible thing, because sometimes things similar to things we already know are good (even if they are worse than the original thing), are usually better than completely different novel things.
But I do think some of it comes down to human nature. In general, we tend to think of new solutions very close to old solutions, even if the true best solution is something so simple and elegant but we just didn't think outside of the box enough. I find this really difficult to explain well, though. I know someone else could do a better job of it. For example, let's say you're perfecting a video game speed run by cutting the corners as close as possible and grinding your path to perfection as much as possible, working on all of the small variants like jumping at specific times or places that allow you to keep running to save you a fifth of a second, and you keep looking at small variations of your original idea, but then you failed to notice the simple back door shortcut that saves you ten seconds and is on a path you haven't even looked into. I really don't know if I'm making any sense or even vaguely turning my thoughts into words.
This is honestly just a flow of random thought, but I think we can apply this to method creation. I'm sure that we have already thought of basically all good things based off our current popular and known methods, and now we're mostly only thinking of the infinitely larger pool of bad ideas. Although, some new methods that seem promising now that just haven't had enough thought put into it could use more, finding the best variant of it, but I think if we really want game changing stuff, we have to think outside the box. And we also need some common sense into what makes a method good too, so we're not just spitting out crap, but I think that's just something we pick up easier. I am not saying everyone should do this mumbo jumbo I speak of, but I'm going to try to do what I'm talking about here.



Now, I'm going to try to create a truly original method. I do not guarantee that it is any good, though. Edit: It is good.

Step 1. Form a square on D or L and orient all of the edges on F/B.
Step 2. Orient all edges on an additional axis, on R/L, in a way that orients many corners, preferably atleast four out of eight.
Step 3. Combine and solve any visible and easy blocks and pieces in just a few moves.
Step 4. Apply a commutator or short algorithm that will solve a few more pieces, specifically the type that has fewer solved, usually corners.
Step 5. Finish solving the corners whilst solving/forcing the edges into a easy configuration (like some easy 3-cycle or 8-move algorithm).
Step 6. Use your final simple edge sequence to fully complete your cube.

Example: B2 L' D2 F2 U2 R' F2 L2 U2 L2 B' U' F U2 R2 F2 L U F2

(y x')
R' U D R2 U' x // Step 1
U R' U2 D L // Step 2
D2 F2 // Step 3
L' U L D2 L' U' L D2 // Step 4
y L2 D l' U2 l D' L' U2 L' // Step 5
R2' D r2 B2 R2' D r2 B2 U' // Step 6
(38 HTM)

This is a kind of freestyle method with guidance, and I think it is really cool, unbelievably efficient, and genuinely think it can be very fast.
There isn't a specific defined algorithm set to memorize, but there definitely is a short list of a very useful algorithms I can put in here if needed.
I have yet to give names to the steps or the method as a whole, I'll work on that.
If I truly think this has great potential, I could tweak these steps and provide resources like the aforementioned generally useful algorithms and many example solves of it, my personal speedsolves of it, and some general guides and tips and such.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 20, 2020)

It's pretty cool but it's too general for speedsolving. But I agree with your thoughts.


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 20, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> It's pretty cool but it's too general for speedsolving. But I agree with your thoughts.


I do agree that it is very general and not strictly defined, but I'm going to first try speedsolving with this freestyle method to see if I can get good times with it before I say it's slow and garbage. I bet that you're probably right that it is bad for speedsolving and way too general and that's what I will expect, to be honest. I'll try doing solves with it just in case.


----------



## Athefre (May 20, 2020)

Many have been saying the same thing for years. There usually isn't anything new when someone posts an idea. What you described in your post is definitely different from most. Great job, really. I want to see more examples to get a better understanding. It feels like it is in the same category as Heise. What this means is that it is so intuitive and free-form that it is either not fast enough for speedsolving or people just might not want to put in the effort that it would take to possibly prove that it is speed capable.

Do you think you can actually average under 40 moves in a speedsolve?


----------



## WoowyBaby (May 20, 2020)

I just tried some real speedsolves with it and noticed many flaws. Most notably, after the first two steps, many times there isn't any easy blocks to be solved or made so step 3 isn't consistent, and, after that, your pieces could be in terrible positions, such as 4c2e+1tc or something that just isn't easy to deal with. I do say that that first example solve was pretty lucky. It's generally a pretty bad idea, to be honest. @Athefre I totally agree with everything you're saying, and the question of sub-40 movecount speedsolving is a one that I have had for a long, long time.
I really want to answer that question once and for all, so I'm going to be focusing on a method that truly averages under 40 moves while in a real solve. I don't care if it's not practical for speed because the lookahead sucks or something, I just want a true sub-40 method. There are actually a few methods that come close, and I believe Heise is the closest, with the lowest it can go at about 41-42 moves, not just theoretical, but an actual real user and real solves doing that. (Some methods claim an average of exactly 40 or even less, but none have been proven with real solves. Heise is the most efficient.)


----------



## brododragon (May 20, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> I just tried some real speedsolves with it and noticed many flaws. Most notably, after the first two steps, many times there isn't any easy blocks to be solved or made so step 3 isn't consistent, and, after that, your pieces could be in terrible positions, such as 4c2e+1tc or something that just isn't easy to deal with. I do say that that first example solve was pretty lucky. It's generally a pretty bad idea, to be honest. @Athefre I totally agree with everything you're saying, and the question of sub-40 movecount speedsolving is a one that I have had for a long, long time.
> I really want to answer that question once and for all, so I'm going to be focusing on a method that truly averages under 40 moves while in a real solve. I don't care if it's not practical for speed because the lookahead sucks or something, I just want a true sub-40 method. There are actually a few methods that come close, and I believe Heise is the closest, with the lowest it can go at about 41-42 moves, not just theoretical, but an actual real user and real solves doing that.


I think it really does well with luck but really does terrible without. Maybe with some block influence during the first 2 steps it could be viable.


----------



## sqAree (May 20, 2020)

I'm pretty sure SSC can easily be made sub40 with some modifications. Not saying it would be great for speedsolving then.


----------



## efattah (May 20, 2020)

We've already established that several methods can get sub-40 move averages, if you are willing to learn lots of algs. I posted how LMCF could get sub-40 average moves with 4000 algorithms.

If someone can find an effective speedsolving method that gets sub-40 moves in less than 500 algorithms that would be revolutionary.


----------



## PetraPine (May 20, 2020)

New method idea for 2x2

Step1:Solve the of the first layer corners,

Step2: Orient any other corner into the fourth spot (if it is the first layer corner just do a cll to finish the solve)

Step3 Do a pll to orient top layer and put the white corner in the back and the incorrect corner of the first layer in the front and do one of six TTLL
Algorithms(corners only)

this method seems like a good intermediate method, and if you learn the full set of tols(orients all 5 last corners even if front corner is flipped)
than it could be pretty efficient.









Ribbon Method Printable Algorithm Sheets


TOLS+ Page One TOLS+ (U) R U R' U2 R U R',R U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 R U R',(U) D' R' D R U' R' D' R D,(U2) R U' R' U' R U R' U' R U2 R' R2 U R' U R U2 R2 U R' F R F',R U2 R' F' U F R U R',(U') R U' R' U' R' F R F' R U2 R',R U l U' R' U r U' R' U L' (y' U') L' F R U R' U' F' L,(U') R U' R' F R' F' R2 ...




docs.google.com





this is a list of the ttlls/tols from the ribbon method.

EXAMPLE SOLVE:
scramble:R F R' F' U2 F R'
Z' R' U2 R Y' L' U' L U L F' L' F U2 (alg) D U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 20, 2020)

efattah said:


> We've already established that several methods can get sub-40 move averages, if you are willing to learn lots of algs. I posted how LMCF could get sub-40 average moves with 4000 algorithms.
> 
> If someone can find an effective speedsolving method that gets sub-40 moves in less than 500 algorithms that would be revolutionary.


This.

Instead of working separately and sparadically we could possibly do something that's a pseudo-combined effort. I, for one, am a fan of FB then 2x2x2 (SSF2L). Working together could mean more progress quickly.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> New method idea for 2x2
> 
> Step1:Solve the of the first layer corners,
> 
> ...


This is basically VOP


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> New method idea for 2x2
> 
> Step1:Solve the of the first layer corners,
> 
> ...



The approach you're outlining here is similar to the HD method, except that corners are oriented less efficiently, which in turn doesn't allow you to do PBL (unless one uses your advanced version with TOLS, which would be exactly the same as standard HD).
A small tip I would give you is not to use 3x3 algorithms for 2x2 since, as you may have noticed, they're a bit long and move sequences like U D' don't make much sense on 2x2.


----------



## brododragon (May 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> This.
> 
> Instead of working separately and sparadically we could possibly do something that's a pseudo-combined effort. I, for one, am a fan of FB then 2x2x2 (SSF2L). Working together could mean more progress quickly.


I think that M-CELL could do great as a base to try to develop a method like this. It's got SSF2L and a very efficient, yet low alg finish. I think with non-matching blocks you could probably get under 40. It might sound extremely hard to use NMB, but I think it would be something like blind, where it's mind breaking the first few times, but eventually becomes easier. Some other things you could do: 1-look 2x2x3 (or at least two-look), L6C, L7E.


----------



## FinnTheCuber (May 21, 2020)

New idea. Create your last f2l pair but don't insert it. Then you can use it to intuitively force an edges oriented or case for I'll or a skip. If this is a new idea I will go into more detail in a separate post.


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

FinnTheCuber said:


> New idea. Create your last f2l pair but don't insert it. Then you can use it to intuitively force an edges oriented or case for I'll or a skip. If this is a new idea I will go into more detail in a separate post.



This is just VHLS except done intuitively, which is just ZBLS except the pair has to be made


----------



## FinnTheCuber (May 21, 2020)

Is it a new execution tho?


----------



## ProStar (May 21, 2020)

FinnTheCuber said:


> Is it a new execution tho?



No it's just doing it intuitively, which I have already done(I don't do it in solves because most cases aren't that good)


----------



## FinnTheCuber (May 21, 2020)

Ok


----------



## PetraPine (May 21, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> The approach you're outlining here is similar to the HD method, except that corners are oriented less efficiently, which in turn doesn't allow you to do PBL (unless one uses your advanced version with TOLS, which would be exactly the same as standard HD).
> A small tip I would give you is not to use 3x3 algorithms for 2x2 since, as you may have noticed, they're a bit long and move sequences like U D' don't make much sense on 2x2.


I thought there werent any algs like this for 2x2 I was just sumplaminting these for now
Also it isn't exactly because you're orienting all the corners first and than doing a ttll.
I should of done my research before posting this as I didn't know of the hd method


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 21, 2020)

I'm not sure if this alg set exists yet but I'm gonna throw the idea out there just in case it doesn't. COBL. It's a square-1 set that combines EO and CP into one alg. Not sure how many algs there will be but I think this could potentially be a half-decent way to do 4 look solves without learning PBL.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 22, 2020)

It apparently exists but the algs are apparently bad. That's from a conversation I had with Charlie Stark. Also, 2 alg PBL exists now so you're better off doing that.


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 22, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I thought there werent any algs like this for 2x2 I was just sumplaminting these for now
> Also it isn't exactly because you're orienting all the corners first and than doing a ttll.
> I should of done my research before posting this as I didn't know of the hd method


In case you want some NLL algorithms, here are the "official" ones, WoowyBaby's algs and a sheet from someone else whose name I won't even try to spell.
I wouldn't recommend also permuting corners for your V since everything becomes a lot less efficient and full NLL itself isn't that many algorithms.


----------



## KingOfThePanda (May 23, 2020)

Is This A Method Used By Anyone?

Let me preface this with letting you know that I literally started attempting to speed solve last week, so if this is stupid, just let me know and let me know why.

Currently I am using CFOP, and have a very small OLL and PLL repertoire. I'm averaging 49 seconds out of sheer willpower alone. The biggest issue (besides optimal F2L building) is getting an efficient cross solution.

And because I suck at the Cross in CFOP, I recently started just putting White on bottom and doing F2L, completely ignoring the white cross pieces. After that, I solve the White edges. I asked the Discord, and someone mentioned that this was pretty much just a method called "FreeFOP" (I may have got that name wrong)

Well, I've been messing around with it and I've found that when you just ignore the Cross and do those F2L pairs, the yellow corner pieces on top can be solved just like normal. Then you just have to only use M and U moves to solve the bottom white layer. So now you have F2L solved and the yellow corners oriented. The next step is to figure out a way to move around the yellow edges with only M and U moves.

Firstly, is this an actual method, or am I just bad for ignoring my cross problems?

If this is a method, then how do I find information on how to get better at it? I feel way more comfortable doing it this way, but if there is a good reason why this is bad, then I have no choice but to move on and crunch some crosses.

Any help or advice would be appreciated!

Oh, also I was thinking about it and if you basically just solve only 2 opposite cross pieces in the beginning and do this, you have a Roux setup. So maybe I should learn Roux.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 23, 2020)

It sounds like you're halfway to developing a bad version of something like ssc or pcms.

So, yes it is a known method (or at least a method which has been thought about and considered in the past) but you are still bad for ignoring your cross pieces since that adds so many additional moves and ruins the ergonomics of your solves.


----------



## maticuber (May 23, 2020)

It sounds like a bad version or corner first (basically you solve corners like in a 2x2, then edges). That method was dominant in the 80s, but modern versions of cfop are better.

So, the biggest issue with that method are blindspots, Cross+F2L is great because you already know the location of 1/4th of your edges, and after inserting your first F2L pair you know the location of all the pieces. Not doing the cross takes away a lot of information, not only BD is out of sight, but also all the D face stickers.

You have to also take into consideration that when you do cross, you use 8 moves or less to solve 4 pieces, and after F2L you have 8 pieces that needs to be solved and OLL+PLL does it in ~21 moves. With your method you'll have 12 pieces that needs to be solved and you can't see.

An alternative method that's really similar to what you are trying to do is roux. You completely ignore the cross but do block building, imagine F2L without the M slice, after that you solve the corners and the cube can be solved using M U moves (I'm not familiar with Roux, maybe someone else can explain the method).


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 23, 2020)

KingOfThePanda said:


> Let me preface this with letting you know that I literally started attempting to speed solve last week, so if this is stupid, just let me know and let me know why.
> 
> Currently I am using CFOP, and have a very small OLL and PLL repertoire. I'm averaging 49 seconds out of sheer willpower alone. The biggest issue (besides optimal F2L building) is getting an efficient cross solution.
> 
> ...


this sounds very similar to PCMS which while isn’t terrible but also isn’t as good as roux. if you want a good method that gives you a very free f2l I would advise roux. my other suggestion is to look into lots of different corners first methods such as PCMS and try and develop a viable method for modern speedsolving. If you try this it will take a lot of work and you will spend lots of time on something that may go knowhere But you will get to develop new things and may find the next big method.


----------



## xcross (May 23, 2020)

this is 2 cross pieces away from being roux essentialy.


----------



## ProStar (May 23, 2020)

As stated before, this is a variant of the PCMS method. Many users have "come up with it" at some point, myself included. It's not that great though


----------



## brododragon (May 24, 2020)

What if you reduced the entire cube to 2-gen while doing EOLine in LEOR? I don't know exactly what reduces the cube to that (besides obviously EOLine). Is it CP? This is a very vague idea, but it had potential for OH with development.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What if you reduced the entire cube to 2-gen while doing EOLine in LEOR? I don't know exactly what reduces the cube to that (besides obviously EOLine). Is it CP? This is a very vague idea, but it had potential for OH with development.


I'm not the most knowledgeable person in this field but I think that's the base of YruRu. CP Line makes it so the corners are possible to complete 2gen and the addition of EO makes it completely 2gen after 2x2x3


----------



## mukerflap (May 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What if you reduced the entire cube to 2-gen while doing EOLine in LEOR? I don't know exactly what reduces the cube to that (besides obviously EOLine). Is it CP? This is a very vague idea, but it had potential for OH with development.


because you cant see that far in inspection


----------



## ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken (May 24, 2020)

KingOfThePanda said:


> Is This A Method Used By Anyone?
> 
> Let me preface this with letting you know that I literally started attempting to speed solve last week, so if this is stupid, just let me know and let me know why.
> 
> ...



Maybe you want to check out the Columns first method. Seems that's what you're describing, or something similar. As for if it is bad... I don't know. A downside I could think of is that you can't easily see what's the BD edge, nor the bottom colours of any of the D edges... but again, I've never actually used that


----------



## brododragon (May 24, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> because you cant see that far in inspection


Why do you need to? You can look-ahead.

So, would it be possible to solve CPEOLine after FB to compete the entire cube 2-gen?


----------



## RedstoneTim (May 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Why do you need to? You can look-ahead.
> 
> So, would it be possible to solve CPEOLine after FB to compete the entire cube 2-gen?


While it is possible to permute corners during EOStripe using moves like F' U* F, it's very hard to track EO, CP and the DF and DB edges all at the same time. We also had that idea on the LEOR discord server and came to the conclusion that it's basically impossible to do this quickly and that CP doesn't save enough time to justify that.


----------



## brododragon (May 24, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> While it is possible to permute corners during EOStripe using moves like F' U* F, it's very hard to track EO, CP and the DF and DB edges all at the same time. We also had that idea on the LEOR discord server and came to the conclusion that it's basically impossible to do this quickly and that CP doesn't save enough time to justify that.


What about doing CP after EOLine? Would that suffer the same problems?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> What about doing CP after EOLine? Would that suffer the same problems?


ZZ-d already does this, it does CP during LB


----------



## brododragon (May 24, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> ZZ-d already does this, it does CP during LB


Is it any good?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Is it any good?


It's ok, but not that good. ZZ-b or ZZ-a are both better


----------



## whaffle (May 25, 2020)

I've come up with a method and a 1-look 2-alg last layer method, both of which I believe are new.
Here are the steps of the method:
Step 1. Solve FB
Step 2. Solve bottom corners of SB
Step 3. Use CMLL or COLL or OLLCP to solve LL corners. Because we only care about orienting and permuting the corners at this stage, try to solve the DF and DB edges simultaneously by using Rw moves instead of R moves sometimes in the algorithm. M moves can also be used.
Step 4. Now there are 7 edges left. If you conjugate these edges, L7E can be used, which solves the remaining 17 edges in 149 algorithms with an average of 17.25, according to the speedsolving wiki. Using conjugated L7E cases, recognition is a bit hard. If using L7E algs specifically designed for this method, that require no conjugation, will the movecount decrease? Another possible approach is solving the RF, RD, and RB edges in one algorithm and then using ELL. If possible, can someone generate the algs for solving the RF, RD, and RB edges for me?
FB is <9 moves, bottom corners of SB is 3-5 moves, and Step 3 takes less than 15 moves(at least for me), L7E is 17.25 moves. That means that this version of this method has an movecount of around 45 STM(correct me if I'm wrong). Has this method been proposed before?

The 1-look 2-alg last layer method is pretty simple. First COLL is used, then ELL. If there is no parity, the COLL algs have to leave the edges untouched, and if there is parity, the UF and UR edges are swapped. Thus one can see the CxLL case and ELL case in one look. I'm thinking about generating the algorithms, but imputting every one into Cube Explorer seems a bit too tedious to me. Is there a way of genning algs without having to impute every one of them?


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> I'm not the most knowledgeable person in this field but I think that's the base of YruRu. CP Line makes it so the corners are possible to complete 2gen and the addition of EO makes it completely 2gen after 2x2x3


I think you mean Briggs.

Anyway CP during EODFDB would be pretty difficult to recognise. You're better doing straight LEOR in every case (including OH) compared to any CP variant you could think of.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 25, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I think you mean Briggs.


A key feature of _*BOTH *_Briggs and YruRu is EO+CP to reduce into 2gen. They are 2 different methods and if you look at the wiki page of Briggs and YruRu it will say that YruRu and Briggs are variants of each other. See Here


----------



## brododragon (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> A key feature of _*BOTH *_Briggs and YruRu is EO+CP to reduce into 2gen. They are 2 different methods and if you look at the wiki page of Briggs and YruRu it will say that YruRu and Briggs are variants of each other. See Here
> View attachment 12289View attachment 12290


YruRu is a variant of Briggs, not the other way around.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 25, 2020)

brododragon said:


> YruRu is a variant of Briggs, not the other way around.


Technically they are variants of each other. Briggs came first but YruRu is a variant of Briggs and by definition Briggs is a variant of YruRu. Here is the definition of variation: "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard." Nothing in this definition mentions anything about chronological orders.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

Alright, I have an idea I will only post once,
1. Make the cross minus one cross edge
2. do F2L normally
3. make sure all 5 edges, LL edges, and the cross edge is oriented if some edges are not oriented, orient them using Roux EO and restore the 3rd cross edge if it is distrupted, don't solve the 4th cross edge into its spot yet, act like that cross edge is a LL edge and do COLL
4. Do L5EP, last five edge permute.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 25, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Alright, I have an idea I will only post once,
> 1. Make the cross minus one cross edge
> 2. do F2L normally
> 3. make sure all 5 edges, LL edges, and the cross edge is oriented if some edges are not oriented, orient them using Roux EO and restore the 4th cross edge if it is distrupted, don't solve the 5th cross edge into its spot yet, act like that cross edge is a LL edge and do COLL
> 4. Do L5EP, last five edge permute.


This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)


I've rediscovered Hawaiian Kociemba?


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 25, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I've rediscovered Hawaiian Kociemba?


It seems like it. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hawaiian_Kociemba#Explanation


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> It seems like it. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hawaiian_Kociemba#Explanation


I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 25, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection is this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.


Very cool! I wonder what @Cubingcubecuber would think of this. I like that you took a different approach to EO then regular HK does. Okay, now it's my turn to propose a method!


Partial Freestyle and True Freestyle. These are megaminx methods, and as the name applies, integrate freestyle techniques. I was using Balint for a while but I found myself straying off the path and then I figured, why not just do a freestyle solve. The entire solve aside from LL and Star (at least for TF) has no structure and you do what you want. The difference between Partial Freestyle (PF) and True Freestyle (TF) comes with the F2L. In PF, you always do F2L completely before working on any S2L. In TF you can build blocks and sides before you are done with F2L. A PF Solve would have 4 steps. Star, F2L FS2L (Freestyle S2L), LL. Now TF, that's where the fun begins. After star, you can basically do whatever you want. A TF solve would have 4 steps as well, but instead of having F2L and then FS2L, you would do F2L + S2L Building. I think this method would be harder to use then PF but it would also potentially cut down on move count. I have not found anything on the Wiki like these 2 methods and I have been "accidentally" using them for a while now, so I figure I might as well share them with the public. Let me know if something like this already exists before I make a fool of myself


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)



you could do CLL to reduce the number of steps, and recognition will be the same as just using COLL, the majority of people knows CLL because of 2x2, yeah it could work.
3LHKLL is debatable faster than 2LHKLL because of the number of algs and recog.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> This looks like HK but with extra steps. Like I think you just made a 4LHKLL (3LHKLL if you do CLL in step 3 or 4)


No, he's made a completely different method because he uses COLL then L5EP. Of course that's a ridiculous statment but it's what you're saying about Briggs and YruRU. Also, Briggs is better than YruRU because you solve CPFB instead of CPLine then finish FB. Also, if you're using the wiki as a proper source, remember that the speedsolving wiki is currerntly not a good wiki. They are not variants of each other they are the same thing and are called Briggs. Doing the same thing with different techniques is the same method. For example, Roux where you exclusively solve DL then the 2 F2L pairs for FB is still Roux. ZZ where you solve EOCross is still ZZ. CFOP where you solve an XCross is still CFOP. Please stop propogating false information and call it Briggs.

Anyway, I hope everyone is having a nice day and coming up with new and exciting methods that average sub 40 moves.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 25, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Hawaiian Kociemba variant:
> 
> Arrow(EO Arrow without EO, empty spot in DF)
> F2L with M slice pairing so rotationless
> ...





Username: Username: said:


> I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.


I already proposed this a few months ago, but we came up with the same name for it lol


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I already proposed this a few months ago, but we came up with the same name for it lol


lol we independently stumbled across the method with the same name too, hive mind method developing.


----------



## Devagio (May 25, 2020)

I guess it’s time for me to step in now.


PapaSmurf said:


> they are the same thing





PapaSmurf said:


> Briggs is better than YruRU


Hypocrisy much?


PapaSmurf said:


> you solve CPFB instead of CPLine


CPFB in 15-second inspection is not feasible, no question. Even if you trace CP through FB which will drastically slow you down; you’ll still have to know initial CP and plan FB (And I’m not even counting the horrible pause you’ll have during EO). People have done that successfully and consistently? Others who have genuinely done CP will know those people are lying.

Now here’s the real point:
Once you do CP in the start of the solve, there are literally just 2 ways to sensibly do the rest of the solve; either reduce to rRU to RU, or reduce to rRU to MU. It doesn’t take a genius to figure those out. So, the only place where a method developer has to put any amount of effort at all, is in deciding how to do CP.
TLDR: the only difference between two CP-first methods can be the way CP is done, the rest of the solve is dead-obvious.
Now, it has been established I believe beyond any scope of doubt that YruRU’s way of handling CP is objectively far superior to any other system, like 2GR.
The entire method reduces to how CP is done, and if there’s some sort of a weightage in deciding whether a method is new, almost all the weightage in this case goes to how CP is done, because there’s literally no new concept in the rest of the solve.
So, what did Briggs do? In this context, I shamelessly argue, nothing. CP wasn’t a new concept in 2015 either. After CP there are only 2 ways to continue the solve, both trivial, this is universally obvious. Then why call this method Briggs? The only reason can be, he provided objectively the best way to do CP; absolutely nothing else can grant him the method name, because there is nothing else to be done here.
But then what’s the best way (and I say objectively) to do CP-first now? That’s YruRU. That’s literally what the same stands for. The ruRU stands for the reduction to [r,u,R,U]; the name of the method is the name of that step because that step is the method.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 25, 2020)

Devagio said:


> I guess it’s time for me to step in now.
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy much?
> ...


.
They are the same thing in the sense of CFOP with an XCross is the same as CFOP with Cross. Briggs is better because CPFB which is definitely viable in inspection. It's not easy, but viable. Also, I have done CP properly and I can confirm that CPFB in inspection is viable. Inspect CP in 2 seconds (and this is possible, just as I can inspect EO in 2 seconds), find a square in 4 (done by Rouxers consistently), trace CP and the final edge through the square (4 seconds) then you know when to insert the edge into the pair. Yes, I think that it's possible. Also yes, you will have a horrible pause before EO in LEOR, Briggs or your version of Briggs which is why this is not speedsolving viable. Yes, tricks can reduce that but not enough imo. That's why LEOR is the best out of all these because it's feasible to inspect FB and at least some of EO consistently. 

Using your example, if I solve ZZ EO using set ups to MU and someone else does EO the normal way, they don't use different methods. If I inspect cross then a pair and someone else inspects a 2x2x2 then the rest of the cross, they don't use different methods. If someone inspecs FB then places DFDB and carrys on with Petrus, they're using Petrus.
I would also agree that Briggs wasn't a new concept, rather a rediscovered concept that built on ideas but it came first and it's the best name we have and is the standard name. It works. I'm fine with your way of doing CP being called the YruRU style or whatever though. 

I still don't think that YruRU is the best way to do CP because they're all the same at the end of the day, with some systems allowing for different things such as tracking CP (2GR system) or CP when DL corners are solved (YruRU) and they can pretty much be fused together to make the same thing. 

One more thing, calling your opponent a liar is a bad way to debate because you're attacking the mesenger not the message.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 25, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I already proposed this a few months ago, but we came up with the same name for it lol



Wait, you used
1. Arrow without EO
2. M U gen F2L
3. HKOLL
4. HKPLL

I used

1. Arrow without EO
2. Normal F2L
3. Roux EO
5. COLL then L5EP
how is it the exact same method?


----------



## brododragon (May 25, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> Technically they are variants of each other. Briggs came first but YruRu is a variant of Briggs and by definition Briggs is a variant of YruRu. Here is the definition of variation: "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard." Nothing in this definition mentions anything about chronological orders.


Briggs was the standard, YruRu differed from that. You can't have a standard with something that hasn't been invented.


----------



## Devagio (May 25, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> .
> They are the same thing in the sense of CFOP with an XCross is the same as CFOP with Cross. Briggs is better because CPFB which is definitely viable in inspection. It's not easy, but viable. Also, I have done CP properly and I can confirm that CPFB in inspection is viable. Inspect CP in 2 seconds (and this is possible, just as I can inspect EO in 2 seconds), find a square in 4 (done by Rouxers consistently), trace CP and the final edge through the square (4 seconds) then you know when to insert the edge into the pair. Yes, I think that it's possible. Also yes, you will have a horrible pause before EO in LEOR, Briggs or your version of Briggs which is why this is not speedsolving viable. Yes, tricks can reduce that but not enough imo. That's why LEOR is the best out of all these because it's feasible to inspect FB and at least some of EO consistently.
> 
> Using your example, if I solve ZZ EO using set ups to MU and someone else does EO the normal way, they don't use different methods. If I inspect cross then a pair and someone else inspects a 2x2x2 then the rest of the cross, they don't use different methods. If someone inspecs FB then places DFDB and carrys on with Petrus, they're using Petrus.
> ...


Conveniently sidelining my point to place your analogies is a bad way to debate as well. As for my claim on lying, all I mean is if people jump in saying they have done it rather than they think it’s possible to do it, then without sufficient proof my null hypothesis will be to assume that they’re lying. This is because, as you pointed out, it is ridiculously hard to do and at the very least requires tons of dedicated practice just for this step, which I’m not aware of anyone has put in. In any case, it is difficult to provide sufficient proof of this kind unless interacting in person or video call.

For now, putting aside the viability of sub15 CPFB and whether the YruRU way is objectively the best; let’s take the analogies you made to show you my point in those.

The concept of EO-first to reduce to LUR I presume was floating from before 2000. Let’s say in 2005, a person “came up with the way” to do EO with set-ups to MU since this way of doing it is known through Roux; and simultaneously place DBDF so that the cube is reduced to LUR. Then, do LB, RB, LL; because that’s like the obvious skeleton that follows. This person called this method AA, their initials.
Come 2006, another person finds a way to do EO using F, B moves; and simultaneously place DBDF. Then follows with LB, RB, LL. This person calls this method BB, their initials.
Now, BB is quite similar to AA, but has an element that is completely new and novel. Also, whether BB is speedsolving viable is up for debate even today, but it is objectively a better approach than AA. Would you rather AA stay the name or BB or keep them separate?

(I’m not sure about the history of cubing but afaik a similar thing happened with CFOP on discovery of F2L and they stuck with the latter option of keeping them separate and seeing which idea performs better)

This situation is just that. The crux of the method is that one CP step, the rest is mere embellishment. YruRU’s way you may not agree is supreme for now, but it at the very least is better than Briggs’ way; which is just comms, which we know is like the brute force way of doing CP. Whether YruRU is speedsolving viable is up for debate, but it certainly is miles ahead of Briggs; and it doesn’t build on it in the least. What would you rather here?


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 25, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Wait, you used
> 1. Arrow without EO
> 2. M U gen F2L
> 3. HKOLL
> ...


They are very similar. In your method, you would rotate or use F/B moves for F2L cases with misoriented edges. It is objectively better to do a M' to orient it. For L9P, you use 3 Looks, where as I would use 2. It is better to do HKOLL because recognition is faster. Also, if you did a CLL type thing before EO, you could lower the movecount(Like F R U R' U' F' vs R2 D' R U R' D R U R U' R' U' R). If you want, I can give you access to my HKOLL doc in progress.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 25, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Conveniently sidelining my point to place your analogies is a bad way to debate as well. As for my claim on lying, all I mean is if people jump in saying they have done it rather than they think it’s possible to do it, then without sufficient proof my null hypothesis will be to assume that they’re lying. This is because, as you pointed out, it is ridiculously hard to do and at the very least requires tons of dedicated practice just for this step, which I’m not aware of anyone has put in. In any case, it is difficult to provide sufficient proof of this kind unless interacting in person or video call.
> 
> For now, putting aside the viability of sub15 CPFB and whether the YruRU way is objectively the best; let’s take the analogies you made to show you my point in those.
> 
> ...


BB is still AA. Briggs doesn't use comms. It used comms in it's original inception but has been updated, even if not on the wiki. Briggs is just solving CPFB (which YruRU does in 2 steps) EODFDB (which YruRU does), right block (again, done in YruRU) then 2GLL (again again, done by YruRU). Every step of the way YruRU is identical to Briggs just with a breakdown of the first step into 2.

Also, yeah the concept has been around for longer than Mr ZZ, but he made it into a thing, same with CPFB. Giles Roux iirc posted about reducing the cube to a 2gen state years ago, so what you have claimed to be a method that is perhaps superior to Roux was infact invented by Roux. But we now call it Briggs because we do. Ultimately, I don't have an issue with the actual name but I do have an issue with the claim that you invented a new method. Again, call it YruRU style CP (there's 2GR style CP too) if you want to, I'm fine with that. Stop saying it's a completely new method, because then anything could be called a new method, from XFOE to every single ZZ variant with EOLine, EOArrow and EOCross and every cuber would be method neutral to some extent. Heck, why isn't 3 sided PLL recognition a different method to 2 sided? My point being that we can't have completely free defenitions for new methods, especially when the steps are completely identical.


----------



## Devagio (May 25, 2020)

I believe if you use F-move style EO, you should say you’re using BB, not AA. Because AA was simply a compilation a knowledge; and in this case, not in usable form.
If you can characterise an entire method-type uniquely by one step, and you come up with an entirely different way to do that step, you essentially come up with a new method because the juice of that method is all packed in that one step. This is why analogies with Roux, CFOP or Petrus do not apply at all here, there is no defining step for these methods.
Analogies with ZZ work to some extent, because EO is a defining feature of ZZ; however ZZ is already usable as a speedsolving method while Briggs as you yourself mentioned, isn’t; so the analogies break down there.
An appropriate analogy would be an EO-first-type method that is not usable for speedsolving, like recognition edge orientation by some sort of calculation and orienting them by set-ups to M moves. In this case, the creator hasn’t exactly added anything novel to the pre-existing idea. Now, someone introducing the sticker-face recognition and FB orientation I believe has created an entirely new method, even if the change is in only that one step; because that step is the only thing in the method that’s not obvious. If this makes EO-first type methods usable competitively due to significantly faster inspection, significantly efficient EO, and significantly more room to plan ahead, there is absolutely reason to call the method with the former name. In fact, it would be downright wrong if this recognition system and execution system was not thought of earlier.
Again, 2 sided PLL recognition vs 3 sided PLL recognition analogy doesn’t work because PLL is not all there is to CFOP.
My point being, if the compiler of a previously known idea gets to name the method, and someone coming up with an entirely new approach (recognition and execution) on the said idea that makes a drastic transition of “CP-first not viable” to “CP-first viable” doesn’t get to name his version differently simply because there is only one path the latter part of the all CP-first methods can take, then that isn’t fair.
Edit: To avoid any further miscommunication and offer a middle ground based on all our views, I find it perfectly acceptable to rename what is currently called YruRU to “CP-first with YruRU-style CP” or something along those lines. What I do not find acceptable is “Briggs with YruRU-style CP”.


----------



## PetraPine (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I just did EO in a separate step but using Roux EO, and COLL and L5EP, inspection in this method is easier and Roux EO is faster than normal, ZZ like EO because it is more intuitive, I'm calling it the Hawaiian CFOP because you don't do EO during the first step.


I've also proposed the Exact same l5e method like a month ago lol with the same steps


----------



## PetraPine (May 26, 2020)

The simple version of l5e and last layer is make sure that the bottom edge is oriented than do an oll than a pll and finish with lse.


----------



## Username: Username: (May 26, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> The simple version of l5e and last layer is make sure that the bottom edge is oriented than do an oll than a pll and finish with lse.


That's a 3LLL form of CFOP LL with Roux Elements. better to do Roux EO then L5EP.


----------



## PetraPine (May 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> That's a 3LLL form of CFOP LL with Roux Elements. better to do Roux EO then L5EP.


Sorry I didn't remember the exacts but I did the f2l differently I did like petrus 2x2x3 and than the last two pairs normally instead of arrow, than of course cmll than lse
I average 21 with it
I also made a variation of it were you just solve the front two corners without the edges than cmll and use commutators to orient edges while solving the front two edges


----------



## Owen Morrison (May 27, 2020)

This has probably already been thought of, but I was thinking it might be useful on Megaminx to use Petrus EO during the last step of Westlund S2L (just the front face and the top need to be solved) and do a y rotation so you can solve the rest of S2L and OLL 2 gen.

1. has someone already come up with this?

2. would this be worse than just doing S2L normally?

EDIT: I looked it up, and it seems like this idea has been thought of many years ago.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (May 27, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> This has probably already been thought of, but I was thinking it might be useful on Megaminx to use Petrus EO during the last step of Westlund S2L (just the front face and the top need to be solved) and do a y rotation so you can solve the rest of S2L and OLL 2 gen.
> 
> 1. has someone already come up with this?
> 
> ...


I asked @CuberStache about this a month ago and he said it wasn’t worth it


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 30, 2020)

This 2x2 method has probably already been proposed, but whatever
1. CPLine (Like in briggs/YruRU)
2. CO using only RU
3. Solve the first layer using R2U
4. Solved!


----------



## brododragon (May 30, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> This 2x2 method has probably already been proposed, but whatever
> 1. CPLine (Like in briggs/YruRU)
> 2. CO using only RU
> 3. Solve the first layer using R2U
> 4. Solved!


Seems like a solid intuitive method.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 30, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> This 2x2 method has probably already been proposed, but whatever
> 1. CPLine (Like in briggs/YruRU)
> 2. CO using only RU
> 3. Solve the first layer using R2U
> 4. Solved!


@WoowyBaby Do you have a decent way of solving CO intuitively here?


----------



## brododragon (May 30, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> @WoowyBaby Do you have a decent way of solving CO intuitively here?


He made a post a while back.


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 31, 2020)

Probably the best 2G method for 2x2: 
CPLine, exactly the same way as Briggs/2GR.
L6C.
In terms of alg count, I dunno, but you could place one of the DR corners orientated in DR to reduce it to 339 algs, many of which would be trivial. You'd probably have to one look max 7 moves. I dunno how it compares to EG+TEG stuff people are doing now though.


----------



## FluxDigital01 (Jun 2, 2020)

I did a bit of searching and as far as I know, this specific belt variation hasn't really been discussed.

*Another belt method:*

Solve the belt
Orient edges
Orient corners
Using only [U, D, R2], solve the bottom layer similarly to how you turn a square-1
PLL
I know that this may not be original, or fast, or efficient, but it _is _fun to solve with.



Spoiler: Example Solve...?



(Note: some, if not all, steps are not the most efficient and are what I came up with on the spot.)

*Scramble: U' B2 L B2 D2 R2 F2 R' D2 L2 B2 D2 U2 B' R F' D2 R D' F'*

E layer: D B' F2 R2 D2 F R U2 R'
EO: x2 Rw U R' U' M2 U R U' R' U' M' (literally the OLL case)
CO: D L2 U2 L2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' (Setup to Pi)
D layer: U R2 D R2 D2 R2 D' R2 D U' R2 U2 R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U R2 D
PLL: U' R2 Uw R' U R' U' R Uw' R2 F' U F


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 2, 2020)

FluxDigital01 said:


> I did a bit of searching and as far as I know, this specific belt variation hasn't really been discussed.
> 
> *Another belt method:*
> 
> ...


I thought of this a couple months ago and realistically is probably common


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 2, 2020)

SSC is a better version.


----------



## Piroxis (Jun 4, 2020)

Hey guys! 
I've been working on making my own method for a little while now and this is what I came up with. Let me know what you think! ^^ Below is the full documentation I've made on it so far... More is coming up as I develop it.








THE BLOCKVILLE METHOD.docx.pdf







drive.google.com


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 4, 2020)

Piroxis said:


> Hey guys!
> I've been working on making my own method for a little while now and this is what I came up with. Let me know what you think! ^^ Below is the full documentation I've made on it so far... More is coming up as I develop it.
> 
> 
> ...


This is very similar to Tripod:




__





Tripod Method - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com


----------



## Username: Username: (Jun 4, 2020)

Piroxis said:


> Hey guys!
> I've been working on making my own method for a little while now and this is what I came up with. Let me know what you think! ^^ Below is the full documentation I've made on it so far... More is coming up as I develop it.
> 
> 
> ...



You've just independently rediscovered Tripod, that's nice 

edit: oof sorry but you've already known about Tripod.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 4, 2020)

Piroxis said:


> Hey guys!
> I've been working on making my own method for a little while now and this is what I came up with. Let me know what you think! ^^ Below is the full documentation I've made on it so far... More is coming up as I develop it.
> 
> 
> ...



This looks like Tripod with a beginner LSLL. Tripod steps are:

2x2x2
2x2x3
F2L-1
LS + 1x2x2 on U layer
LL (58 algs)

What you do is:

2x2x2
2x2x3
F2L-1
1x2x2 on U layer
Insert LS Corner
Corners (CP and beginner's CO)
Edges


Essentially it's just Tripod except a less alg LSLL. It has 7 algs instead of 58, but if you're looking for intuitive and low alg count, I'd check out Heise. It has 0 algs and is kinda similar to your method


EDIT: This is why I wanted you to post it on the forums; often people will independently create a method, but really it's the same as another method

EDIT 2: I looked over your algs, and the one for edges are awful. But the most important part: THERE ARE NO PARITY STATES. Having a hard state is not a parity state. If you really want to know what parity actually means, then let me know and I can explain it(this thread isn't good for that)


----------



## Username: Username: (Jun 4, 2020)

Piroxis said:


> Hey guys!
> I've been working on making my own method for a little while now and this is what I came up with. Let me know what you think! ^^ Below is the full documentation I've made on it so far... More is coming up as I develop it.
> 
> 
> ...



It's fine, I'm sure we all made a method but just independently rediscovered a method, but that's pretty impressive for a first post, my first post was a lucky scramble.


----------



## Piroxis (Jun 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This looks like Tripod with a beginner LSLL. Tripod steps are:
> 
> 2x2x2
> 2x2x3
> ...


Thanks for the feedback! 
Just out of curiosity, what makes my algs awful?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 4, 2020)

Piroxis said:


> Thanks for the feedback!
> Just out of curiosity, what makes my algs awful?


They're really long. Try genning them with a good software, like cube explorer or kubesolver


----------



## ProStar (Jun 4, 2020)

Piroxis said:


> Thanks for the feedback!
> Just out of curiosity, what makes my algs awful?



Awful's not really the right word. But they're pretty bad for speedsolving both because of their length and also their fingertricks. All the B moves in the edge algs mostly. Also, you could make it more intuitive by just doing a 3e commutator for the edges, and a 3c commutator for 1-look corners if you want. It's still basically tripod with a bad LL though; for tripod just insert LS and then do 1lll(since you have the 1x2x2 block it's only ~50 algs)


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 4, 2020)

Probably not good or original intuitive Pyraminx L4E idea: In Z3 cubing’s video, you place an edge, and then do L3E. If you insert the edge flipped, than you don’t have to worry about looking for which insert to do. If you insert DF, you will always get a 2-flip, which is fast to recognize and execute. This could be a good extension to intuitive L4E


----------



## brododragon (Jun 5, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Probably not good or original intuitive Pyraminx L4E idea: In Z3 cubing’s video, you place an edge, and then do L3E. If you insert the edge flipped, than you don’t have to worry about looking for which insert to do. If you insert DF, you will always get a 2-flip, which is fast to recognize and execute. This could be a good extension to intuitive L4E


Sounds like a good idea.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 5, 2020)

Someone needs to invent Alaskan Kociemba. You already have the hard part(The name), so it shouldn't be too hard. Anyone who invents it will get early access to my website.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jun 5, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Someone needs to invent Alaskan Kociemba. You already have the hard part(The name), so it shouldn't be too hard. Anyone who invents it will get early access to my website.


I think its a very block-building heavy method, but with Kociemba in it.


----------



## brododragon (Jun 5, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Someone needs to invent Alaskan Kociemba. You already have the hard part(The name), so it shouldn't be too hard. Anyone who invents it will get early access to my website.


I invented a method, does it count?


----------



## Devagio (Jun 5, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Someone needs to invent Alaskan Kociemba. You already have the hard part(The name), so it shouldn't be too hard. Anyone who invents it will get early access to my website.


Given my limited geography knowledge, I believe Hawaii is the tropical end and Alaska is a arctic end of the tropical-temperate-Arctic spectrum.
Plus, I believe Kociemba is a family name.
So Alaskan Kociemba should belong to the same family as Hawaiian Kociemba, but should feel arctic rather than tropical somehow. Hmm..
How about the following:

Step 1: Orient all F2L edges (8 edges) while solving the edges in DB, DL and BL (while ensuring that the DBL corner is some top layer corner)
Step 2: Solve the FL square and Right block like in ZZ, to get F2L minus one corner.
Step 3: Use AK-OLL to orient all edges and corners (I guess ~170 algs, 57 of which are OLLs)
Step 4: Use AK-PLL to permute everything (93 algs, basically TTLL + PLLs)

Step 1 is the same amount of work as HK (EO of 8 edges, placing 3 of them).
Step 2 is the same amount of work as HK, solving 2 squares and 1 pair instead of 4 pairs, and also has fewer blindspots.
Step 3 has similar number of algs as HK-OLL, and similar recognition.
Step 4 is already completely developed, and has similar number of algs as HK-PLL with better recognition.

You could have better speed with the variant where you also solve the DF edge in step 1; which leave you with only right block and FL slot for second step, and thus requiring no F2 moves plus better look ahead. People solve EO crosses in inspection, this should be doable given we aren’t orienting top layer edges.

Its the same family, just look at how similar these methods are. Thus, Kociemba.
Hawaii is on one side of the country, its like an "edge", that's what remains after F2L-1piece; Alaksa is at a "corner" of the country, that's what remains after F2L-1piece.

Alaskan Kociemba People!


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 5, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Given my limited geography knowledge, I believe Hawaii is the tropical end and Alaska is a arctic end of the tropical-temperate-Arctic spectrum.
> Plus, I believe Kociemba is a family name.
> So Alaskan Kociemba should belong to the same family as Hawaiian Kociemba, but should feel arctic rather than tropical somehow. Hmm..
> How about the following:
> ...


If you Start with ZZ EO than solve The Dl DB DF edges aswell as the L And BL edges Do L and BL edges than solve the other edges with the Right side you can use something like SSC method keyhole to solve the 2x2x3 than with edges already oriented finish the other 2 pairs.(while holding the unsolved cross piece on right)
Than just rotate for HKOLL/PLL
this version would be bassically just a zz variant though lol...
You could also use CMLL+ HKPLL instead of HKoll/pll
The reason to do this with the rotation is for superior fingertricks.
A proposal for Alaskan-Kociemba.
Also the finger tricks are good which makes it maybe better for OH
as a break from cfop im gonna learn the l5e variant of kociemba (=


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 5, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I invented a method, does it count?


What method?


----------



## ProStar (Jun 6, 2020)

A LEOR variant that I think may be a little more efficient:

LB
EO(not stripe)
RB
M-Slice
ZBLL

Basically you go straight from EO to RB and solve DF+DB later. For me, DF+DB takes a bunch of moves after doing EO, but with RB already solved it usually only takes 5 or so moves. RB is hindered much(if at all) because using M2 allows for pairing in the M-slice easily. Example solve:

Scramble: D' L' D2 L' U2 L' B2 D2 R2 B2 F2 R D2 F' R2 D' B L' B' U2

F' E' L' F D2 F2 S M S' // LB

x2 S' U S R' U F R F' // EO

r2 U M2 U2 R' U R U' M2 U2 R U R' // RB

U' M U2 l // Stripe

y2 U R' U R2 F2 R' U2 R' U2 R2 F2 R2 U2 // ZBLL

I'm bad at blockbuilding, so LB and RB could definitely be more efficient


EDIT: Did a couple example solves on other threads, am averaging mid 40s, I imagine you could get sub-50 during a speedsolve with some practice and advanced techniques


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 6, 2020)

Not sure if this has been thought of already, let me know if it sounds familiar. 5x5 Method:

Solve one center
Solve three other 2x2x3s of center pieces around the initial center with the block oriented toward the first center on D, F, and B. If this doesn't make sense I can post pictures.
Use the free Rw slice on the right to make the LF and LB F2L edges and pair them with the corner to make the F2L pairs and insert.
Solve the bottom center, rotations are ok.
Solve the DF left wing and midge, and the DB left wing and midge without disturbing centers.
Finish F and B centers
Solve remaining DF and DB wing by oreinting it so the cross color is on top and the wing is in the UB position. Then do Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw' to solve it repeat in the back
Rotate to finish centers 
End with Yau5 sort of reduction to 3x3 stage.


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 6, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> Not sure if this has been thought of already, let me know if it sounds familiar. 5x5 Method:
> 
> Solve one center
> Solve three other 2x2x3s of center pieces around the initial center with the block oriented toward the first center on D, F, and B. If this doesn't make sense I can post pictures.
> ...


Do you think this could be effiecient/fast?


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 6, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Do you think this could be effiecient/fast?


The limiting factor feels like the 3rd step. I haven't done movecount tests but it feels like less than redux
The idea came from doing scrambles using R Rw U and Uw and seeing if I could solve with just those moves. I did and thought, "Maybe if I reduce to this it could be cool."


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 6, 2020)

What is the average 5x5 movecount for redux?
The one listed above has an average of 280 STM


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 6, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> What is the average 5x5 movecount for redux?
> The one listed above has an average of 280 STM


Redux is more efficient than yau/hoya, if you can get good tps this is huge. Also please post the pictures.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 6, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Redux is more efficient than yau/hoya, if you can get good tps this is huge. Also please post the pictures.


What is the movecount for redux or hoya?


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 6, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> View attachment 12472View attachment 12473
> 
> What is the movecount for redux or hoya?


Hoya is least efficient of big3 redux is most this method has to much thinking for tps rn ):


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 6, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Hoya is least efficient of big3 redux is most


But what is the number of moves?


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 6, 2020)

NevEr_QeyX said:


> But what is the number of moves?


I dont know exacts look it up if yu can


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 6, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I dont know exacts look it up if yu can


Does anyone else know?


----------



## whaffle (Jun 6, 2020)

New(?) method for LS+OLL: First, solve LS corner+EO. Then, solve LS edge+CO. This is similar to MGLS, but I believe it has less algs, though I don't know about effeciency. The first step has around 18-36 algs, including mirrors, and the second step should just have 14, 7 excluding OCLL. Has this been proposed before, and if so, are there algs anywhere for it?


----------



## ProStar (Jun 6, 2020)

whaffle said:


> New(?) method for LS+OLL: First, solve LS corner+EO. Then, solve LS edge+CO. This is similar to MGLS, but I believe it has less algs, though I don't know about effeciency. The first step has around 18-36 algs, including mirrors, and the second step should just have 14, 7 excluding OCLL. Has this been proposed before, and if so, are there algs anywhere for it?



As you said, this is similar to MGLS. It's been proposed before, but no algs have been genned because MGLS is better and LS->OLL is better than MGLS


----------



## whaffle (Jun 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> As you said, this is similar to MGLS. It's been proposed before, but no algs have been genned because MGLS is better and LS->OLL is better than MGLS


Why is it worse? It has less algs then most other LS+OLL methods, and recognition is pretty good. Does it have bad movecount?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 6, 2020)

whaffle said:


> New(?) method for LS+OLL: First, solve LS corner+EO. Then, solve LS edge+CO. This is similar to MGLS, but I believe it has less algs, though I don't know about effeciency. The first step has around 18-36 algs, including mirrors, and the second step should just have 14, 7 excluding OCLL. Has this been proposed before, and if so, are there algs anywhere for it?


This has already been proposed, and is called JJLS:





 JJLS - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com





Still cool you came up with it though


----------



## whaffle (Jun 6, 2020)

Oh, I see. It wasn't listed on https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_Subsets though. Is there anywhere I can find a more complete list of subsets or methods?
btw, could you help me a bit with Hahn?


----------



## brododragon (Jun 6, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> What method?


Just looked at it, and it need A LOT of work. This is the best version:
1. EOBand
2. Sort Corners & edges
(Parity)
3. ZBLL
(Rotate)
4. ZBLL


----------



## RedstoneTim (Jun 7, 2020)

whaffle said:


> Oh, I see. It wasn't listed on https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_Subsets though. Is there anywhere I can find a more complete list of subsets or methods?


Generally, the "List of x" pages are outdated because they don't automatically get changed when a new subset is added. If you want to see the full lists, have a look at categories because they update when a new page is added. For 3x3x3 substeps, see Category:3x3x3 substeps. For (almost) all categories, see Category:Contents.


----------



## CodingCuber (Jun 12, 2020)

Idk if this method already exists but I’ve been working on it for a couple months now.
It has a decently low movecount but I’m bad at explaining stuff so ill try my best.

First, on any side, you solve all 4 F2L pairs(this can be done fast and easily because no need to worry about messing up cross)
Now, bring two opposite cross pieces to the top layer. Make sure they are in a line shape and then you can do M2 to bring them down into their places,.
Once you have solved those two cross pieces, bring the next two opposite pieces to the top layer and repeat the previous step but make sure to take note of the place their centres are in.
Now the rest is just OLL+PLL.

Sorry if that made no sense. I can make an example solve if it’s easier


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 13, 2020)

That is columns. Check out PCMS or just do Roux.


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 13, 2020)

ProStar said:


> A LEOR variant that I think may be a little more efficient:
> 
> LB
> EO(not stripe)
> ...


right block step is trash because you need to preserve the eo


----------



## brododragon (Jun 13, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> right block step is trash because you need to preserve the eo


It's literally the same as LEOR RB but more freedom.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 13, 2020)

ProStar said:


> A LEOR variant that I think may be a little more efficient:
> 
> LB
> EO(not stripe)
> ...


One of the best things about leor is the speed and fluidity of RB —> zbll I feel this ruins the flow and the lookahead with very little advantage.


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 13, 2020)

brododragon said:


> It's literally the same as LEOR RB but more freedom.


Worse lookahead, worse cases, M2 and R move switching,


----------



## brododragon (Jun 13, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Worse lookahead, worse cases, M2 and R move switching,


Ok you just have two more places to look.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 13, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Worse lookahead, worse cases, M2 and R move switching,



Yeah bro it's like Roux, and we all know that sucks so much


It's just a prank bro


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 14, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Yeah bro it's like Roux, and we all know that sucks so much
> 
> 
> It's just a prank bro


all i said was that LEOR rb was better


brododragon said:


> Ok you just have two more places to look.


therefore it has worse lookahead, pretty obvious


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 14, 2020)

ProStar said:


> It's just a prank bro


Hey! Only I can say that.

It may or may not be just a prank bro


----------



## ProStar (Jun 14, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> therefore it has worse lookahead, pretty obvious



Just track what pieces are there, a lot of people plan LB+EO so it's just tracking those during EO. Also I think the pro to this is that it's more efficient, although it may not be faster


----------



## whaffle (Jun 14, 2020)

New idea for 3LLSLL methods similar to COALL or VH. After making the pair, use vls algs to force specific sets of 1llls. For example: After making the pair, use one algorithm from a set of ~72 to deorient all edges and orient 2 adjacent corners. This will force OLLs 18, 19, and 20. These OLLs, especially 20, are very symmetrical, resulting in an ~90 alg 1LLL. This method only has 162 algs, therefore it has less algs than COALL and VH, and should have similar movecount. With some though, I suppose smaller sets of OLLs could be forced, resulting in less algs, while maintaining similar movecounts to COALL and VH. Is this/these methods viable, and can anyone come up with a better 3LLSLL method with this general structure?


----------



## teri2769 (Jun 14, 2020)

whaffle said:


> Is this/these methods viable, and can anyone come up with a better 3LLSLL method with this general structure?



Its very hard to make a 3llsll better than last slot > 2lll because of how last slot can be done intuitively. It doesnt make sense to make new 3llsll methods since 2llsll isnt that much.


----------



## teri2769 (Jun 14, 2020)

whaffle said:


> use one algorithm from a set of ~72 to deorient all edges


also why would you disorient all the edges when orienting all the edges is the same amount of cases?


----------



## whaffle (Jun 14, 2020)

teri2769 said:


> also why would you disorient all the edges when orienting all the edges is the same amount of cases?


better recognition imo


----------



## teri2769 (Jun 14, 2020)

whaffle said:


> better recognition imo


what?


----------



## ProStar (Jun 14, 2020)

whaffle said:


> New idea for 3LLSLL methods similar to COALL or VH. After making the pair, use vls algs to force specific sets of 1llls. For example: After making the pair, use one algorithm from a set of ~72 to deorient all edges and orient 2 adjacent corners. This will force OLLs 18, 19, and 20. These OLLs, especially 20, are very symmetrical, resulting in an ~90 alg 1LLL. This method only has 162 algs, therefore it has less algs than COALL and VH, and should have similar movecount. With some though, I suppose smaller sets of OLLs could be forced, resulting in less algs, while maintaining similar movecounts to COALL and VH. Is this/these methods viable, and can anyone come up with a better 3LLSLL method with this general structure?



This isn't viable because LS->OLL->PLL. Recognition for all 3 steps is super fast, only 78ish algs. Also you wouldn't use VLS, but a seperate alg set. VLS does OLS with the pair made. Also you have to account for the split pair. Looking for 2LLSLL is useless unless it's a different 2LLL method, because CFOP is so fast already. I'd recommend looking at 2LLSLL or 2A1LLSLL


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 14, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Just track what pieces are there, a lot of people plan LB+EO so it's just tracking those during EO. Also I think the pro to this is that it's more efficient, although it may not be faster


except no one can plan LB+EO right now, its not realistic. The best leor solver i know cant do it, zz solvers cant do it


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 14, 2020)

The reason ZZ solvers can't do it is because most of us can't plan FB very well. I average about 10 moves instead of 7 and even then, on the rare occasion I can do it. The best LEOR solvers aren't very good because there are probably 3 or fewer people who use LEOR.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 14, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> except no one can plan LB+EO right now, its not realistic. The best leor solver i know cant do it, zz solvers cant do it



FB+Square isn't realistic either but Kian's doing it. Limits are always beyond what's thought possible


----------



## whaffle (Jun 14, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This isn't viable because LS->OLL->PLL. Recognition for all 3 steps is super fast, only 78ish algs. Also you wouldn't use VLS, but a seperate alg set. VLS does OLS with the pair made. Also you have to account for the split pair. Looking for 2LLSLL is useless unless it's a different 2LLL method, because CFOP is so fast already. I'd recommend looking at 2LLSLL or 2A1LLSLL


Are there any 2LLSLL methods other than ZB? Also, are there any 2A1LLSLL methods other than M-CELL?


mukerflap said:


> except no one can plan LB+EO right now, its not realistic. The best leor solver i know cant do it, zz solvers cant do it


lol i just tried and i planned fb+eo in under 15 seconds. there are many people who can plan fb in under 7 seconds, so with some practice, i think planning fb+eo+dfdb under 15 seconds is possible.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 14, 2020)

whaffle said:


> Are there any 2LLSLL methods other than ZB? Also, are there any 2A1LLSLL methods other than M-CELL?



Yes. VLS/HLS->PLL, PLS->POLL, WV/SV->CP+EO+EP. I don't know a lot about 2A1LLSLL methods, but there are a few I think. And the less versions the more likely there's a big improvement to be made


----------



## whaffle (Jun 14, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Yes. VLS/HLS->PLL, PLS->POLL, WV/SV->CP+EO+EP. I don't know a lot about 2A1LLSLL methods, but there are a few I think. And the less versions the more likely there's a big improvement to be made


Isn't that 3LLSLL? You have to make the pair, and then do 2 more algorithms.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 14, 2020)

whaffle said:


> Isn't that 3LLSLL? You have to make the pair, and then do 2 more algorithms.



Depending on your definition, it could be. You could always just make the pair and insert in one alg. The main point though is that no current methods are viable, so if you're looking to develop LSLL I'd reccomend that area, because 3LLSLL is already so good


----------



## RedstoneTim (Jun 14, 2020)

whaffle said:


> lol i just tried and i planned fb+eo in under 15 seconds. there are many people who can plan fb in under 7 seconds, so with some practice, i think planning fb+eo+dfdb under 15 seconds is possible.


What is your approach to FBEO? Do you plan FB and the EO separately or try to influence FB pieces during EO/EO during FB? I'm really interested in that since it's very hard for me to consistently plan even something like square + EO.


----------



## whaffle (Jun 14, 2020)

RedstoneTim said:


> What is your approach to FBEO? Do you plan FB and the EO separately or try to influence FB pieces during EO/EO during FB? I'm really interested in that since it's very hard for me to consistently plan even something like square + EO.


Separately. I don't try to influence EO. In fact, I try to preserve EO as much as possible, which results in a less effecient FB. My guess is that my FBEO is ~13-17 moves. My main method is Roux, and I'm not that good at LEOR, so take my advice with a grain of salt.


----------



## brododragon (Jun 14, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> therefore it has worse lookahead, pretty obvious


So CFOP is better than Roux because you solve less pieces at a time, meaning better look-ahead.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 14, 2020)

brododragon said:


> So CFOP is better than Roux because you solve less pieces at a time, meaning better look-ahead.





mukerflap said:


> pretty obvious





It's just a prank bro


----------



## Silky (Jun 14, 2020)

So I've been thinking about PCMS lately and believe I've come up with an interesting variant.

Overview:

Step 1: Place 2 corner edge pairs on the left face and finish the E-slice.
Step 2: SOAP method for corners (https://www.cubestuff.cf/?soap).
2a: Separate corners to their respected faces. 
2b: Orient and permute last 6 corners while preserving the E-slice.
Step 3: Permute centers while placing LD and RD edges.
Step 4: Orient remain 6 edges while placing DB edge.
Step 5: Permute last 5 edges (L5EP).

Pros:

(1) Inspection: It seems realistic to plan out all of step 1 in inspection and possibly step 2a. 
(2) Corners: Being that the corners are solved using a modified 2x2 method (SOAP) it should be more efficient. It also should maintain the freedom of the pairs of PCMS.
(3) Algs: There wouldn't be too many algs (SOAP has 58, L5EP has 16) and the SOAP algs are mostly 2-gen.
(4) Because this method borrows from the SOAP method it should be clean af. #CoronaCubing

Cons:

(1) SOAP isn't really a proven 2x2 method so it just might not be that fast.
(2) The potential is very reliant on what you can plan in inspection.
(3) It just may not be worth it to preform corners compared to how PCMS does.
(4) Corners may take 2 looks instead of 1 (which will probably make it not that relevant).

If this has already been preposed, sorry. If not then let me know what you guys think.


----------



## brododragon (Jun 14, 2020)

Ok, no more Muke tyranny, let's actually be productive.

New method:
1. *Wheels *2 1x2x2 at DBR and DBL.
2. *EOSlice *solve EO and M-Slice. Make sure crosses are solved.
3. *EP *Permute UL, UR, FL, FR.
4. *F3C *First 3 Corners - solve DFR, DFL, UFL - 162 algs.
5. *L3C *Last 3 Corners - 24 algs, but they are included in F3C.

162 algs. Solving CO parity, then F3C + L3C will drop down the number to 54.


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 15, 2020)

ProStar said:


> FB+Square isn't realistic either but Kian's doing it. Limits are always beyond what's thought possible


I have a 8 move av fb and am ok at eo, ill try to learn this method to see if i can inspect fb+eo


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 15, 2020)

ProStar said:


> FB+Square isn't realistic either but Kian's doing it. Limits are always beyond what's thought possible


when did i say that


brododragon said:


> So CFOP is better than Roux because you solve less pieces at a time, meaning better look-ahead.


Lookahead is not the only factor, i also listed R and M switching, and worse cases


----------



## brododragon (Jun 15, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> Lookahead is not the only factor, i also listed R and M switching, and worse cases


...which you also do in roux.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 15, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> when did i say that



I said that limits are beyond what people think they are


----------



## whaffle (Jun 15, 2020)

What if you did phasing, like in ZZ-b, but with CFOP? You would put two opposite LL edges opposite of each other, not necessarily correctly oriented, but in the same orientation. This would reduce the number of LL cases from 3916 to ~600. Phasing is mostly intuitive, and only has 6 cases. Though this is technically a 3LLSLL, I think it is better then other 3LLSLL methods, such as OLL/PLL, as phasing is relatively lightweight. What do you guys think?


----------



## Skewbed (Jun 15, 2020)

whaffle said:


> What if you did phasing, like in ZZ-b, but with CFOP? You would put two opposite LL edges opposite of each other, not necessarily correctly oriented, but in the same orientation. This would reduce the number of LL cases from 3916 to ~600. Phasing is mostly intuitive, and only has 6 cases. Though this is technically a 3LLSLL, I think it is better then other 3LLSLL methods, such as OLL/PLL, as phasing is relatively lightweight. What do you guys think?


I think the alg count would be 1327 instead of around 600.

COLL (42) * 4 + H-Perm (1) = ZZLL (169)
OLLCP (331) * 4 + Mis-oriented H-Perms (2) + H-Perm (1) = 1327

I think it could be a good method, but ZBLS + ZBLL is better for that amount of algs because it is 2 look.


----------



## whaffle (Jun 16, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> I think the alg count would be 1327 instead of around 600.
> 
> COLL (42) * 4 + H-Perm (1) = ZZLL (169)
> OLLCP (331) * 4 + Mis-oriented H-Perms (2) + H-Perm (1) = 1327
> ...


Since the phased edges are in the same orientation, the remaining two edges are in the same orientation as well. Thus there are 4 eo possibilities: f/b unoriented, l/r unoriented, all unoriented, and none unoriented. Thus the total number of algorithms will be exactly 4 times ZZLL, which is 169 algs. Thus this method has 4 * 169 + 6 = 682 algs, compared to ZB's 799. The f2l pair and phasing take less than 1 look, as they are simple and easy to plan through lookahead. Thus in reality, this method takes ~2.5 looks or less, if you understand what I mean. On the other hand, each of the steps of ZB have pretty complicated recognition, and will take 2 looks. Thus I think the total recognition time for my method and the ZB method will not be too different.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 16, 2020)

whaffle said:


> Since the phased edges are in the same orientation, the remaining two edges are in the same orientation as well. Thus there are 4 eo possibilities: f/b unoriented, l/r unoriented, all unoriented, and none unoriented. Thus the total number of algorithms will be exactly 4 times ZZLL, which is 169 algs. Thus this method has 4 * 169 + 6 = 682 algs, compared to ZB's 799. The f2l pair and phasing take less than 1 look, as they are simple and easy to plan through lookahead. Thus in reality, this method takes ~2.5 looks or less, if you understand what I mean. On the other hand, each of the steps of ZB have pretty complicated recognition, and will take 2 looks. Thus I think the total recognition time for my method and the ZB method will not be too different.



ZB doesn't have complicated recognition. It's probably easier than your method, although I can't say for sure.


----------



## brododragon (Jun 16, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> when did i say that


Yes.

Okay, I usually wouldn't do this, but my post got drowned out by Muke and his I don't even know what arguments, so I'm gonna copy it here.

New method:
1. *Wheels *2 1x2x2 at DBR and DBL.
2. *EOEdges *EO, then edges.
3. *EP *Permute UL, UR, FL, FR.
4. *F3C *First 3 Corners - solve DFR, DFL, UFL - 162 algs.
5. *L3C *Last 3 Corners - 24 algs, but they are included in F3C.



Spoiler: More



162 algs. Solving CO parity, then F3C + L3C will drop down the number to 54. EOEdges looks harder than it is. First, EO, then you just have to make sure your M-Slice solution solves UL, UR, FL, and FR. there are only 3 possibly permutations for them. Also, maybe instead of making sure crosses are solved (UL, UR, FL, FR), you could leave them unsolved and solve parity with?


----------



## ProStar (Jun 16, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Yes.
> 
> Okay, I usually wouldn't do this, but my post got drowned out by Muke and his I don't even know what arguments, so I'm gonna copy it here.
> 
> ...



L6C can be solved with comms


----------



## brododragon (Jun 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> L6C can be solved with comms


The aim is speedsolving.


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 16, 2020)

cfop LL method:
EOCP
2GLL
not my idea


----------



## Silky (Jun 16, 2020)

So, this is a proposal for a new variant/hybrid of Roux. It is a mix of the SOAP method for 2x2 (https://www.cubestuff.cf/?soap) and Roux.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview/steps:

Step 1: FB + E-slice

1(a) = > This is the same step as in Roux. Blockbuild a 1x2x3 block on the L face.
1(b) = > Finish the E-slice, placing FR and BR edges in their respective spots.

Step 2: SOAP

2(a) = > Pair two D face corners (white corners) and place them in the FRU and BRU or FRD and BRD positions. These corners do no need to be oriented or permuted correctly relative to the FR and BR edges.
2(b) = > Perform SOAP style corners. First orient all 6 remaining corners and then permute them. This step would require that first block and E-slice edges are preserved.

Step 3: EO + FD edge

3(a) = > Perform EO regularly as in Roux.
3(b) = > Place FD edge finishing the second block.

Step 4: L6EP
= > Perform Last 6 edges as in normal Roux.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pros:

(1) = > Step 1 can be planned out in inspection. This would most likely be easier than planning first block and 1x2x2 square in normal Roux.
(2) = > The orientation step of the SOAP Method is mostly 2-Gen which would make them finger-trickable. If the white corners are placed in the FRD and BRD positions (the separation step in SOAP) the orientation step could be done without looking at the D-face corners (unless you skip the separation step all together).
(3) = > The orientation algorithms can be done such that no corners on the D-face are dis-permuted meaning that if you predict/track how U-layer corners are permuted (during the orientation step) this step can be done in one look instead of two.
(4) = > Based on how the second block is solved it may be easier to preform NMLL (yellow corners/FD edge instead of white)
(4) = > The EO and FD placement can be done simultaneously.
(5) = > After performing EO and FD placement you can perform a Rw2 and see all M-slice edges leaving no blindspots.
(6) = > Because you solve 6 corners simultaneously as well as performing EO and FD placement at the same time, this method should be at least as, if not more, efficient than Roux.
(7) = > There aren't that many algs to learn, 56 I think.
(8) = > I'm naming it SOUP (or SOUXP; SOAP+Roux).

Cons:

(1) = > I haven't generated any algs (as I don't really know how to; although I assume you should be able to modify the existing ones with wide moves). Given that you need to preserve the first block and E-slice they may be less efficient (although hopefully the 2-gen will make up for that).
(2) = > SOAP as a 2x2 method hasn't proven to be viable (yet) and incorporating it may not be all that useful/fast.
(3) = > SOAP corners may have difficult look-ahead and may need to be two looked.
(4) = > Step (2) and Step (3) may prove to be more difficult than they're worth (Ya'll can decide that for yourselves).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Being a Roux solver myself, I'm actually pretty excited for this method and am hopeful that it could be viable.

If anyone is interested in this method and wants to help generate algs that would be amazing ! Comments/thoughts and critiques are alway welcome.

Below is my original proposal for a SOAP-PCSM variant (my inspiration for SOUP), if anyone is interested.



Silky said:


> So I've been thinking about PCMS lately and believe I've come up with an interesting variant.
> 
> Overview:
> 
> ...


----------



## Skewbed (Jun 16, 2020)

whaffle said:


> Since the phased edges are in the same orientation, the remaining two edges are in the same orientation as well. Thus there are 4 eo possibilities: f/b unoriented, l/r unoriented, all unoriented, and none unoriented. Thus the total number of algorithms will be exactly 4 times ZZLL, which is 169 algs. Thus this method has 4 * 169 + 6 = 682 algs, compared to ZB's 799. The f2l pair and phasing take less than 1 look, as they are simple and easy to plan through lookahead. Thus in reality, this method takes ~2.5 looks or less, if you understand what I mean. On the other hand, each of the steps of ZB have pretty complicated recognition, and will take 2 looks. Thus I think the total recognition time for my method and the ZB method will not be too different.


I think you left out the 4 adjacent mis-oriented cases. F and R, F and L, B and R, B and L. I do not get why phased edges would be in the same orientation, is that part of the phasing process in your method?


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 16, 2020)

Silky said:


> So, this is a proposal for a new variant/hybrid of Roux. It is a mix of the SOAP method for 2x2 (https://www.cubestuff.cf/?soap) and Roux.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


SOAP corner orientation and permutation algs are probably trash and the recognition would be hard for permutation. EO FD is a weird step and would require you do M and S move switching. Why not just solve FD edge as a part of the e slice?
Also, please prove how efficient this method is on this scramble. You can use 1 look soap algs if you want
R2 D L2 D L2 B2 U B2 R2 U B L' D' F2 R' F L2 D' U F

classic roux solution: 
z' y' F' D U M' U' r' B 7/7
r U R U M' U' R U' r U R' 11/18
U' L' U R U' L U R 8/26
U' M U' M' U M U M' U2 M' U2 M 12/38
38stm


----------



## whaffle (Jun 16, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> I think you left out the 4 adjacent mis-oriented cases. F and R, F and L, B and R, B and L. I do not get why phased edges would be in the same orientation, is that part of the phasing process in your method?


Yes. After some thought though, I think this probably wouldn't be as good as ZB.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Jun 16, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> cfop LL method:
> EOCP
> 2GLL
> not my idea


The only cfop ll method is oll -> pll, as started by the name of the method


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 18, 2020)

I'm A Cuber said:


> The only cfop ll method is oll -> pll, as started by the name of the method


bruh


----------



## brododragon (Jun 18, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> SOAP corner orientation and permutation algs are probably trash and the recognition would be hard for permutation. EO FD is a weird step and would require you do M and S move switching. Why not just solve FD edge as a part of the e slice?
> Also, please prove how efficient this method is on this scramble. You can use 1 look soap algs if you want
> R2 D L2 D L2 B2 U B2 R2 U B L' D' F2 R' F L2 D' U F
> 
> ...


Nice, Muke being a hateful pessimist with no actually evidence backing it up.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jun 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Nice, Muke being a hateful pessimist with no actually evidence backing it up.


All of his points were valid and there isn’t really any evidence he needs in this case.


----------



## ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken (Jun 19, 2020)

This is a LEOR for big cubes variant:
1. Left block + opposite center
2. D and B centers + DB dedge
3. Last 2 centers
4. Dedge pairing while solving EO
5. Complete EOLine
6. Right block
7. LL


----------



## brododragon (Jun 19, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Nice, Muke being a hateful pessimist with no actually evidence backing it up.


Eh, half his arguments are "x is probably trash" using probably as a substitute for evidence.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 19, 2020)

ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken said:


> This is a LEOR for big cubes variant:
> 1. Left block + opposite center
> 2. D and B centers + DB dedge
> 3. Last 2 centers
> ...


You're probably better off doing meyer until 3x3 stage (which is what I do).


----------



## ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken (Jun 19, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> You're probably better off doing meyer until 3x3 stage (which is what I do).


So, something like steps 1-3 of Meyer, then pairing + EO, right block, LL, would be better?


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 19, 2020)

ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken said:


> So, something like steps 1-3 of Meyer, then pairing + EO, right block, LL, would be better?


Meyer until 3x3 stage then continue with leor


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 23, 2020)

I proposed an unrefined version of this on the HK discord a a week or two ago, but I should post this here: HKY:
during HKF2L, the DF edge is put in the right spot, though not necessarily oriented. Then there is one logical path: COLL. OCLL leaves you with two many cases, but COLL will leave you with a small subset of L5E. If I am right, it should be ~58 algs+COLL

I will call the subset L5EDF unless anyone has a better name


----------



## Alex Shih (Jun 23, 2020)

I've recently thought of a possible new big cube method that uses Roux but doesn't quite follow the standard redux layout like Meyer (if this has been proposed before, I apologize):

1. First 2 centers
2. Build Roux blocks on F2C
3. CMLL
4. Pair up and solve the ULUR edges (a little unsure about this step)
5. Solve the rest of the cube using slice moves and U2 (I'll definitely end up breaking this into substeps, but I'm not quite sure how yet)

With modern hardware, I think this could definitely be fast for 4x4/5x5 if the recognition for the substeps in step 5 is good and the step 5 substeps can be solved (mostly) intuitively. I also found some info for a "Stadler Method" for 4x4 that's pretty close to my method but follows redux more closely (english is on the right column): https://www.speedcubing.ch/lösungsanleitungen/4x4-stadler-methode/. 

Edit: After some more thought, I've realized step 4 + solving the rest of the cube is probably slower than solving L4C using slice moves, doing a bunch of edge cycles to finish edge pairing, and then doing 3x3 LSE. I've already made MlrU algs that cycle edges while preserving ULUR, so the only thing I really need now are algs that cycle edges in the M-slice *which don't necessarily preserve the UL/UR edges (since preserving ULUR makes the edge cycles really move-inefficient). *


----------



## mukerflap (Jun 24, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> I've recently thought of a possible new big cube method that uses Roux but doesn't quite follow the standard redux layout like Meyer (if this has been proposed before, I apologize):
> 
> 1. First 2 centers
> 2. Build Roux blocks on F2C
> ...


this is lewis method


----------



## Alex Shih (Jun 24, 2020)

mukerflap said:


> this is lewis method


Well this is embarrassing lol.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jun 24, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> Well this is embarrassing lol.


Still impressive you came up with this, it means more potential in future


----------



## Alex Shih (Jun 24, 2020)

I think there's definitely improvements that could be made to the Lewis L5E algs, but I don't have any way to generate new algs. Does anyone know if there's something like cube explorer for 4x4 or 5x5?


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Jun 25, 2020)

This might have been proposed before but here it is anyway.

Build 2 1x2x2 blocks in DBL and DBR, and solve the DF edge
Solve the FL and FR slots using the M slice to orient the edges
Solve L9P (Last 9 Pieces) any way you want. I use CLL the L5E.


----------



## ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken (Jun 25, 2020)

CyoobietheCuber said:


> This might have been proposed before but here it is anyway.
> 
> Build 2 1x2x2 blocks in DBL and DBR, and solve the DF edge
> Solve the FL and FR slots using the M slice to orient the edges
> Solve L9P (Last 9 Pieces) any way you want. I use CLL the L5E.



It's pretty similar to Petrus-W. I'm not sure though about the DF edge. Why not insert the DB instead?


----------



## RedstoneTim (Jun 25, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> I think there's definitely improvements that could be made to the Lewis L5E algs, but I don't have any way to generate new algs. Does anyone know if there's something like cube explorer for 4x4 or 5x5?


There is ksolve++ for stuff like that, though instead of a full 4x4 or 5x5, defining only the M slice and U layer should be enough.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 25, 2020)

2x2 Method:

CPLine - Like Briggs and YruRU. This usually takes around 3-4 moves on 3x3, so it should be the same on 2x2
CO - Orient the Corners using <R, U>. Can usually be solved in 5ish moves
Solved - Solve a layer using <R2, U>. Most cases are 4-movers, with one being 6 and the worst being 9. This step can be executed really fast

Should average around 12 HTM, and almost all of it is either R U or R2 U


This could also be adapted for 2x2x3 by doing CPLine, Layer(also solving top layer), E-layer. CPLine is similar to Faces, Layer is <R2, U> and faster than PBL, and E-Layer is the same(although it could be influenced during the layer, where you can't easily influence the E-layer normally). Should be around 15 HTM, same as WoowyBaby's method


----------



## brododragon (Jun 25, 2020)

ProStar said:


> 2x2 Method:
> 
> CPLine - Like Briggs and YruRU. This usually takes around 3-4 moves on 3x3, so it should be the same on 2x2
> CO - Orient the Corners using <R, U>. Can usually be solved in 5ish moves
> ...


This has been proposed before, I think by @WarriorCatCuber.


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Jun 26, 2020)

ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken said:


> It's pretty similar to Petrus-W. I'm not sure though about the DF edge. Why not insert the DB instead?


Yeah. But I actually thought it was more like HK. Anyway, I insert the DF edge because used to be dumb.


Spoiler



I invented this like a month ago.


----------



## ThisNameIsAlreadyTaken (Jun 26, 2020)

CyoobietheCuber said:


> Yeah. But I actually thought it was more like HK. Anyway, I insert the DF edge because used to be dumb.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Yes, but since in HK you usually do EOArrow, I thought it to be more similar to Petrus-W


----------



## whaffle (Jun 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> 2x2 Method:
> Should average around 12 HTM, and almost all of it is either R U or R2 U


Sounds kinda sketchy, God's number for the 2x2 is 11. I think the actual movecount would be around 14. Could you do some example solves?

A 3-look method for LSLL+EO that can be 2-look with no more algs that I came up with:
1. Using WV, solve an edge and orient corners. 8 moves.
2. Solve the remaining corner using a commutator while influencing pll. 8 moves.
3. PLL. 12 moves.
Total: 28 moves.
Movecount when using ZBLL: 23
With some practice, you can do Steps 2 and 3 in one look. Recognition is also easier than ZBLL (imo). That makes this a 2-look LSLL+EO method that only uses 5 more moves than ZBLL and has better recognition. Are there any disadvantages to this method that I'm not seeing? If not, I will probably be switching to this for Petrus.


----------



## trangium (Jun 26, 2020)

whaffle said:


> A 3-look method for LSLL+EO that can be 2-look with no more algs that I came up with:
> 1. Using WV, solve an edge and orient corners. 8 moves.
> 2. Solve the remaining corner using a commutator while influencing pll. 8 moves.
> 3. PLL. 12 moves.


Do you mean orienting all 8 corners, or just 3 of the top layer corners? If it's orienting all 8 corners, this step is TSLE (104 algs), which is good, but it has already been invented. After TSLE, the whole cube can be solved with TTLL (72 algs + PLL). Two-look TTLL with a comm+PLL is not a good idea, since the oriented corner comms all require a rotation, and R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 also inserts the last corner while giving a PLL.
If it's just 3 of the top layer corners, this is usually good, since the commutator can be used to orient the last two corners while inserting the final corner. However, if the white corner is twisted in place, this cannot be solved with one commutator, so you'll need to use one of 2 algs for those cases, then do PLL, which is inefficient. I'm not sure how many algs would be needed for this step, but you would need to know all 104 recognition cases, where one algorithm could be used for multiple cases.


----------



## whaffle (Jun 26, 2020)

trangium said:


> Do you mean orienting all 8 corners, or just 3 of the top layer corners? If it's orienting all 8 corners, this step is TSLE (104 algs), which is good, but it has already been invented. After TSLE, the whole cube can be solved with TTLL (72 algs + PLL). Two-look TTLL with a comm+PLL is not a good idea, since the oriented corner comms all require a rotation, and R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 also inserts the last corner while giving a PLL.
> If it's just 3 of the top layer corners, this is usually good, since the commutator can be used to orient the last two corners while inserting the final corner. However, if the white corner is twisted in place, this cannot be solved with one commutator, so you'll need to use one of 2 algs for those cases, then do PLL, which is inefficient. I'm not sure how many algs would be needed for this step, but you would need to know all 104 recognition cases, where one algorithm could be used for multiple cases.


Yeah, I mean just 3 of the top layer corners. If all corners happen to be oriented, you can do [R'DRU'RD'R'U, U], but since it has more moves it might be useful to do TTLL or the variation of TTLL that solves CP. To avoid white corner twisted in place cases, you could use summer variation instead of winter variation, or just do normal LSLL. Though there are 108 cases, there are only 54 algorithms you need to know as mirrors can be used. Due to the nature of winter and summer variation, you know which corner is going to be inserted with the edge, meaning you can predict which corner will be in the DFR position as well as what orientation it will be in, which allows for a very smooth transition into the commutator. You can also predict PLL before doing the commutator, which means that with practice, this can be a virtually pauseless LSLL+EO method. Is there anywhere I can find good summer variation algorithms?


----------



## Skewbed (Jun 26, 2020)

whaffle said:


> Sounds kinda sketchy, God's number for the 2x2 is 11. I think the actual movecount would be around 14. Could you do some example solves?
> 
> A 3-look method for LSLL+EO that can be 2-look with no more algs that I came up with:
> 1. Using WV, solve an edge and orient corners. 8 moves.
> ...


This is just worse ZZ-CT. ZZ-CT does have more algs (197), but it is 2 look and does not require a corner to be paired with the E-slice edge when orienting.

ZZ-CT LSLL with EO Steps:
1. TSLE - Solve the E-slice edge while solving corners (Different than winter variation because it doesn't need a corner to be paired with an edge)
2. TTLL - Solve the rest of the Cube

If you are interested in learning this method, there are a few good resources out there.


----------



## whaffle (Jun 26, 2020)

Skewbed said:


> This is just worse ZZ-CT. ZZ-CT does have more algs (197), but it is 2 look and does not require a corner to be paired with the E-slice edge when orienting.


You don't need to pair a corner with an edge, you just insert one edge while orienting 3 top layer corners.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Jun 26, 2020)

whaffle said:


> You don't need to pair a corner with an edge, you just insert one edge while orienting 3 top layer corners.


This is Twisted TTLL (don't think there's a different name for it). It was thought of by Jayden McNeill not long ago.


----------



## Devagio (Jun 26, 2020)

ProStar said:


> 2x2 Method:
> 
> CPLine - Like Briggs and YruRU. This usually takes around 3-4 moves on 3x3, so it should be the same on 2x2
> CO - Orient the Corners using <R, U>. Can usually be solved in 5ish moves
> ...


CP line will take lesser moves on a 2x2x2, because no DL edge. I’d estimate 2-3 moves.
The orientation would take quite a few moves, I’m unsure how you intend to do it in 5 moves. There are hundreds of cases, so given only RU moves, it kinda gives a lower bound of 5 moves on average at the very best. My guess for the average would be 7-8 moves. So that’s an average of closer to 15 HTM.

A cool method to show off; but not 1-lookable; and RU isn’t that great a moveset on 2x2x2 so certainly not spread (edit:speed) solving viable.


----------



## NevEr_QeyX (Jun 27, 2020)

Devagio said:


> spread solving


----------



## JawadWAhmed (Jul 1, 2020)

So, I had an idea, it's an extension of f2l blocks where you solve the 2x2x3 block with the 2x3 part on the Left, and then solve all of the edges and then orient and permute the corners, probably stupid but it doesn't sound too bad to me.


----------



## mukerflap (Jul 1, 2020)

JawadWAhmed said:


> So, I had an idea, it's an extension of f2l blocks where you solve the 2x2x3 block with the 2x3 part on the Left, and then solve all of the edges and then orient and permute the corners, probably stupid but it doesn't sound too bad to me.


pretty much Hahn method


----------



## MichaelZRC (Jul 1, 2020)

New method for 2x2, VCO
*V*: Solve a V on the bottom layer similar to VOP
*C: *CPLS, use the pair solved CPLS cases for the last corner (Orientation of the corner doesn't matter so treat the corner like a solved pair no matter what orientation)
*O: *Orient the last pieces using one of 16 TCLL cases or one of 7 CLL cases.
Some of you may that, "Recognizing CPLS during the middle of a 2x2 solve is insane!" The thing is, you don't. While looking at the V in inspection you also look at the CP case (8 total) making it a 2 look method if you do V+CPLS in inspection. Movecount would be around 14-16 (2 for V, 6 For CPLS and around 7 for TCLL, each step varying)
And total number of algs is 31, much less than TCLL which has a total of 128 including CLL 
Any questions welcome


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 2, 2020)

MichaelZRC said:


> New method for 2x2, VCO
> *V*: Solve a V on the bottom layer similar to VOP
> *C: *CPLS, use the pair solved CPLS cases for the last corner (Orientation of the corner doesn't matter so treat the corner like a solved pair no matter what orientation)
> *O: *Orient the last pieces using one of 16 TCLL cases or one of 7 CLL cases.
> ...


Worse than EG so not worth it. There hasn't been a good 2x2 method propsed that would be faster than EG plus TCLL except learning 614 algs and doing L5C. Also CPLS, while not having bad recog, is worse and harder to 1 look through than just solving a face, solving everything. And that goes to every 2x2 method proposal; if you want it to be competeing with EG, you have to have it being 2 steps, 1 lookable and lower movecount which probably won't happen. Prove me wrong though, I would be more than happy to be.

TL;DR 2x2 is already insanely optimised so you need a really good idea to make anything fast that's worthwhile learning.


----------



## MichaelZRC (Jul 2, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Worse than EG so not worth it. There hasn't been a good 2x2 method propsed that would be faster than EG plus TCLL except learning 614 algs and doing L5C. Also CPLS, while not having bad recog, is worse and harder to 1 look through than just solving a face, solving everything. And that goes to every 2x2 method proposal; if you want it to be competeing with EG, you have to have it being 2 steps, 1 lookable and lower movecount which probably won't happen. Prove me wrong though, I would be more than happy to be.
> 
> TL;DR 2x2 is already insanely optimised so you need a really good idea to make anything fast that's worthwhile learning.


The method isn't trying to compete with EG , I wanted a more advanced VOP and TCLL with less algs. if you one-look V and CPLS it could compete with CLL. Basically the overall goal was less algs for a decent 2x2 method

Also, VCO example solve here:


----------



## Athefre (Jul 2, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Worse than EG so not worth it. There hasn't been a good 2x2 method propsed that would be faster than EG plus TCLL except learning 614 algs and doing L5C. Also CPLS, while not having bad recog, is worse and harder to 1 look through than just solving a face, solving everything. And that goes to every 2x2 method proposal; if you want it to be competeing with EG, you have to have it being 2 steps, 1 lookable and lower movecount which probably won't happen. Prove me wrong though, I would be more than happy to be.
> 
> TL;DR 2x2 is already insanely optimised so you need a really good idea to make anything fast that's worthwhile learning.



A2 is two steps, one-lookable, no new algs required if someone already knows CLL/EG/TCLL/others, and fewer moves than EG. The only thing new anyone has to do is practice pair building and learn the two simple rules for recognition.


----------



## Username: Username: (Jul 2, 2020)

Athefre said:


> A2 is two steps, one-lookable, no new algs required if someone already knows CLL/EG/TCLL/others, and fewer moves than EG. The only thing new anyone has to do is practice pair building and learn the two simple rules for recognition.


Yeah, I recently tried A2 and i'm confused on the L2P step, if I get it down it definitely could be my main method for 2x2


----------



## ProStar (Jul 2, 2020)

CFOP-style 4x4 method inspired by LBL:

1.) White Center - Just one center, you could be CN but for simplicity I used white
2.) 3 Cross Edges - Like Yau
3.) 3 Half centers - Solve 3 half centers to match up with the 3 edges you have
4.) Last half center + cross edge - Pair up the final cross edge and preserve it while creating the final half center. Then put both in their correct position. A this point you have white cross and a half center pairing up with each cross edge
5.) F2L - Use F2L to solve Corner-Edge pairs. Each pair is 1 corner and 1 edge, not the entire wing. This is kinda weird because there's two edges that look identical, but you can get used to it
6.) 3rd Layer - Same as JPerm's method; solve either all the 3rd layer centers or the 3rd layer edges(depending on which has more solved, which can be realized almost instantly), then the rest of the 3rd layer. Same algs as J-Perm
7.) LL - Solve corners with CLL, then the wings with ELL. ELL can be done 2-look by solving the wings with 1 alg then solving ELL. You could also solve wings first then do CLL->ELL

Not saying it's as good as Yau, just presenting the method. Also, how many algs for doing 1-look ELL(solve wings and solve edges while preserving corners)?


----------



## whaffle (Jul 2, 2020)

ProStar said:


> CFOP-style 4x4 method inspired by LBL:
> 
> 1.) White Center - Just one center, you could be CN but for simplicity I used white
> 2.) 3 Cross Edges - Like Yau
> ...


I think 1-look ELL is 7! * 2^7, could be wrong though. 
Don't say half centers, it's easy to confuse with another technique where you solve centers misaligned by 1 move. Solving the centers using a LBL approach is ineffecient, so it's better to do centers before F2L, at which point you are basically doing K4.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 2, 2020)

Athefre said:


> A2 is two steps, one-lookable, no new algs required if someone already knows CLL/EG/TCLL/others, and fewer moves than EG. The only thing new anyone has to do is practice pair building and learn the two simple rules for recognition.


I would argue that A2 is an EG extension, just as NM blocks is not a new method, rather a technique used within the framework of the method.


----------



## TheoryOfQuantum (Jul 2, 2020)

Hey guys, what do you think about this alternative version of CFOP? 
* Method: XCOP
1. X: Basically make an X with and make sure the sides are correct.
2. C: Cross. Basic if you know CFOP.
3. OP: Last layer CFOP.*

Discuss.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 2, 2020)

1.) What do you mean by X? an XCross?
2.) You forgot the rest of F2L
3.) There's a thread especially for proposing new methods, which can be found here.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 2, 2020)

TheoryOfQuantum said:


> Hey guys, what do you think about this alternative version of CFOP?
> * Method: XCOP
> 1. X: Basically make an X with and make sure the sides are correct.
> 2. C: Cross. Basic if you know CFOP.
> ...


If you mean making a literal X cross with F2L pairs then no, it's not viable. The number of rotations and slice moves to insert the cross edges just isn't worth it compared to regular CFOP or variants like FreeFOP. It's not viable or efficient, and your TPS would presumably be very low during the Cross unless you learn algs, and at that point, your efforts would be better spent learning ZBLL or other sets.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jul 2, 2020)

This is PCMS but worse


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Jul 3, 2020)

This is FCOP or FreeFOP


----------



## Athefre (Jul 3, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I would argue that A2 is an EG extension, just as NM blocks is not a new method, rather a technique used within the framework of the method.



It's actually not just non-matching or transformed EG. There is a whole lot more to it than that. You simply build two pairs as the first step. Think of all of the 2x2 methods which do that. EG is one, but also CLL and all of the methods in the post below:









The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread


Is there a LS substep that permutes oriented edges?




www.speedsolving.com





A2 also integrates transformation, which is my CLL technique from 2010 and most people now know as 22. Here, you only have to solve three pieces instead of the whole two pairs.

I actually debated with myself for a long time as to what I should call A2. When I originally posted about it years ago, I called it a way to improve CLL and EG. But I recently rebranded it into it's own method because there are so many sub-methods involved. You build two pairs or a few pieces then go from there. CLL/EG/TCLL/those many methods in my post above happen to be subsets. I don't want to call it a technique because it includes a group of techniques. The first two pair building (this was so complex to develop), transformation, and my recognition methods. All of these combine to make something much more than just a technique.


----------



## Alex Shih (Jul 3, 2020)

Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?

1. First 2 centers
2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
3. Second Block (just outer layer, so 3x4x1)
4. CMLL 
5. Solve the rest of the cube using U and the right inner slice (still working on this part)

Essentially, the point of this method is to eliminate the numerous regrips that Lewis/Stadler has when switching between wide slice, left inner slice, and right inner slice moves. Roux's obvious weakness on big cubes is not being able to keep the inner layers together during 3x3 stage, and this is an attempt to solve that as well. There's also probably a way to avoid OLL parity by orienting all the edge-halves during step 5, but I haven't fully fleshed that out yet.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?
> 
> 1. First 2 centers
> 2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
> ...


I think step 5 would be too hard to do fast in a solve and you would have to learn a new style of blockbuilding for 4x4 but I think it would be cool if this works.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?
> 
> 1. First 2 centers
> 2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
> ...



I'm almost certain that this is an existing method, but I can't remember which one it is


----------



## Etotheipi (Jul 3, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> Possible new Roux-based 4x4 method?
> 
> 1. First 2 centers
> 2. First Block on one of the solved centers, but with additional layer (3x4x2 block)
> ...


This is similar to @dudefaceguy's intuitive 4x4 method, with some variations. His method uses commutators for your 5th step, to stay intuitive, but maybe you can find a faster alg based approach.


----------



## Alex Shih (Jul 3, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> I think step 5 would be too hard to do fast in a solve and you would have to learn a new style of blockbuilding for 4x4 but I think it would be cool if this works.


Personally, I don't think the ergonomics of inner slice + U are significantly worse than the ergonomics of doing outer-layer CFOP. But I could be definitely be convinced otherwise.



> This is similar to @dudefaceguy's intuitive 4x4 method, with some variations. His method uses commutators for your 5th step, to stay intuitive, but maybe you can find a faster alg based approach.


After some experimentation, I think the best alg-based approach is probably some variant of this:

5a. Pair up centers (2x1 center piece blocks) while solving ULUR
5b. Solve the rest of the cube using U2's and inner slices (basically an analogue to 4c in normal Roux)

There are only 4 center pairs you need to solve (since the fifth one gets solved automatically). There are also 4 ULUR edges to solve, so you can solve one center pair and one ULUR piece simultaneously and repeat 3 times to reduce # of algs. I ended up dropping the idea of EO as its own step because most 5b cases seem to have misoriented edges anyway.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Jul 4, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> This is similar to @dudefaceguy's intuitive 4x4 method, with some variations. His method uses commutators for your 5th step, to stay intuitive, but maybe you can find a faster alg based approach.


Yup, that's my method! I solve the inner slice after completing both blocks, but you can really do it either way. Hm, maybe I will experiment with switching some of the steps around. Very cool that you remembered 

Seems to me that it has potential as a speed method, but I don't really know since I'm not a speed solver. The most obvious problem is that it uses completely different skills compared to 3x3, so it's not as easy to leverage your existing skills. I designed it this way on purpose, because I wanted my 4x4 solves to be different than my 3x3 solves.

Recognition is also difficult when pairing opposite wing edges in the inner slice - you need to identify which blue/white edge goes with which blue/yellow edge, even though they have the same colors. 

But I am getting good times with this method, i.e. 4x slower than my 3x3 times. This is about what 4x4 times should be for a casual solver. So, a dedicated speed solver who is not an old man could probably get competitive times. Over time, I've come to do some of the steps exactly the same way, effectively making them algorithmic even though I'm technically using commutators. There are certainly some gains to be had by further refining algorthmic steps.

Edit: many of the steps are already used in other speed methods, for example Lewis and Sandwich. The thing that distinguishes it from these two methods is solving 3/4 of one inner slice, and using the other single slice to solve wing edges.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Jul 4, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> 5. Solve the rest of the cube using U and the right inner slice (still working on this part)


By the way, I have tried to do this, and you CANNOT solve both centers and edges using only U and r (unless I have really missed something). EDIT: Actually you should be able to, since you can scramble the same pieces with U r. It just seems like the movecount would be very high.

It's either centers first and then edges using commutators (Lewis) or edges first and then centers using commutators (QTPI and Sandwich). You can do some center control while solving edges to get a few extra center pieces solved, but I'm not sure that this is worth it. There are 10 center pieces left if you solve edges first, or 8 if you also solve the two centers in the l slice while solving edges. 1/4 of these will usually be solved by accident, so there are usually 7 or 8 center pieces left, or 6 if you solve the extra 2 center pieces while solving edges. This is the difference between 2 and 3 commutators (or 1 4-move commutator cycling 6 pieces). Center commutators/algs can be really fast, but you have to look at the bottom and back faces to recognize the case.

Anyhow, I am obviously very excited to talk about this method but I will stop now and go to sleep.


----------



## Alex Shih (Jul 4, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> By the way, I have tried to do this, and you CANNOT solve both centers and edges using only U and r (unless I have really missed something). It's either centers first and then edges using commutators (Lewis) or edges first and then centers using commutators (QTPI and Sandwich). You can do some center control while solving edges to get a few extra center pieces solved, but I'm not sure that this is worth it. There are 10 center pieces left if you solve edges first, or 8 if you also solve the two centers in the l slice while solving edges. 1/4 of these will usually be solved by accident, so there are usually 7 or 8 center pieces left, or 6 if you solve the extra 2 center pieces while solving edges. This is the difference between 2 and 3 commutators (or 1 4-move commutator cycling 6 pieces). Center commutators/algs can be really fast, but you have to look at the bottom and back faces to recognize the case.
> 
> Anyhow, I am obviously very excited to talk about this method but I will stop now and go to sleep.


Do you know any specific cases where this isn't possible, or the specific reason this isn't possible? There might be a workaround (although I have a feeling that the workaround would probably be algorithmic). Also, if you want to continue this discussion, we should probably move to a different thread.


----------



## Skewbed (Jul 4, 2020)

Here's an idea for finishing Hexagonal Francisco solves using pseudoslotting during the last edge.

Pseudoslotting ZBLL Finish:

1. Hexagon on D
2. Solve 3 E-slice edges like normal (RUru-gen)
3. Insert the last one with the corner by using pseudoslotting
4. Insert DF edge while doing EO (MU-gen)
5. ZBLL or such

Pseudoslotting OLL PLL Finish:

1. Same
2. Same
3. Same
4. Insert DF edge (MU-gen)
5. OLL
6. PLL

Example solve using OLL PLL Finish:

Scramble: U' L' D2 U2 B' D2 B2 L2 B R2 B L2 F2 U L' D R U' R2 B'

y2 // inspection
L D' L' // 3/4 cross, probably inefficient way to build hexagon
U' L' U' L // corner
R2 U' L U L' // corner
(D' U') L' U L // corner
u R U R' r U r' // edge
u r U r' F' U' F // pseudoslot
M' U' M // setup to LL
D' U R U R' U R d' R U' R' F' // OLL
U' L' U R' z R2 U R' U' R2 U D // PLL
R' // AUF (or ARF I guess)


----------



## TheoryOfQuantum (Jul 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> 1.) What do you mean by X? an XCross?
> 2.) You forgot the rest of F2L
> 3.) There's a thread especially for proposing new methods, which can be found here.


I meant that you would make a literal X. Not practical, but somehow helps with F2L.
Btw for the other people talking about where's f2l, I kind of forgot to say that you did f2l with it, as I've used it so much that it's been pretty much forgotten as a step and more a part of the cross


----------



## dudefaceguy (Jul 4, 2020)

Alex Shih said:


> Do you know any specific cases where this isn't possible, or the specific reason this isn't possible? There might be a workaround (although I have a feeling that the workaround would probably be algorithmic). Also, if you want to continue this discussion, we should probably move to a different thread.


Yes, let's move to the thread for this method: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/intuitive-4x4-method-with-parity-avoidance.73049/

I will post a reply there.


----------



## ProStar (Jul 4, 2020)

TheoryOfQuantum said:


> I meant that you would make a literal X. Not practical, but somehow helps with F2L.
> Btw for the other people talking about where's f2l, I kind of forgot to say that you did f2l with it, as I've used it so much that it's been pretty much forgotten as a step and more a part of the cross



By X do you mean inserting all F2L pairs? If so then that's a really bad version of PCMS @CodingCuber


----------



## Spacey10 (Jul 7, 2020)

5 moves flipped pair alg.
If the flipped pair is in FR and the slot is BR, then do R U' R2 U R'. May already exist though.


----------



## PetraPine (Jul 7, 2020)

HK method/variant
Do 2x2x2 block in back left or back right
ZZ EO 
Turn 2x2 into 2x2x3 while also solving front pairs
COLL LSE


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 7, 2020)

You, my friend, just invented the beginner version of WaterZZ or a version of Portico.


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Jul 7, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> 5 moves flipped pair alg.
> If the flipped pair is in FR and the slot is BR, then do R U' R2 U R'. May already exist though.


Exists.


----------



## Username: Username: (Jul 16, 2020)

Dunno if this exists but here it goes.
This is a wacky method that uses lots of algorithms so if you don't like learning algs then don't use this method.
I've posted this in a thread called "Pillman something something" and discussed this with other peoples, now I want to share it.

Step 1: it has two substeps to make inspection more feasible, step 1a is to make an FB + EO and plan it in inspection, I know that sounds crazy hard and it is, but with practice though, people can do it, I can guess some brave people can do it . Step 2b is to blockbuild an edge with 2 corners, Thus making one layer + EO.
tl;Dr: solve a layer + EO in two steps.

Step 2: solve the U layer edges into its place, and also, if all of your U layer edges are on the E slice, you can use one alg to solve them, kinda like L4EP but outside of last layer. tl;Dr: solve the U layer edges into its place. This step can obviously be improved to have more freedom, I'm open to all suggestions!

Step 3: Now, this alg set solves everything else, the LL corners and the oriented E slice edges in one algorithm while preserving the D layer and the U layer edges' orientation and permutation, this is similar to ZBLL, but, here's the catch, I think, this algorithm set has better recog and a bit lower algcount, now why better recognition? well ZBLL solves 8 pieces on the last layer, and the pieces are all combined together making it hard to recognize, but in this alg set, the 8 pieces, the corners and edges are separated, the E slice edges are not in the same layer as the LL corners, the part where it has a bit fewer algs? well, I just estimate that so take that with a grain of salt.
tl;Dr: solve the LL corners + the already oriented E slice edges.

I appreciate it if anyone calculates the average movecount for this method.

Step 4: Your cube is solved!

I'm open to any criticisms or corrections.

also, I'm trying this Chris Tran vibe kind thing, let me know haha


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 16, 2020)

I don't understand that explanation at all.


----------



## Spacey10 (Jul 16, 2020)

I think @pillman made this already, look at member intro
Edit: here https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/i-made-bad-methods-and-practiced-them.77926/#post-1382046


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 16, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I don't understand that explanation at all.


I'll simplify the steps 

1. First layer + EO
2. ELL
3. E Slice + CLL


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 17, 2020)

So the FB is actually on D, not on L. That makes a lot more sense, and is also bad.


----------



## pillman (Jul 17, 2020)

I actually hav a method that is not effective at all but it is fun


----------



## pillman (Jul 17, 2020)

its for 4X4 and up


----------



## Username: Username: (Jul 17, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> So the FB is actually on D, not on L. That makes a lot more sense, and is also bad.


If you don't like FB + EO on D, you could do this, EOCross, insert the D layer corners in a way that prevents the U layer edges from being on the E slice, now on the insertion of the last D layer corner, you permute all of the U layer edges, kinda like LPELL, but it's for one corner, not a pair.

also, just to clarify, the alg set which does CLL + E slice edges preserves the U layer edges, orientation and permutation but permutes the E slice edges.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jul 17, 2020)

Yeah, it's definitely worse than doing ZZ. You're doing layer+EO which is already kinda not good, then you're gonna do a step with not super recog then you're gonna do a step with not super recog or algs. As a general rule of thumb, any diag corner swap+edges that aren't in U are going to be majority awful algs.


----------



## Username: Username: (Jul 17, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Yeah, it's definitely worse than doing ZZ. You're doing layer+EO which is already kinda not good, then you're gonna do a step with not super recog then you're gonna do a step with not super recog or algs. As a general rule of thumb, any diag corner swap+edges that aren't in U are going to be majority awful algs.


Oh ok then, and also, I'm not trying to compare to ZZ or anything, ye this might be a bad method anyway D=


----------



## semiprime799 (Jul 26, 2020)

My really bad corners first method that I developed in one day:

```
1st step
intuitively solve the bottom corners
solve top corners using combination of 3-cycle and orientation algs.
Orientation algs:
[( R’ D’ R D R’ D’ R)(U’ )(R’ D R D’ R’ D R) U] twists UFL CW and UFR CCW
Sune [R U R’ U R U2 R’] twists all corners clockwise I think
3 cycle
Trash commutator 3 cycle [L D R’ D’ R U R’ D R U’ D’ L’]
if you end up with a weird corner case that can't be 3 cycled use setup moves

solve bottom edges intuitively with M/M' and F/D moves

solve E layer edges with [r U R' U' r' R U R U' R'] + some setup moves.

solve last four edges with combination of E slice alg and [M' U2 M U2] also setup moves are allowed.
```


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 2, 2020)

Has anyone created columns first on SQ-1?

1. Cube Shape
2. Solve all Corners
3. Solve 3 edges on bottom
4. Solve all edges in one alg. (L4E or L5E <--parity)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 2, 2020)

That's a cool idea. I'll do a few solves.

UPDATE: After doing 2 solves that weren't very good, I think it would be a better idea to do something like this: CSP, corners, DL+DR, L6EP. It ends up being 91 algs for L6EP, 34 for DL+DR and some amount for corners, depending on how you end up solving them. I think this could be a good competitor to Vandenburgh, although it is quite similar to Roux n Screw (but then Roux is quite similar to columns).


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 2, 2020)

Fireman method:
FBEO, solving FB + EO, similar to the first step of EOMR, medium
2 corners, solve 2 corners on D, super easy.
FCOLL, do an algset which does COLL and ignores the permutation of 9 edges, easy, 42
solve 3 redges using an algorithm, medium, alternative approach: do the 3 redges intuitively, 27 algorithms.
L6EP, medium, 95 algs approximate, alternative approach but not as good: EOLRb + 4c. 90 algorithms

edit:
3 redges using an alg would be wayyy too much algorithms, so instead of 3, you solve two redges using an alg, insert 3rd redge intuitively, then do L6EP,
but what's different with this and the similar 2 redge using an alg step in the modern Waterman method is that the edges are already oriented, making the algcount very restricted.

edit2:
I've looked over it again, 3 redges using an alg wouldn't be that much? Waterman's step is actually solving 3 edges, LU edge, and 2 redges, which is 100 ish algs, but those edges were not oriented, if they were, 3 redges' algcount wouldn't be much.

edit3:
So, Athefre came up with the idea of solving the 2 corners not on the same layer as FB, but on the D layer, COLL on left will become FCOLL (normal COLL but ignoring the permutation of 9 edges which is super insane) then for the 3 redges step, do it with an alg (same thing in the original proposal), I think the algcount would be somewhere like 27, BRUH 27! WHICH IS COMPLETELY INSANE!!!!!! (solving 3 pieces x 9 positions = 27 cases, the math would be wrong I guess) and by making COLL not on the left, recog would be soooo much better.

edit4:
So LeumaZZ on Discord suggested an idea when you solve the 3 redges, so you solve everything else using an alg (L6EP) dunno, the amount of intuitive steps would be outweighed by the algorithmic steps, too many restrictions are not that good, but the efficiency and TPS for L9P (3 redges + L6EP) is pretty good though

edit5:
bruh the algcount is in the hundreds for the 3 redges step rip my math was completely wrong, although cause of some weird things like AUF and symmetry I think it would be lowered

Fireman ftw!


----------



## Athefre (Aug 6, 2020)

I don't know how many people will see this, but I wanted to make a post clarifying the differences among conjugation, transformation, and pseudo/non-matching blocks. Recently the terminology has been used interchangeably.

*Conjugation:*

Conjugation is very broad. This is the general term for A B A'. You perform a setup, do some moves, then undo the setup. You have performed a setup so that you can easily perform the moves in "B". The A setup moves cause the puzzle to be in an offset state, changing the appearance. Then you undo the offset later. However, traditionally there is no further intent within this setup move. It wasn't until around 10 years ago that the technique of offsetting a layer was applied with the intent to reduce large algorithm sets and the overall move count of a method. That is where the term Transformation comes in. It refers to this specific technique.

*Transformation:*

Transformation is the application of a conjugate to change the state of the cube to gain a large advantage in the future. This is a relatively new term in the community. Transformation technically is conjugation, but there is a big difference in the intent. The reason for the application is completely different from the traditional use of A B A' setup, moves, setup undo. In transformation you are intentionally trying to change a case into another. You are taking advantage of the state of the pieces to improve the rest of the solve. Transformation is used to reduce the number of moves and the number of cases in a method. Conjugation doesn't specifically refer to this intent; it is a general term. Transformation is a different technique under the conjugation umbrella.

Setup = L' U R U' L U R' U'. This is one of the Sune orientation cases. But if you use the URF+UR pair and do an R' turn, you get the below state.

You have now transformed a Sune case into an L case. This is the L case solved by r U R U' L' U R' U'. So if you do r U R U' L' U R' U' then R (which undoes the R' turn in the last example), it will be solved.

Example methods/applications: NMLL, A2, CTLS, 42, and other case reduction applications.

*Pseudo/Non-Matching:*

This is when pieces are put together in such a way that the colors don't match. This is referring to the building process. We are only talking about the current state of the pieces. It is all about what everything looks like right now - not about your future intent.



Example methods/applications: Roux, Heise, ZZ, FMC, A2, A3, and it can be used in pretty much everything else.

In summary, the difference is in intent. In language, we have many separate words to clarify intention and reason. It is important to understand the differences for clarity. When someone says "conjugated Roux" or "conjugated ZBLL", it isn't clear what is meant and it requires them to provide an explanation. Do they mean Roux/ZZ with non-matching blocks? For Roux, do they mean 42? For ZZ, do they mean CTLS? Or do they mean something else? Because pseudo/non-matching and transformation fall under conjugation, it is important to use the correct term for the specific technique that is being used.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 9, 2020)

It seems a trend the past few years, possibly unintentionally, has been to develop all of the methods that do EO + left, middle, and right 1x2x3s. Below are the possibilities (without the unnecessary mirrored block order versions):

LMR (L + EO) = Left 1x2x3+EO, M 1x2x3, then right 1x2x3 = EOMR
LMR (M + EO) = LEOR
LMR (R + EO) = ?

MLR (L) = ?
MLR (M) = ZZ
MLR (R) = ? (mirrored version of MLR (L))

LRM (L) = ?
LRM (M) = ZBRoux
LRM (R) = ?

- LMR (R) is just a Petrus variant that has been proposed many times. It is an alternate way to build the 2x2x3.
- MLR (L) and MLR (R) involves doing EO after the line and while solving both blocks. This is a method that I have worked on over the years and I have a few example solves on the forum. It works kind of like XEOCross but with more freedom and possibilities. You plan the line+preserve/create blocks+EO, leading to an easy F2L. The line between this method and ZZ is blurred.
- LRM (L) may be an ok method. Because of the EO, it would probably be easy to recognize and place D edges while solving the right side block. A roux version of this has been proposed where you do EOFB, right block, CMLL, then LSE.
- LRM (R) also might not be too bad of a method, though a little difficult. There are lots of tricks that can be done though. While completing the right side 1x2x2, edges can be oriented while pairing and an oriented edge can be placed at DB while aligning the 1x2x2. Similar tricks apply for the final pair of the 1x2x3.

So it looks like there are a few methods within this family that haven't yet been fully developed.


----------



## brododragon (Aug 10, 2020)

Athefre said:


> - LMR (R) is just a Petrus variant that has been proposed many times. It is an alternate way to build the 2x2x3.


Isn't that LEOR?


----------



## Athefre (Aug 10, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Isn't that LEOR?



In this, you would solve the left block, then DF+DB, then orient edges while solving the right block. In LEOR you solve the left block, orient edges while solving DF+DB, then solve the right block. It's a different order, just like the rest of the possibilities in the list.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 11, 2020)

This has probably been thought of before but I couldn't find anything about it so I will post it here:

EO2x2
2x2x3
F2L
ZBLL

Really similar to Petrus except EO is done at the beginning of the solve while solving a 2x2 block instead of after 2x2x3.

This would get rid of EO recog in the middle of the solve while keeping a low movecount.


----------



## N's-cvt (Aug 11, 2020)

I'm not sure how EO2x2 would work well, but it is nice using inspection to do eo-recog instead of in the middle however the petrus eo step is one of my favorite steps in the big 4 methods


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Aug 11, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> This has probably been thought of before but I couldn't find anything about it so I will post it here:
> 
> EO2x2
> 2x2x3
> ...


This is basically ZZ with an EO223


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 13, 2020)

So i made a new method called zz bridge im working on it to make it better firstly learned ocll now im learning coll/ocllcp then maybe full oll but im doing eo so don't know tell me your thoughts and yes I am learning full pll I got half the algs down of full pll just started with coll


----------



## Hazel (Aug 13, 2020)

How does your method work?


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 13, 2020)

So the steps are eo cross keyhole with random corners but they have to be oriented then ocll cause of eo or coll then pll on top then pll on bottom


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Aug 13, 2020)

Sounds awful


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 13, 2020)

That sounds incredibly bad for speed, and screams “I’m gonna do something obviously bad just to be different” to me.


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 13, 2020)

Yeah, like others have pointed out, it sounds really bad for speedsolving, it's a Belt variant that is probably already been proposed too, and you know Belt methods are not going to be good, but Belt methods like this is actually kinda fun to use outside of any practical uses.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 13, 2020)

guys, I'm now understanding its bad. I'm now a freefop solver also sub 50 nearly sub 40


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 13, 2020)

Alright, I've come up with a very simple method, I can't find a method like this on the internet, and I would like to know if it is viable.

1) Arrow

2) F2L

3) CMLL

4) L5E

So it's basically a hybrid of CFOP, Hawaiian Kociemba and Roux with L5E.
Since it has CMLL, you only need to know 9 Algorithms to solve.
I thought that look-ahead would be easier from the arrow, and that it would be easier to plan first pair.
The arrow also makes F2L slightly easier, since you have another side for double moves.
Please help!


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 13, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Alright, I've come up with a very simple method, I can't find a method like this on the internet, and I would like to know if it is viable.
> 
> 1) Arrow
> 
> ...


Yea it's a Hawaiian Kociemba variant that's already been thought of, probably not really nice but it's ok tho


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 13, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Yea it's a Hawaiian Kociemba variant that's already been thought of, probably not very good but decent tho


Whats hawaiian koceiemba


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 13, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Whats hawaiian koceiemba



It's an obscure method that's actually pretty good, but too many algorithms


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 13, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Whats hawaiian koceiemba


it's a method where you make a pEOArrow and solve HKF2L (since the DF edge is unsolved you can do many F2L tricks) then solve the last layer's orientation + the DF edge's orientation in one algs, then solve HKPLL, PLL + DF edge


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 13, 2020)

pEOArrow, HKF2L, HKOLL, HKPLL


----------



## Devagio (Aug 13, 2020)

Been fiddling with an idea. Let the bashing begin. If it survives, I'll gen the algs for example solves for further scrutiny.

*Philosophy and motivation:*
Algorithmic methods are doing fairly well compared to block building methods, and for good reason. TPS on the new hardware has shot up and it makes sense to make best use of it. A method with a bearable number of algorithms, yet highly algorithmically reliant and with good recognition has the potential to beat a good deal of methods. A means to achieve that is to have 3 algorithmic steps (compared to 2 for CFOP for example); while ensuring that those algorithms do indeed tackle a large set of cases (2LLL CFOP handles ~15k cases).
Orientation steps are almost always recognition friendly as long as they involve one (or two) top colour (like TSLE is decent for recog, OLL is pretty good, etc. but LEOR EO is hard) Permutation steps are good for recognition if a single glance at a cube, and registering 4-5 stickers at most can uniquely identify each case (like 2 sided PLL recognition system if good, ZBLL recognition on the other hand is hard, so is 4x4 PLL).
Cube symmetries can play a huge role in reducing number of algorithms while getting tons of cases solved (There are 72 PLL cases, but symmetry reduces it to 22 (21+1)). These symmetries can be exploited much better once we think about it.

Based on these primers and a bit of work, there seems to be one very promising end to a solve using 3 algorithms:
Suppose a 2x2x3 is solved on DL; FR and BR edges are solved; and the remaining 5 edges are oriented (i.e. white/yellow facing up/down say).
Alg-1: orients 6 corners. This will be a short <R,U> alg; and surprisingly, there are very few cases thanks to the freedom of U layer and the S slice symmetry. Also, R2 setups cut this down much further. There are 23 + (4 x 8) + (2 x 8) = 71 cases, though only 39 algorithms excluding mirrors. If we consider R2 setups, this number goes below 30.
Alg-2: Permutes 6 corners. These will be <R,U,D> algs (<R2,U,D> is enough, but algs may get lengthy); and again surprisingly, there are very few cases thanks to the same freedom and symmetry. There are 5 + (4 x 6) + 18 = 47 cases, though only 29 algorithms excluding mirrors. 2 sided recognition is possible here.
Alg-3: L5EP, <M,U> gen 16 short algs very simple to recognise during the previous alg.

This 3 alg system, which without any reduction has 71+47+16 = 134 algs (CFOP has 78 excluding F2L) can reduce the cube state from a possible 6! * 5! * 3^5 / 2 = 10M cases! This is 700 times more than 15k of CFOP, instead of an expected sqrt(15k)~120. Basically, this algorithm system is better per algorithm required compared to 2LLL, plus has comparable to better recognition; and looking at the movesets potentially better and shorter algs.

*Now to the hard part:*
How do we achieve " a 2x2x3 is solved on DL; FR and BR edges are solved; and the remaining 5 edges are oriented"?

Two premises about this.
Firstly, blockbuilding is probably the best thing that can be done with the inspection time in terms of reducing the number of cubestates. A roux block does this slightly better than a petrus block, which is better than a cross; all solving the same number of pieces (counting centres, since roux centres aren't fixed).
Second, there is a reason CFOP is as successful as it is, and that is the symmetry in F2L. We can choose to do whichever F2L pair we please, and we can do these in any order. This is very good for a step that is neither algorithmic, nor block building; because we can simply do whatever we see first. Finally, we can use only the last pair to influence LL.

This gives us a beautiful way to achieve the above mentioned cubestate. A roux block can be done in inspection, and then each of the 4 edges UF, UB, DF and DB can be placed between corresponding centres in any order convenient; while influencing EO. Follow this with a rotation and you have your required cubestate! The best part is, this central "belt" doesn't have to align with FB, because at the end of the solve, we can do an AUF with an ADF and will be done.
The EO condition in the belt can be relaxed in a more advanced version of the method, where one can learn all L5E algs (roughly 200 cases, ~60 algs excluding mirrors and setups).


*Summing it all up:*

Intermediate version:
Step 1: FB (~6 moves)
Step 2: EO-Belt (~16 moves) <r,R,U>
Step 3: 6COLL (~13 moves) <R,U>
Step 4: 6CPLL (~12 moves) <R,U,D>
Step 5: L5EP (~13 moves) <M,U>
Avg ~ 60 moves

Advanced version:
Step 1: FB (~6 moves)
Step 2: Belt (~9 moves) <r,R,U>
Step 3: 6COLL (~13 moves) <R,U>
Step 4: 6CPLL (~12 moves) <R,U,D>
Step 5: L5E (~15 moves) <M,U>
Avg ~ 55 moves

Promising a higher TPS than CFOP, this should be pretty good. Let me know.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 13, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Been fiddling with an idea. Let the bashing begin. If it survives, I'll gen the algs for example solves for further scrutiny.
> 
> *Philosophy and motivation:*
> Algorithmic methods are doing fairly well compared to block building methods, and for good reason. TPS on the new hardware has shot up and it makes sense to make best use of it. A method with a bearable number of algorithms, yet highly algorithmically reliant and with good recognition has the potential to beat a good deal of methods. A means to achieve that is to have 3 algorithmic steps (compared to 2 for CFOP for example); while ensuring that those algorithms do indeed tackle a large set of cases (2LLL CFOP handles ~15k cases).
> ...


Why does eo belt make more move count


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Aug 13, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Been fiddling with an idea. Let the bashing begin. If it survives, I'll gen the algs for example solves for further scrutiny.
> 
> *Philosophy and motivation:*
> Algorithmic methods are doing fairly well compared to block building methods, and for good reason. TPS on the new hardware has shot up and it makes sense to make best use of it. A method with a bearable number of algorithms, yet highly algorithmically reliant and with good recognition has the potential to beat a good deal of methods. A means to achieve that is to have 3 algorithmic steps (compared to 2 for CFOP for example); while ensuring that those algorithms do indeed tackle a large set of cases (2LLL CFOP handles ~15k cases).
> ...


Sounds nice!


ribbon method said:


> Why does eo belt make more move count


Solve a cross, then solve EO-Cross. Which one took more moves?


----------



## TerryD (Aug 14, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Been fiddling with an idea. Let the bashing begin. If it survives, I'll gen the algs for example solves for further scrutiny.
> 
> *Philosophy and motivation:*
> Algorithmic methods are doing fairly well compared to block building methods, and for good reason. TPS on the new hardware has shot up and it makes sense to make best use of it. A method with a bearable number of algorithms, yet highly algorithmically reliant and with good recognition has the potential to beat a good deal of methods. A means to achieve that is to have 3 algorithmic steps (compared to 2 for CFOP for example); while ensuring that those algorithms do indeed tackle a large set of cases (2LLL CFOP handles ~15k cases).
> ...


Very interesting method, seems like ergonomics and algs would be pretty good. I think L5E takes less moves though. Are you going to generate algorithms for this?


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Aug 14, 2020)

I tried a solve this is what I got, not correct moveset though:

Scramble: F' L' U2 B' R2 U2 R2 D2 R2 B L2 B' U2 F2 D F' U R' D2 R' F

y'
R' S U2 R2 r' u' r' U r2 //2x2x3
U2 R2 F R F' R2 U' R // Belt
R2 U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R // CO
U R2 U' D' F2 l' R' F R F' R U2 r' U L // CP
U2 M' U M' U' M' U2 M U' M2 U2 D // L5E

EDIT: Tell me if I did something wrong.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 14, 2020)

That's something similar to what I proposed a while back: 2x2x3, solve 6 corners somehow, DR+BR, L5E. On the subject of L5E, I'm pretty sure FR+LL L5E is better than DF, although that could be wrong. These type of methods (2x2x3 first) could be pretty good, but there has been almost no exploration, so if you put the work in to figure it out, that would be very useful. I do think that ideally the method would average 50 or fewer moves too, but that's not as important.


----------



## Devagio (Aug 14, 2020)

TerryD said:


> Very interesting method, seems like ergonomics and algs would be pretty good. I think L5E takes less moves though. Are you going to generate algorithms for this?


Not sure about L5E, couldn’t find anything about it being done in one look; guessed 15 because that’s typical L6E length, and there’s no reason L5E would be better. It would be much faster though due to 1-looking.
So far not much downsides to the methods have been claimed, so I guess I will gen a few algs for the sake of example solves in a while.


CyoobietheCuber said:


> I tried a solve this is what I got, not correct moveset though:
> 
> Scramble: F' L' U2 B' R2 U2 R2 D2 R2 B L2 B' U2 F2 D F' U R' D2 R' F
> 
> ...


The start of the solve is done differently to what I proposed. I did think of doing it this way, but the symmetry in a vertical belt and the difficulty in planning an entire 2x2x3 in inspection made the choice easy.
I’ll post an example solve in a while, check it out then.

EDIT: might make a separate thread for this and call it CFOP-breaker XD


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 14, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Been fiddling with an idea. Let the bashing begin. If it survives, I'll gen the algs for example solves for further scrutiny.
> 
> *Philosophy and motivation:*
> Algorithmic methods are doing fairly well compared to block building methods, and for good reason. TPS on the new hardware has shot up and it makes sense to make best use of it. A method with a bearable number of algorithms, yet highly algorithmically reliant and with good recognition has the potential to beat a good deal of methods. A means to achieve that is to have 3 algorithmic steps (compared to 2 for CFOP for example); while ensuring that those algorithms do indeed tackle a large set of cases (2LLL CFOP handles ~15k cases).
> ...


I don't really understand how L5E is MU



Devagio said:


> Promising a higher TPS than CFOP, this should be pretty good. Let me know.


This is quite a bold claim, CFOP's main pro is TPS and I don't really know but isn't like FB's TPS lower than cross? belt looks like an ok step but L5E is SUD gen, so I don't see the higher TPS.


----------



## Devagio (Aug 14, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I don't really understand how L5E is MU


If L6E is MU gen, L5E by default is too. Well technically its SU gen, but a D' will fix that.



Username: Username: said:


> This is quite a bold claim, CFOP's main pro is TPS and I don't really know but isn't like FB's TPS lower than cross? belt looks like an ok step but L5E is SUD gen, so I don't see the higher TPS


FB and cross should be at worst similar TPS, belt is higher TPS than F2L since you don’t have to track 2 pieces or rotate, and a higher percentage of the solve is algorithms; which in all makes a higher TPS objectively certain.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 14, 2020)

something that just popped into my head

1) EO+ F2L pair on TR of B layer

2) Expand to a column

3) Solve 2 blocks, so it looks like roux

4) LSE

5) L3C


----------



## Devagio (Aug 14, 2020)

Made a slight modification to the start to save a rotation, which also happened to help lookahead by reducing blindspots. However, rRU turning had to be traded for RUu turning during belt.
Here is an example solve:

Scramble: B L' U F' L' R2 D' B F' U B U' L R2 U2 F2 B2 L' D2 U2 F' B R2 L B 

y2 // inspection
F U2 B' L F B2 // FB
u R u R' u R2 u' R' U2 R // Belt
U R' U' R U2 R' U' R // 6CO
R2 U2 R2 U'D' R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2 D' // 6CP
M' U M U2 M' U M' U M2 U' M' U2 M' U2 M2 // L5E
U'D' // Adjusting faces

This solve was 50 execution turn metric, and i tried a few solves which averaged around 50 moves. Since the method is algorthmic, this number should hold even for speedsolves; which means this method may be more efficient CFOP during speedsolves despite having higher TPS!

I believe I will need assistance in generating the 6CP algs. Also, critique please.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 14, 2020)

What are you guys gonna call this method


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Aug 14, 2020)

Devagio said:


> EDIT: might make a separate thread for this and call it CFOP-breaker XD





ribbon method said:


> What are you guys gonna call this method


YCFop
Edit: no actually it’s called quadrangular Francisco but a little better


----------



## Devagio (Aug 14, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> What are you guys gonna call this method


Not sure yet, probably something along the lines of "665" (6CO, 6CP, L5E; because that's what the method aims to achieve), also just short of evil XD
For now, putting solves on example solves thread; and making a separate thread in a while because I do intend to work on it.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 14, 2020)

Do a detail walk through vid


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 14, 2020)

The EO Method is a new method in which hopefully many people uses in the future.

Proposer: Lukas Herrell
Proposed: 2020
Alt Names: ZZ-LH
Varients: ZZ,, ZZ-CT, ZB
No. of Steps: 4 or 5 depending on LL
No. of Algs: 2-493
No. of Moves: (~50 ZBLL) (~60 OLL+PLL)
Purposes: Speedsolving, FMC, OH, Feet Solving

Steps:
1. EO (Edge Orientation)
2. The Line (Solve DF an DB Edges)
3: ZZ-F2L
4: OLL (7 Cases)
5: PLL (21 Cases)
(4 and 5 can be combined for ZBLL which has 493 Cases)

Pros: No Rotations, Reduced Move set, Ease of Learning
Cons: Weird Alg Ergonomics, +2 cubie for F2L, Swithing between L an R Moves

Well that was painful to write but that's the EO method for yall. Goodbye!


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 14, 2020)

LOL this is literally ZZ


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 14, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> LOL this is literally ZZ


LOL ye but without the line and the Last Layer is kinda different and that's why the alt name is ZZ-LH


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 14, 2020)

This is not a new method. It is literally ZZ. Nothing about it is different.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Aug 14, 2020)

There's nothing different from ZZ, except from the fact that you seperated Line and EO


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 14, 2020)

This is the exact same as ZZ except worse because you separated EO and Line.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 14, 2020)

And even if it was a new method, it should’ve gone in this thread. It’s even on the home page right now, so there shouldn’t be an excuse for not seeing it.









The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread


Please read before posting I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed. This is a place to post them. I have come up with many ideas and didn't want to post a new thread for every one of them when most don't get very far. Perhaps if...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 14, 2020)

U said line is gone but its right there in the steps

at least my method is better

its not ribbon method


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 14, 2020)

my method is

Cross

Belt minus 1 edge

Keyhole with random coners but oriented so oll is done on bottom

Oll and pll on top

Then pll on bottom or do step 5 first and then step 4

you could do eo cross or eo belt if that makes it better in terms of speedsolving or efficiency


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Aug 14, 2020)

That's just a worst version of CFOP.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 14, 2020)

Or u can do one permuted or two permuted corners or any so u can influence ur b/dpll (bottom/down pll)



WarriorCatCuber said:


> That's just a worst version of CFOP.


Anything else


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 14, 2020)

This method sucks. (no offense meant)


----------



## Devagio (Aug 14, 2020)

Here is an objective theoretical way to see how good an algorithm system is. I developed it a few days back while trying to come up with a good algorithm system, and ended up with 6CO-6CP-L5E.

Let N be the number of cube states your algorithm system solves, k be the total number of algorithms required, and m be the number of steps or looks.

for example, for CFOP 2LLL;
N = (4! * 4! / 2) * (2^3 * 3^3) = 62208 (as expected, because we know LL skip is once in 15k solves, and then there are 4 kinds of AUF possible)
k = 57+21 = 78
m = 2

The measure of symmetry of the cube exploited per alg in an alg system is then given by:
S = (N^(1/m)) / (k/m)

I could give a detailed reasoning of this later if needed; but the idea is if each step reduces the possible Cube states by the same factor and each step has the same number of algs, then in intermediate AUF and things like that which help in utilising symmetry give a measure of how efficient the alg system is per alg.
In lay terms, it tells you how much the algset is worth it.

For example, CFOP 2LLL has S = 6.4

This means, the very application of each alg expoits symmetry by a factor of 6.4 on average.

NOTE: It will not be totally correct to compare across different values of m from a practical standpoint.
NOTE: This doesn’t take into account things like alg length, fingertrickability, recognition, etc; those are considerations to be done practically. But this will objectively tell you that OLL+PLL (S = 6.4) is much better than EOLL+ZBLL on average (S = 1.0)

Some other examples are:
For ZZ LSLL:
F2L+ZBLL has S = 3.0
TSLE+TTLL has S = 7.5
So, TSLE+TTLL is better from a theoretical standpoint since it brilliantly uses cube symmetry.
(However, from a practical standpoint, the algs are longer, and the requirement to have only the FR slot not solved sucks; so it becomes debatable)

EDIT: the requirement to have have only the FR slot not solved can be factored into the equation in terms of N, which will give S = 6.0 for F2L + ZBLL, making the competition between the two much closer.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 15, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> This should’ve gone in this thread. It’s even on the home page right now, so there shouldn’t be an excuse for not seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> This method sucks. (no offense meant)


None taken

If i did eo cross then instead of oll i do ocll or any other oll subset would that be better


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Made my bridge method better, here it is i call it: dr-bridge/zz-bridge/ssc-bridge I had some help with my freind on discord. Dunno he's speedsolving fourm name but, he's discord name is hmm

So steps are

Random eo cross, so that means the edges are aren't permuted correctly but u still do eo

belt minus 1 edge

Key hole with random corners but the random corners have to be oriented so oll is done on bottom

Ocll on top

Pll on top

Pll on bottom

Ps. (I think you can get pll parity like 4x4 parity all u have to do if u get pll parity is m2 u2 m2 but I made so u can't get parity with random eocross so let me know if u do get parity)

I will post a begginer variant if u want and maybe if u want u can suggest another name but keep zz part this is a new zz variant I made but I dunno if this a new variant so keep that i mind I created and i dunno if anyone else did so Im claiming this until further notice

Tl;dr this a variant of zz i made that does first layer after last layer

Edit:
Stop giving it mehs if u have an issue with the method tell me I will try and fix it or u can tell me how to fix it


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> eo cross





ribbon method said:


> Random eo cross, so that means the edges are aren't permuted correctly but u still do eo


Almost exactly the same step.


ribbon method said:


> belt minus 1 edge


Okay, you added a step, good job.


ribbon method said:


> keyhole with random corners but they have to be oriented





ribbon method said:


> Key hole with random corners but the random corners have to be oriented so oll is done on bottom


Exact same thing.


ribbon method said:


> then ocll cause of eo or coll then pll on top then pll on bottom





ribbon method said:


> Ocll on top
> 
> Pll on top
> 
> Pll on bottom


All of this is the exact same, too.

So basically, you added an extra step (PLL on bottom) by making it so that it can be any PLL instead of just A perm or E perm, and you added the step where you make the belt, which actually solves the cube this time, because in your first proposal, the E layer wouldn't have been solved.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

well I changed into a zz variant


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> wait so can the mods add this to the wiki


bruh anybody can, but I don't think this method deserves a page, if you really want, then go ahead, it won't be recognized much.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> wait so can the mods add this to the wiki


If that's your whole goal, then you should just stop.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

u doubters its my first ever decent method and u ruin it

How do i make it speedsolvable


----------



## CodingCuber (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> How do i make it speedsolvable


Tbh the method would have to be completely changed into a different method for speedsolving. There are too many rotations and a high movecount.


----------



## Devagio (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> How do i make it speedsolvable


When you make a method for speedsolving, you need to do quite a bit of work. CFOP for instance took months worth of time, and development by many people across years to make it what it is; it’s not something one can beat overnight.
Recognising that, here is a bare-minimum of what you should do:
1. Make a method
2. Estimate movecount of each step
3. Estimate alg count and see recognition of each alg step
4. See recognition, look ahead, and ease of intuitive block building steps and even other kinds of steps like EO, CO, etc.
5. Identify chokes in your method and see whether you can improve them.

These can be done in any order of course, but this is by no means exhaustive. Not even close.

For your new method, here is a little move analysis;
EO-psuedocross would be 12 moves
3 belt pieces would be 12 moves
Keyhole 4 corners would be 20 moves
Last edge would be 8 moves
OCLL on top would be 8 moves
2 PLLs would be 30 moves
Parity would be 3 moves

This is 90+ moves; and it seems unlikely to have double TPS of Roux (~45 moves) so this is objectively worse. Maybe you could pary this by combining step, etc.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> How do i make it speedsolvable


Here is some advice:

- To invent a good method, you have to understand what makes a method good or bad. You said you're about sub-50, so I don't think you're at the point where you have a solid grasp on that. It just takes time and experience, especially with trying out various other methods.
- In general, solving something incorrectly and then fixing it later is slower than solving it correctly in the first place. In your ZZ-Bridge method, it would simply be faster to solve the cross correctly the first time, same with the corners. But at that point, you're just doing a much worse version of CFOP, which ties into my next point:
- If a method is just a worse version of an existing method, it isn't worth pursuing. If I proposed a method where you solve two F2L pairs, then insert 3 cross edges around it, then do EO followed by OCLL/PLL, that's just a worse version of Petrus, and so there's no point.
- A huge amount of methods have been proposed and developed for 3x3. Making a method that's unique and hasn't been thought of before is very difficult. Making a method that's fast is very difficult. Making a method that hasn't been proposed before _and_ has very good potential is incredibly hard. This goes back to my first point—you need to have a very thorough understanding of the cube and of many different methods to even have a chance at making one that's worth people's attention.

This isn't to say that you should stop trying to make methods. We as a community need people who are inventive and care about pushing forward the boundaries, or we'll never get anywhere. However, you should be careful not to have baseless confidence in your creations. If you think a method you create is good, you need to be able to explain what makes it unique and what makes it fast, and you need to be able to identify its strengths and weaknesses _before _you propose it for the first time. You need to have reasons why your method is worth our time.

Good luck with your future method creation


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

How about 3 Cross edge pieces(mock cross), f2l, co, cp, l5e

I will call it 3cfccl/mcfccl


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> How about 3 Cross edge pieces, f2l, co, cp, l8e


First of all, why would you do CO and CP separately? Doing that in one alg total would be faster.
Secondly, that already exists: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PCMS


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Aerma said:


> First of all, why would you do CO and CP separately? Doing that in one alg total would be faster.
> Secondly, that already exists: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PCMS


Thats not the same


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Thats not the same


From the wiki page:

*Steps:*

Columns:
Solve 4 CE pairs using intuition.
CMSLL (42 algs), something between 2x2 CLL and CMLL (see CxLL).

Slices:
Solve centres and the RD, LD and BD edges using intuition (3x centre/edge pairs actually).
L5E, last five edges, solve the FD edge and the LLedges in two short alg steps.
L5EO, orientation (5 algs minumum but here you can add more to force easier permutations).
L5EP, permutation (16 algs).


Your method and PCMS are exactly the same, it's just layed out in more detail on the wiki page.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Mine is not the same I do co and cp if I did co cp together that just be roux with an extra cross edge


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Mine is not the same I do co and cp if I did co cp together that just be roux with an extra cross edge


Ah, you edited the post after I first replied.
Solving CO and CP at the same time via CxLL is objectively better than solving them separately (meaning if you're going for speed, there is no good reason _not_ to do them at the same time).
So let's replace your CO+CP with CxLL—now your method is just CFOP with a slightly worse F2L and a slower last layer (CxLL is about as fast as OLL, and L5E is _definitely_ worse than PLL).

So, if the method is just a worse version of CFOP, why would anybody want to use it?
Again, I don't mean to be rude and only filled with criticism—these are just the kinds of things you should be thinking about _before_ proposing new methods.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Or u could do 
Solve LEFT BLOCK

Then a 2x2x2 in RIGHTBACK and then expand to a 2x2x3 

Solving f2l then do whatever LL


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Or u could do
> Solve LEFT BLOCK
> 
> Then a 2x2x2 in RIGHTBACK and then expand to a 2x2x3
> ...


worse Freefop.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

goddam it


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 15, 2020)

This is getting annoying, like @OreKehStrah has said once, your ideas screams "I want to make a method that is obviously bad so that I have a wiki page and the knowledge of having created a method."


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

How is it bad I dont get how yo make a good or bad method how do u tell


----------



## WoowyBaby (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> How is it bad I dont get how yo make a good or bad method how do u tell


If it is fast, it is good.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Anything else cause zb is fast but way too many algs


----------



## Hazel (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Anything else cause zb is fast but way too many algs


It has to be fast, and there should be reasons for people to want to use that method over other, more popular methods.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Or u could do
> Solve LEFT BLOCK
> 
> Then a 2x2x2 in RIGHTBACK and then expand to a 2x2x3
> ...


Actually it even already exists as a method separate from FreeFOP.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 15, 2020)

Or you could just not invent a method.....
99% of methods in this thread get ripped up since they can’t compare to normal methods.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 15, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Or you could just not invent a method.....
> 99% of methods in this thread get ripped up since they can’t compare to normal methods.


Yes, sometimes (99% of the time) you need to just give up.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Aug 15, 2020)

Devagio said:


> Been fiddling with an idea. Let the bashing begin. If it survives, I'll gen the algs for example solves for further scrutiny.
> 
> *Philosophy and motivation:*
> Algorithmic methods are doing fairly well compared to block building methods, and for good reason. TPS on the new hardware has shot up and it makes sense to make best use of it. A method with a bearable number of algorithms, yet highly algorithmically reliant and with good recognition has the potential to beat a good deal of methods. A means to achieve that is to have 3 algorithmic steps (compared to 2 for CFOP for example); while ensuring that those algorithms do indeed tackle a large set of cases (2LLL CFOP handles ~15k cases).
> ...


I CBA to read all of this but 55 moves Is quite a lot, and im skeptical whether it is even 55 moves as FB definitely takes more than 6 moves. Also Leor EO isn’t that hard and is definitely worth it as the rest of the solve is good.


----------



## Devagio (Aug 15, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> I CBA to read all of this but 55 moves Is quite a lot, and im skeptical whether it is even 55 moves as FB definitely takes more than 6 moves. Also Leor EO isn’t that hard and is definitely worth it as the rest of the solve is good.


You will find reading it quite helpful to see why it’s at most 55 moves (or as it turns out, under 50 consistently, check out the example solves or the method thread).
Even if FB takes 8 moves not 6 (which I really doubt), it doesn’t make much difference in the overall movecount.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method is good but zipper method better cause zipper is less algs but its just my opinion so don't take it to seriously


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> ribbon method is good but zipper method better


If you’re going to give an opinion, at least explain it


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> ribbon method is good but zipper method better cause zipper is less algs but its just my opinion so don't take it to seriously


Alg count is irrelevant on whether or not a method is good. Basic full CFOP has more algs than basic full Roux, but both are good. ZZCT is decent, but ZZ-A is better, despite having nearly 4x the algs for LL. 
Some methods like full ZB may not be practical for most people because of the higher alg count, but that doesn't mean the method is inherently bad just because it might be out of reach for the majority of people.

What makes a speedsolving method good, at least in my opinion, is how well it fares on a few basic needs for speedsolving.

1. Simplicity. A method with too many steps makes it more mentally draining and hinders look ahead. Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL. First block, second block, CMLL, LSE. EOCross, F2L, ZBLL. You get the idea. The popular methods are all incredibly simple with very few steps needed to master. Compare that to some of the more obscure methods, and you can instantly appreciate the simplicity of the big methods.

2. Look Ahead Potential. I already mentioned this in the last point, but if your method has some obvious problems with look ahead, you may as well just can your idea and move on. You can have the greatest method in the world, but if it takes a few seconds just going from step to step because the look ahead is trash then it's worthless.

3. Ergonomics. This is also pretty darn important. The moveset that a method uses is also pretty influential on how well the method can do. 3-style in theory would be good for speedsolving normally because if you're good you can one-look the whole cube during inspection and never stop turning during the actual solve. However, 3-style uses nearly every move you can do on the cube, face, wide, and slice, which drastically hinders ergonomics as some moves simply don't flow well into others. The moveset very much influences the speed at which you can turn, so ergonomics is also a major factor to consider when developing or assessing a method.

4. The Human Factor. Quite simply, we are humans with human limitations. Methods need to take that into account. It would be unreasonable to ask a human to do something similar to Kociemba and the like since those methods are meant for computers. A human could probably do something like that, considering how well people do with FMC, but it would take such a long time that it would be impractical for speedsolving, and would also circle back to an ergonomics problem. In short, methods that have intuitive steps need to keep in mind the limits of human thought and have a semi structure for how to do the intuitive steps. 

There are probably other major things to consider that I haven't listed but those are what came to mind when writing this!


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Alg count is irrelevant on whether or not a method is good. Basic full CFOP has more algs than basic full Roux, but both are good. ZZCT is decent, but ZZ-A is better, despite having nearly 4x the algs for LL.
> Some methods like full ZB may not be practical for most people because of the higher alg count, but that doesn't mean the method is inherently bad just because it might be out of reach for the majority of people.
> 
> What makes a speedsolving method good, at least in my opinion, is how well it fares on a few basic needs for speedsolving.
> ...


Sorry i meant higer alg methods are sometimes better


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 15, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Sorry i meant higer alg methods are sometimes better


Well of course they are. If you know 43 quintillion algs that can solve the cube in any state, obviously that would be optimal.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Almost exactly the same step.
> 
> Okay, you added a step, good job.
> 
> ...


no cause I get a perms on the bottom and e perms with this method and this method does domino reduction in a diffrent way and tao says its similar to ssc


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

Keep in mind that this is only a concept, but any help developing it would be very nice.


The main problem with the VH/ZB methods is the fact that learning over 500 algorithms isn't fun. This problem is combated with ZZ-B. ZZ-B is the same as ZZ-A, but during last slot, you would "phase" two opposite edges to be permuted, so you would use only the chunk of ZBLL that deals with two permuted edges, also known as ZZLL. It's pretty good, but you have to use ZZ, which is saddening. This concept started with me trying to find a way to implement this into CFOP, and I think I found a way that might even work better.

ZZLL has 169 algorithms, compared to the nearly 500 of ZBLL, all because of this phasing part. So, I thought, why not take it a step further and permute all 4 edges? That way, you wouldn't have to learn 169 algorithms, but only 76 algorithms, a difference of 93. The only problem with this would be making a way to permute all the edges (since you aren't guaranteed to have the edges oriented in CFOP.) The best way, I think, would be to make a ELS variant that also permutes the last corner

I would predict that there are around 100-120 algorithms, which would make this more efficient than zz-b. This number is based on the fact that COLL has 4-6 cases for each of the 7 cross oll cases. there would also have to be cases for when they are all oriented, but in the wrong place.

So the steps would be:

1) Cross + Corner in right place

2) 3 F2L slots

3) ELS varient (temporarily being called RELS, since R is the first initial of my real name)

4) ZZLL fully permuted cases 

Let me know what you think!


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Keep in mind that this is only a concept, but any help developing it would be very nice.
> 
> 
> The main problem with the VH/ZB methods is the fact that learning over 500 algorithms isn't fun. This problem is combated with ZZ-B. ZZ-B is the same as ZZ-A, but during last slot, you would "phase" two opposite edges to be permuted, so you would use only the chunk of ZBLL that deals with two permuted edges, also known as ZZLL. It's pretty good, but you have to use ZZ, which is saddening. This concept started with me trying to find a way to implement this into CFOP, and I think I found a way that might even work better.
> ...


Not to diminish the idea but I strongly feel this would not be worth exploring further.
The primary reason is that it defeats the point of ZZLL/ZBLL. The whole point is that you get to save like .1 to .3 seconds at most by doing 1 alg to solve the whole LL. The problem with this idea is you are still doing the equivalent of a 2 alg last layer. Instead of OLL and PLL, you are doing a F2L alg that would probably be slot dependent for a while, just to set up your subset of ZZLL, and then the ZZLL alg itself.
This is worse because you will have to take more time to recognize the awkward ELS thing compared to quickly recognizing and executing an OLL alg, and then you would have to take time to recognize and execute the ZZLL, which would probably end up just being worse than OLL and PLL.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> Not to diminish the idea but I strongly feel this would not be worth exploring further.
> The primary reason is that it defeats the point of ZZLL/ZBLL. The whole point is that you get to save like .1 to .3 seconds at most by doing 1 alg to solve the whole LL. The problem with this idea is you are still doing the equivalent of a 2 alg last layer. Instead of OLL and PLL, you are doing a F2L alg that would probably be slot dependent for a while, just to set up your subset of ZZLL, and then the ZZLL alg itself.
> This is worse because you will have to take more time to recognize the awkward ELS thing compared to quickly recognizing and executing an OLL alg, and then you would have to take time to recognize and execute the ZZLL, which would probably end up just being worse than OLL and PLL.



I must say that I really disagree. ELS is not meant to be a part of the last layer, but just a slightly longer insert to orient the edges. The average move count for OLL in htm is 9.7, while in els it is only 6.04, but this isn't counting rotations for both (More of them in ELS) they have a similar moveset, both utilising m and wide moves. COLL has a similar average moves to OLL, with 9.78. It would make sense that ELS would follow suit, and even if it doesn't, it would have around 3.5 average moves of wiggle room before it becomes the same amount as OLL. Also, recognition for the ELS thing would be similar to COLL or TSLE

Talking about the ZZLL thing, from a quick glance at the algorithms, it would probably a bit higher than ZBLL, which is 12.08. If we assume that it's about 15, and the ELS thing is 9.7, it would be around 25 altogether, compared to OLL and PLL's around 22.

For a comparison between CFOP and my new method

*CFOP* *New Method*

1) Cross (~6 Moves) 1) Cross + Corner (~9 moves)

2) F2L (~26.8 Moves) 2) 3 F2L Pairs (~20.1 Moves)

3) OLL (~9.7 Moves) 3) CLS thing (~9.5 Moves)

4) PLL (~11.8 Moves). 4) ZZLL thing (~15 Moves)

CFOP = 54.3 New Method = 53.6

It's actually less than CFOP, and this is with the worst ones I've discussed.

I'll calculate the actual average for ZZLL thing later

EDIT: The ZZLL thing actually has 81 algorithms, and the average moves is 13.3. This would change the average moves to 51.9.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I must say that I really disagree. ELS is not meant to be a part of the last layer, but just a slightly longer insert to orient the edges. The average move count for OLL in htm is 9.7, while in els it is only 6.04, but this isn't counting rotations for both (More of them in ELS) they have a similar moveset, both utilising m and wide moves. COLL has a similar average moves to OLL, with 9.78. It would make sense that ELS would follow suit, and even if it doesn't, it would have around 3.5 average moves of wiggle room before it becomes the same amount as OLL. Also, recognition for the ELS thing would be similar to COLL or TSLE
> 
> Talking about the ZZLL thing, from a quick glance at the algorithms, it would probably a bit higher than ZBLL, which is 12.08. If we assume that it's about 15, and the ELS thing is 9.7, it would be around 25 altogether, compared to OLL and PLL's around 22.
> 
> ...


That difference in movecount is so marginal that just the speed aspect of doing what is conventional compared to this again leads me to think this simply wouldn't be worth using in practice. The point of any ZBLL subset, whether it's the full set or a subset, is to do the last layer in one alg. Anytime you need another alg set just to setup up to something that will barely save any time anyway probably isn't worth it. Especially when you consider the times when you can just do a 3-4 move insert for the last pair and do OLL and PLL, vs doing some kind of alg just for ZZLL. If you want to explore this idea, by all means go ahead. Prove me wrong. But until you do, I have good reason to believe this probably isn't worth it. Especially now that people are really starting to dig into ZBLL and figure out what subsets of ZBLL are and aren't worth using in the first place.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

if you used ZB method, that's still using 2 algorithms. Mine also uses 2 algorithms. Even if it ends up being unviable for speed solving, it will still serve as an introduction to zzll, which is an introduction to zbll, which is confirmed to be good.


----------



## TerryD (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> if you used ZB method, that's still using 2 algorithms. Mine also uses 2 algorithms. Even if it ends up being unviable for speed solving, it will still serve as an introduction to zzll, which is an introduction to zbll, which is confirmed to be good.


zb method is 2 step lsll, your method is 3 step which is same as cfop but with more algs.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

TerryD said:


> zb method is 2 step lsll, your method is 3 step which is same as cfop but with more algs.



hang on, zbls + zbll = 2 step lsll

if my thing is ELS variant + ZZLL variant, isn't that 2 step lsll?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

I really don't see ZB as the future these days. People are finding tons of cases where the better solution is OLL/PLL instead of a ZBLL. There are probably several cases where normal F2L is better than ZBLS. I think more option select ideas are going to come into play rather than a ubiquitous 1LLL or LSLL idea.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

I know you people don't like this idea whatsoever, but I want to keep developing it, so I will. If I finish the algorithms, I'll probably make a youtube channel where a show it off


----------



## TerryD (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> hang on, zbls + zbll = 2 step lsll
> 
> if my thing is ELS variant + ZZLL variant, isn't that 2 step lsll?


no, you have to put the corner, els variant, and then zzll variant.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

The corner's supposed to go in the same way as an x-cross, would that still count as 3 step lsll?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> The corner's supposed to go in the same way as an x-cross, would that still count as 3 step lsll?


What exactly is solved right before you do your ELS thing?


----------



## TerryD (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> The corner's supposed to go in the same way as an x-cross, would that still count as 3 step lsll?


i would probably count it as a 2.5 step/look lsll, you can plan cross+1 corner in inspection but that takes away from planning other things


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

OreKehStrah said:


> What exactly is solved right before you do your ELS thing?



After the x-cross-corner-thing, you do the 3 pairs that you can do, then the CLS thing then the ZZLL thing


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> After the x-cross-corner-thing, you do the 3 pairs that you can do, then the CLS thing then the ZZLL thing


I think it would be better to just do an XCross then. If you ignore the edge that gets put with the corner you might trap an F2L edge. Also, you would have to keep in mind the orientation of the edge that the corner goes with. You could end up with some nasty cases in terms of algs if you have nonoriented edges in that slot. IDK if you've made any algs for this or not, but there's a pretty good chance some of the algs are gonna be pretty ugly.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

I haven't made any algs, since the thing was only a concept, but I do plan on making some. If I could create a variant of ELS that goes in the Second last slot, then I could just do a winter variation and then PLL.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Aug 15, 2020)

@TheSlykrCubr “the ZZLL thing” is called L4C


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

ok thanks


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Ok now tell me the new steps of ur method


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

1) Cross + 2 Corners. This is to give you more freedom and if you break up one, it's not the end of the world. You could just do it with one corner.

2) 3 F2L Pair

3) CLS undeveloped variant

4) L4C as I now know it's called.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

Could u do a begginer variant


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 15, 2020)

1) Cross + 2 Corners.

2) 3 F2L Pair

3) ELS

4) OCLL

5) PLL


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 15, 2020)

That seems better to me


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> 1) Cross + 2 Corners.
> 
> 2) 3 F2L Pair
> 
> ...





ribbon method said:


> That seems better to me


It’s an extra step.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

maybe I could just make a vhls variant that permutes only 2 edges and then do zzll


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> maybe I could just make a vhls variant that permutes only 2 edges and then do zzll


That's phasing bud.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

yea but sans zz


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> yea but sans zz


you mean like without EO? I think it would be worse.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

I'll generate some algorithms later and see how long it would take to do


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Aug 16, 2020)

Why would anyone do this when they could just do ZZ-B which is almost certainly faster?


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

people like me who aren't good at eo steps


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Aug 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> people like me who aren't good at eo steps


then you need to practice your EO steps.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 16, 2020)

I'll see how the algs come along, and get back to ya.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 17, 2020)

So I’m not sure if this has already been invented, but it’s kind of a combo of YruRU and Petrus. 

These are the steps:
-1x1x3 (on the bottom left)
-Solve FL and BL edges using RUru
-Solve DF and DB edges using RUr
-EO
-F2L
-Last layer (ZBLL is obviously optimal, but you can do OCLL > PLL, etc.)

Once again, I’m not sure if this already exists, but I’d love feedback!


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Aug 17, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> So I’m not sure if this has already been invented, but it’s kind of a combo of YruRU and Petrus.
> 
> These are the steps:
> -1x1x3 (on the bottom left)
> ...


It's actually just Petrus but a different way of doing 2x2x3.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 17, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> So I’m not sure if this has already been invented, but it’s kind of a combo of YruRU and Petrus.
> 
> These are the steps:
> -1x1x3 (on the bottom left)
> ...


This seems like the exact same as LEOR unless I am misunderstanding your method.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 17, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> So I’m not sure if this has already been invented, but it’s kind of a combo of YruRU and Petrus.
> 
> These are the steps:
> -1x1x3 (on the bottom left)
> ...





Owen Morrison said:


> This seems like the exact same as LEOR unless I am misunderstanding your method.


This is Leor but with First Block split into two steps, and EOStripe split into two steps—in other words, just a worse Leor :/


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 17, 2020)

has anyone made a non-blindfold method that uses commutators?


----------



## ProStar (Aug 17, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> has anyone made a non-blindfold method that uses commutators?



3-style except you keep your eyes open


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 17, 2020)

I feel like that would be viable, since the best blind solvers take less than 15 seconds before they start solving


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 17, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I feel like that would be viable, since the best blind solvers take less than 15 seconds before they start solving


Yeah but 3 style takes like 90-100 moves on average so it isn't very good for speedsolving. even though very high TPS is achievable.


----------



## ProStar (Aug 17, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I feel like that would be viable, since the best blind solvers take less than 15 seconds before they start solving



All of the top BLDers are around 7-9 seconds for Memo. Jack Cai has a video where he uses does BLD during 3x3 and gets a 10 Ao5


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 17, 2020)

ProStar said:


> All of the top BLDers are around 7-9 seconds for Memo. Jack Cai has a video where he uses does BLD during 3x3 and gets a 10 Ao5



how long was his memo


----------



## ProStar (Aug 17, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> how long was his memo



Around 8 seconds on average, the same as the best 3BLDers

Edit: It was an 11 average actually, here's the video


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 18, 2020)

Random cross or rc

Rcf2l or random corners f2l

Then do last layer

The permute first layer

If u get parity do m2 u2 m2
And if u do oll pll last layer u can make it better by doing ollcp then epll

I call this method RRLF


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 18, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> So key parts are
> 
> first layer oriented but not permuted
> 
> ...


@Aerma already told you that this is just a worse LBL.


ribbon method said:


> There moved it to the new method thread


The mods will move it, you don't have to.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 18, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Changed the method


It's literally the exact same, except you're doing F2L instead of 1st layer corners > edges.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 18, 2020)

I changed it to random cross then random corners f2l and I gave a tip


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 18, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> I changed it to random cross then random corners f2l and I gave a tip





BenChristman1 said:


> It's literally the exact same, except you're doing


last layer different.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 18, 2020)

I call it RRLF method or RRLLFL method
RRFL method sounds better


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 18, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Random cross or rc
> 
> Rcf2l or random corners f2l
> 
> ...


This is just a worse ZZ-Bridge which itself is already really bad, and in here you take out EO, not that different from ZZ-Bridge.


----------



## ribbon method (Aug 18, 2020)

Its not worse


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 18, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Its not worse



It looks to be bad, I don't know what zz-bridge is, but any 3x3 2H method that has parity (even really short) shouldn't be worth it


----------



## Username: Username: (Aug 18, 2020)

ribbon method said:


> Its not worse


firstly, let me compare the steps:
Random Cross > Random Cross + EO, not an insult to EOCross, but like, EO is not really direct solving, but combine that with random cross and you get bad lookahead, so RRLF wins this one.
random corners F2L without EO = random corner then random edges with EO, F2L is better than LBL but the very clear lack of direct solving makes lookahead terrible, both of them are in a draw in this step.
OLL < OCLL, we know OCLL is much better so ZZ-Bridge wins this one.
first PLL = PLL on top, PLL is nice so both of them wins here.
second PLL = PLL on bottom, another PLL is not good so they both lose here.

it's not really better or worse but both of them are bad for speedsolving. also, just wanted to say they're very indistinguishable with each other.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 18, 2020)

Solving orientation the same way as you solve permutation (ie doing F2L but not solving the pieces properly) is a bad idea. Cross and F2L is pretty much exactly the same time as random cross. Same with RCF2L. LL is same speed as normal LL THEN you have to another algorithm on D. ZZ Bridge has the same problem. Also I invented this method when I avereaged about 35 seconds, it's not really a new one.


----------



## Silky (Aug 20, 2020)

Just a quick expansion on ZZ-LOL; meant for OH and FMC.

Steps:

(1) EO + Line on left
(2) 1x1x3 pseudo-block placed on LD.
(a) When placing 1x1x3 you simultaneously place any two U/D edges ( except RD edge relative to your pseudo-block ) in FD + BD. Usually you can influence at least one correct FD/BD edge relative to the pseudo-block, preferably on DB.
(3) Finish pseudo-F2L
(4) Perform COLL + L5EP/L6EP ( depending on what your FD/BD edges are ). Perform AUF + ADF.

This method is very similar to the Lin method on Square-1.

Benefits:

(1) Pseudo-block building is more efficient than standard block-building.
(2) RUD is more ergonomic for OH.
(3) COLL + L5EP/L6EP is more efficient than OLL + PLL ( on average ~4 moves based on comparison of average move counts on wiki )

Cons:

(1) ZBLL becomes extremely difficult unless you have correct FB/DB placement.
(2) Look ahead become significantly harder ( but since OH provides more time for look ahead this can be mitigated ).
(3) Pseudo-block building is hard.

Perhaps someone has already talked/expanded on this, if so forgive me.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Aug 20, 2020)

seems good for OH, not for 2H


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 21, 2020)

ZZ-LOL has already existed as EOLine on left (aka EOEdge from SSC), F2L RUD, z', ZBLL. You could also do EOLOL, FB on DL, SB on R, ZBLL. Normal ZZ is very good for OH anyway, so I don't see why you'd do this.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Aug 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> ZZ-LOL has already existed as EOLine on left (aka EOEdge from SSC), F2L RUD, z', ZBLL. You could also do EOLOL, FB on DL, SB on R, ZBLL. Normal ZZ is very good for OH anyway, so I don't see why you'd do this.


Normal ZZ is terrible for OH.


----------



## Silky (Aug 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> ZZ-LOL has already existed as EOLine on left (aka EOEdge from SSC), F2L RUD, z', ZBLL. You could also do EOLOL, FB on DL, SB on R, ZBLL. Normal ZZ is very good for OH anyway, so I don't see why you'd do this.


Well this is awkward.. It seems I have created a new method by complete accident ( help me name it i guess.. ).

As I said above RUD is more ergonomic than LUR. Pseudo-block building is more efficient than block building. You would also have lots of continuations after Pseudo-F2L. 

If neither FD/BD are solved you can use COLL + L6EP. 
If one edge is solved (FD/BD) than you can use COLL + L5EP. You could also use WV + HKPLL.
You can also permuted FD/BD after pseudo-F2L ( or pseudo-F2B ? ) and finish with ZBLL. If you choose to do this you technically have more time to recognize ZBLL since you can recognize CLL as you permute FD + BD.



Owen Morrison said:


> Normal ZZ is terrible for OH.



Booo ! Go back to the OH Method Debate Thread


----------



## Redcrosscfop (Aug 21, 2020)

Silky said:


> Perform AUF +DUF


What does DUF mean.


----------



## Silky (Aug 21, 2020)

Redcrosscfop said:


> What does DUF mean.


Mean to be ADF ( adjust D face ). Just edited it.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Aug 21, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Normal ZZ is terrible for OH.


I don't want to get too off-topic here, but <RUD> is definitely worse than <RUz> or <RUF> for OH, virtually all good OH solvers (for example Antonio Kam) agree on this.
Also, ZZ is not terrible for OH. While it may not be as good as Roux, its potential has been proven by Phil Yu with his NAR and Simon Kalhofer, who currently is 22nd in the world and 2nd in Germany for OH average.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 21, 2020)

Well, posted this in the wrong thread lol
I don't even know if this so roux, but let's see, oh gosh.

Roux FB and SB like normal
COLL
Solve the white side only MU gen
Then there are 3 ways to solve this:
1. Beginner way would be like 3x3 beginner method, learn only one algorithm to solve the yellow side, but in this case it is M' U' M U' M' U' M U' M' U' M, which cycles through all the possible cases for the top layer.
Then, PLL with MU gen algorithms, because corners solved
2. Intermediate way is to memorize 3 algorithms for the yellow side, I don't want to write them down, remember, all MU gen. Then PLL all MU gen.
3. BIG BOI way is to memorize ALL EPLLs, and making sure they are all MU gen.
This probably sucks, or it may be another method, I do t know, I only know of CFOP


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 23, 2020)

I think everyone "invented" some form of that method. If you were willing to read all 330 pages in this thread you would find that multiple times. It's even mentioned in the first post in this thread. Anyway, keep on thinking! Maybe you'll come up with the best method, who knows?


----------



## ProStar (Aug 23, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Well, posted this in the wrong thread lol
> I don't even know if this so roux, but let's see, oh gosh.
> 
> Roux FB and SB like normal
> ...



Proper way to do it would be F2B->CMLL->White Side->ELL. It's been invented a lot, along with F2B->White->OLL->PLL and other variations. It's not great


----------



## Metallic Silver (Aug 24, 2020)

Zim Method?? Idk what to call it, it's a 4x4 method.

1. 2 Opposite centers (white and yellow) + Line [like 2/4 cross in a line] (or you could do them separately)
2. Solve all centers
3. Pair up 4 yellow/white edges and place it in LD, RD, LB, RB
4. Edge pair the rest
5. EO/EO+Parity (I recommend using algs, however idk algs for orienting 3 edges on top or 5 bad edges parity algs)
6. 3x3 ZZ = ZZF2L ---> ZBLL or other variants


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Aug 30, 2020)

With Sarah’s Advanced on skewb, you avoid Z-perms and H-perms. What if you were to do the same on COLL for 3x3. 2 algorithms per case, each one solves a different ZBLL, you know which to do to give you a U perm or a skip. For example R2 D R’ U2 R D’ R’ U2 R’ and R2 D r’ U2 r D’ R’ U2 R’
Would be 80-84 algs including COLL depending on if the PLL cases count(2 for diag and 2 for adj). It seems like a nice stepping stone to ZZ, and if your U-perms are really fast, it could be quite viable, especially if you predict where they’ll be and which one you’ll get. I name this system UCOLL because it is COLL that forces U perms


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 30, 2020)

It's definitely possible. Learning ZBLL (obviously) skips them. I would say though that doing it that way isn't any more useful than just doing OCLL/PLL when you have a z perm case and knowing which PLL you'll have.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 30, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> With Sarah’s Advanced on skewb, you avoid Z-perms and H-perms. What if you were to do the same on COLL for 3x3. 2 algorithms per case, each one solves a different ZBLL, you know which to do to give you a U perm or a skip. For example R2 D R’ U2 R D’ R’ U2 R’ and R2 D r’ U2 r D’ R’ U2 R’
> Would be 80-84 algs including COLL depending on if the PLL cases count(2 for diag and 2 for adj). It seems like a nice stepping stone to ZZ, and if your U-perms are really fast, it could be quite viable, especially if you predict where they’ll be and which one you’ll get. I name this system UCOLL because it is COLL that forces U perms



Seems like you're essentially talking about what's currently known as CLL+1. It's an idea that has been around for about 10 years now. I'm currently developing this along with Louis de Mendonça (TDM). We will have both the oriented edges form (COLL) and the form for when edges aren't oriented (CLL). We are almost finished and it should be released soon.

I myself have spent over 100 hours developing this. From the system, to the algs, to the structure, and other things. I'll be glad to finally have this finished after having thought about this so much for 10 years.


----------



## N's-cvt (Aug 31, 2020)

I had an idea for a ZZ variant method today and I don't know if it has already been invented but here it is. Start with EO-line but instead of forcing your DB edge to be the actual DB edge you use any of the 4 U-layer edges making the line more efficient, then solve ZZF2L normally, then do COLL and I'm not sure if having the freedom of the DB edge be "open" would allow for better coll's but I think it could improve 1 or 2 cases, then do a L5EP with the DB edge instead of the DF edge. There is only 16 algs (12 l5ep/4epll) and all are below 13 moves most algs being solved MU which allows for fast tps. I already made the DB L5EP algs today and wondered if anyone would be insterested in this varaint and the algs.


----------



## TerryD (Aug 31, 2020)

N's-cvt said:


> I had an idea for a ZZ variant method today and I don't know if it has already been invented but here it is. Start with EO-line but instead of forcing your DB edge to be the actual DB edge you use any of the 4 U-layer edges making the line more efficient, then solve ZZF2L normally, then do COLL and I'm not sure if having the freedom of the DB edge be "open" would allow for better coll's but I think it could improve 1 or 2 cases, then do a L5EP with the DB edge instead of the DF edge. There is only 16 algs (12 l5ep/4epll) and all are below 13 moves most algs being solved MU which allows for fast tps. I already made the DB L5EP algs today and wondered if anyone would be insterested in this varaint and the algs.


I would be interested in the algs, however, why not let DF be any of the U-layer edges instead?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 31, 2020)

That's called portico and is already a thing, just with DF instead. DB is worse due to the blindspot.


----------



## N's-cvt (Aug 31, 2020)

TerryD said:


> I would be interested in the algs, however, why not let DF be any of the U-layer edges instead?



Cool I will get them in pdf form tomorrow for you. I suppose you could put a U edge in DF instead like with portico but I like using DB as it is less distracting looking at the U/F faces, and I don't need to think about how I can more efficently solve F2L.


----------



## N's-cvt (Aug 31, 2020)

I went all out with the organization of the algs in this pdf!
disclaimer the cubes could be a bit small to see.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 31, 2020)

N's-cvt said:


> I went all out with the organization of the algs in this pdf!
> disclaimer the cubes could be a bit small to see.


Isn't this just HK with corners done?


----------



## N's-cvt (Sep 1, 2020)

Spacey, I don't know much about HK but yeah sure this is something like HK with all corners solved allowing for a fun MU finish. I think the real HK is using the DF edge and has something like 100 algs but even though many people have said they were developing and optimisng the alg sets I have'nt really seen anything from that.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Sep 1, 2020)

N's-cvt said:


> Spacey, I don't know much about HK but yeah sure this is something like HK with all corners solved allowing for a fun MU finish. I think the real HK is using the DF edge and has something like 100 algs but even though many people have said they were developing and optimisng the alg sets I have'nt really seen anything from that.


My website, hkmethod.com


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 1, 2020)

This is probably really stupid, but wanted to write it anyway

Variant of Hawaiian Kociemba

1) LB

2) EODB

3) RB

4) HKOLL+ HKPLL


Alternatively, you could do L4C and L5EP


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Sep 3, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> This is probably really stupid, but wanted to write it anyway
> 
> Variant of Hawaiian Kociemba
> 
> ...


This isn’t hk its leor


----------



## ProStar (Sep 3, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> This is probably really stupid, but wanted to write it anyway
> 
> Variant of Hawaiian Kociemba
> 
> ...



This is basically LEOR


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> This is basically LEOR



I know it's basically LEOR-A+LEOR-B+HK.
The L4C and L5EP could be better than HKOLL and HKPLL


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

Lol it's just a different way of making HKF2L + EO, full EOArrow and COLL + L5EP is better.
Also, doing L4C for CxLL when you could do literally any CxLL subset that preserves the DF edges, COLL + L5EP or HKCLL and L5EP for examples.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Lol it's just a different way of making HKF2L + EO, full EOArrow and COLL + L5EP is better.
> Also, doing L4C for CxLL when you could do literally any CxLL subset that preserves the DF edges, COLL + L5EP or HKCLL and L5EP for examples.



L4C to preserve EO


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> L4C to preserve EO


So does COLL which is objectively better than L4C.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> So does COLL which is objectively better than L4C.



I just remember that L4C preserve permutation and orientation, so yeah i'm stupid.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

BTW why does no-one use WVCP and ELL since that's a 2LLSLL, like VH method but with less algs?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> BTW why does no-one use WVCP and ELL since that's a 2LLSLL, like VH method but with less algs?


Da heck it has wayyy more algs than VH lol also, recog ing the pair and making it in a position to insert is one more look which makes it a 3LLSLL method.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Da heck it has wayyy more algs than VH lol also, recog ing the pair is one more look which makes it a 3LLSLL method.



VH Method is VHLS and ZBLL


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> VH Method is VHLS and ZBLL


Lol VH is Cross, F2L-1 then making the pair, then doing VHLS which is two look instead of ZBLS which does what VHLS + pair does in one look which is the ZB method.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> VH Method is VHLS and ZBLL



WVCP has 378 algs (including mirrors), and ELL has 29, which is 407 algs, and VH method uses 525 algs


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Yea, so VH is basically a transition to ZB Method


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> WVCP has 378 algs (including mirrors), and ELL has 29, which is 407 algs, and VH method uses 525 algs


Look, your description of the VH method is 525 algs which is way more than what VH actually has, what you're talking about is the ZB method which is 799 algs.

edit: VH actually has 525 algs hhahahahahah but you were saying that VH is ZBLS + ZBLL which is wrong cause VHLS requires the pair to be made and ZBLS doesn't which makes VH a 3LLSLL method.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

__





VH method - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Look, your description of the VH method is 525 algs which is way more than what VH actually has, what you're talking about is the ZB method which is 799 algs.
> 
> edit: VH actually has 525 algs hhahahahahah but you were saying that VH is ZBLS + ZBLL which is rong.



I never said VH was ZBLS and ZBLL


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I never said VH was ZBLS and ZBLL


Oh wait I misread your post above this page as ZBLS kek


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 4, 2020)

The edge pairing can be done intuitively so actually like ~500 algs plus intuitive edge orientation I could do that every solve efficiently if I wanted to, you would just need to learn petrus and zz styles of edge orientation and apply whatever is best through the solve.

So I personally don't the think ZB is actually 799 algs.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> The edge pairing can be done intuitively so actually like ~500 algs plus intuitive edge orientation I could do that every solve efficiently if I wanted to, you would just need to learn petrus and zz styles of edge orientation and apply whatever is best through the solve.
> 
> So I personally don't the think ZB is actually 799 algs.



It does if you do ZBLS with algs


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> It does if you do ZBLS with algs


Intuitive ZBLS is basically 2 look VHLS cause people usually form the pair then do sledge or move the pair to a position to do sledge which is 2 look VHLS


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 4, 2020)

Im just saying top 3x3 solvers basically do ZB with out the edge orienting algs, also it is fundamentally worse because it's only for last slot orientation while you could do intuitive edge orientation throughout any point of f2l
I find the 799 algs worse and misleading


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Im just saying top 3x3 solvers basically do ZB with out the edge orienting algs, also it is fundamentally worse because it's only for last slot orientation while you could do intuitive edge orientation throughout any point of f2l
> I find the 799 algs worse and misleading


Do they make the pair then do sledge after that? then that's VH bruh


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

ZBLS is objectively better than intuitive VHLS


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 4, 2020)

That's not what I'm saying to do
F2l plus edge orientation into zblls,
It is better to do it at any point, NOT just last slot


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> That's not what I'm saying to do
> F2l plus edge orientation into zblls,
> It is better to do it at any point, NOT just last slot



Then you'll mess up the EO at last slot


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 4, 2020)

And again doing edge orientation at any point through f2l is more efficient, and its what top solvers do because of this


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> That's not what I'm saying to do
> F2l plus edge orientation into zblls,
> It is better to do it at any point, NOT just last slot


That depends on the situation also, doing edge control before LS is NOT ZBLS.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Then you'll mess up the EO at last slot


No?
If youre facing the right way, and all edges are oriented that won't happen... If it did how could I and a multitude of other cubers apply it...


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

It's way more efficient to do ZBLS, bruh


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> No?
> If youre facing the right way, and all edges are oriented that won't happen... If it did how could I and a multitude of other cubers apply it...



You can do it, but it's less efficient since you can't do f moves, so you'll have to pair it up differently, which would take longer


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

I think you're both wrong xD cause there's a time where doing edge control doing F2L is more efficient and doing ZBLS is more efficient.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> It's way more efficient to do ZBLS, bruh


Not in most situations it literally isn't, last slot is restrictive making edge orientation worse depending on the case.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I think you're both wrong xD cause there's a time where doing edge control doing F2L is more efficient and doing ZBLS is more efficient.


True


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Not in most situations it literally isn't, last slot is restrictive making edge orientation worse depending on the case.


Depending on the case being the key words


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

is CPEOLL/2GLL worse than OLL/PLL


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

In 2H, generally, yeah.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Anyway, do you think the wvcp/ell thing bad?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 4, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Anyway, do you think the wvcp/ell thing bad?


Yeah, it's bad.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 4, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Yeah, it's bad.



same with the LEOR thing?


----------



## Athefre (Sep 5, 2020)

Transformation Based Method

There are a lot of ways in which transformation can be applied. Corners, edges, groups of pieces, and more. All of the uses won't described here. It can be seen on the transformation wiki page. This method combines corner and edge transformation in a simple way to increase efficiency. There is also a lot of freedom for users to choose how in-depth they want to go with the application. Users can start with the easier forms of blockbuilding and, with experience, add to the skill set.

*Step 1:* Solve a 1x2x3 on the left.

*Step 2:* Solve any M-slice edge and any right side 1x2x2 and place on the lower layers.

*Step 3:* Solve any 1x2x2 and align above the pieces from the previous step. Perform an r or r' move to complete the transformed first two layers.

*Step 4:* LL then adjust.



Spoiler: Example Solves



*Example 1*
Scramble: D B L2 D' L2 D' B2 D B2 U B2 F2 D' F L' D R2 F2 R' D2
1x2x3: z2 F U2 r' D' U' r B
2x2x2: R U2 R' U' R' U2 R2 M' U2 M'
Transformed F2L: U2 M' U M U' r U r'
LL (CLL+1)

CLL+1: U2 R' U' R U' R' U R' F R F' U R
L3E: U M2 U M' U2 M U M2 U - r U'
*Example 2*
Scramble: U D2 R' D2 L2 B2 R B2 D2 L U2 R' U2 B' U R' F R2 D L D'
1x2x3: y2 x M2 D R2 D r' F
2x2x2: R U R' U R2 U' R' U2 r' U' M' U R'
Transformed F2L: U' r U' r' U r
LL (OLL+PLL):

OLL: F U R U' R' F' U' F R U R' U' F'
PLL: M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2 - r' U2
*Example 3 (Advanced)*
Scramble: U B2 D R2 B2 D L2 F2 L2 U R U2 F2 D U2 L' F L R
1x2x3: R U R' U' x U' M F
2x2x2: U2 R U' R' U' R U2 R2 U M2
Transformed F2L: U2 R U R' U' R U M'
LL (OLL+PLL):

OLL: U2 M U R U R' U' M' R' F R F'
PLL: R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L U' - r' U2 r'
*Example 4 (Advanced)*
Scramble: L D2 R2 D' L2 B2 U2 B2 D F2 L2 U2 L' B' U2 F2 R' U' B' L
1x2x3: z2 x L D F2 r' B
Pseudo 2x2x2: R' U' M U r2
Transformed F2L: U2 M' U M U r
LL (CLL+1):

CLL+1: U R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R
L3E: U R' U' R U M U' R' U r U' - R' U2 R r2
*Example 5 (Advanced)*
Scramble: B L2 D2 B2 L2 F' L2 B' D2 B U' F2 R' D2 F D2 F U' B2
1x2x3: y2 x l' D B2 U' r' F'
Pseudo 2x2x2: U' r' U' M2 U R' M' U2 M
Transformed F2L: U2 R' U' M
LL (NMLL):

Separation: U M2 U M' U2 M U M2
Permutation: F R2 U' L' U R2 U' L U F' - M' U R U2 r' U2 R




*Positives:*

Move-count
Same good ergonomics as methods with similar shapes
Lots of possible variations and options from which to choose
*Negatives:*

LL recognition is more difficult
*Notes:*

Edges can be oriented along the way if the solver desires to use a certain LL method. NMLL is particularly good because recognition is the easiest and the move-count is low. Orienting edges would also make step 3 easier.
The approach presented here doesn't have to be the only way. ZZ, Petrus, EOMR, Two 1x2x3s then DF+DB, and similar methods can be used to reach the same point. The move-count for some of these would likely be lower than the primary strategy presented in the example solves.
Sometimes the 1x2x2 that is built in step 3 will match the 2x2x2 in step 2. This means there will be solves where the F2L isn't transformed. It's all about building the easiest or most efficient solution.
If A3 is used in combination with this method, it is a perfect fit. The move-count then becomes even better.
It can be taken to even more extremes such as misoriented corners or edges or UL or UR edges in the transformed F2L. Whether this is beneficial or not depends on how it's done. Recognition is of course different. Some transformed F2L types will lead to shorter solutions; others will require long adjustments at the end.


----------



## Redcrosscfop (Sep 11, 2020)

New method proposal
1) *EO223 : *In BD, this can be done it a variety of ways. Like solving EOarrow or EO222 and then finish the block.
2) *Slice :* Finish E-Slice + 2-3 corners
_Steps 3 and 4 can be swapped_
3) *L5EP :* Permute the last 5 edges
4) *LC :* Last 4 or 3 corners using commutators

This method is just for fun, some variations of this could be faster, don't have an algorithm generating program rn, I also don't know how how to find the number of cases for each step, nor the avg number of moves. Does it have potential? And what can i fix about it. Let the hate begin lol.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

Redcrosscfop said:


> New method proposal
> 1) *EO223 : *In BD, this can be done it a variety of ways. Like solving EOarrow or EO222 and then finish the block.
> 2) *Slice :* Finish E-Slice + 2-3 corners
> _Steps 3 and 4 can be swapped_
> ...


this is just HK petrus/HK ZZ with Roux EO but worse because you do L5E before corners


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

Worse because 
if corners were to be algorithimized they would be bad because you would have to keep edge orientation and edge permutaion


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 11, 2020)

Redcrosscfop said:


> New method proposal
> 1) *EO223 : *In BD, this can be done it a variety of ways. Like solving EOarrow or EO222 and then finish the block.
> 2) *Slice :* Finish E-Slice + 2-3 corners
> _Steps 3 and 4 can be swapped_
> ...


Last X Corners type methods are usually bad, the corners are restricted cause the edges are already solved and typically, it's bad when it's this way.


----------



## Redcrosscfop (Sep 11, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> this is just HK petrus/HK ZZ with Roux EO


 I completely forgot HK exists oops.



ObscureCuber said:


> but worse because you do L5E before corners


 You can do last few corners before L5E and it wouldnt mess anything up.



ObscureCuber said:


> Worse because
> if corners were to be algorithimized they would be bad because you would have to keep edge orientation and edge permutaion


 Algs might be slightly better if you do corners before edges. I say in my post that steps 3 and 4 can be swapped.



Username: Username: said:


> Last X Corners type methods are usually bad


 Nice to know.

I completely for got HK exists. So pretend like i didnt come up with that method and move on. 
Edit: Maybe the LC algs can ignore EO?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 11, 2020)

Just do this but Corners before edge permutation its way better, more efficient
and there are already optimized algs.
Basically, EO
Petrus Block in Back
HK pairs 
CLL
Roux style LSE.
good try tho,
if hk didnt exist this would be pretty cool


----------



## Redcrosscfop (Sep 11, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> if hk didnt exist this would be pretty cool


Thx i guess lol.

My idea was to make a method that started with EODRDL and I came up with this, except I remembered EOarrow being a thing, and EO222. So i just used that. I guess i'll come up with smth else. Thx for the feedback


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 13, 2020)

Aight so basically this method is like the ZB method but closer to CFCE

1) Cross

2) F2L-1

3) ZBLS variant that orients corners (call it ROLS for now)

4) 1LLL subset for oriented corner cases (ROLL temp name)


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 13, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Aight so basically this method is like the ZB method but closer to CFCE
> 
> 1) Cross
> 
> ...


You aren't clear enough in step 3, does it solve only the last pair and the corner orientation? if so, it's defs not a ZBLS variant, if it orients the LL edges and LL corners while solving the pair, then it's OLS.

Also, if you're setting up to 1LLL subsets that have all the corners oriented, I think I've heard of this before.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 13, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> You aren't clear enough in step 3, does it solve only the last pair and the corner orientation? if so, it's defs not a ZBLS variant, if it orients the LL edges and LL corners while solving the pair, then it's OLS.
> 
> Also, if you're setting up to 1LLL subsets that have all the corners oriented, I think I've heard of this before.



Yea I meant more ZBLS-esque.

Can't find anything like this on the wiki.

@Username: Username: If it doesn't exist anywhere, do you think it has potential?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 13, 2020)

This has been proposed before (not on the wiki, but on this thread). 503 algs for if the F2L edge is orientated in last slot, more if not. The final step has multiple names, the most common being COALL, but also ELLCP/CPELL.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 13, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> This has been proposed before (not on the wiki, but on this thread). 503 algs for if the F2L edge is orientated in last slot, more if not. The final step has multiple names, the most common being COALL, but also ELLCP/CPELL.



Oof. Does it count as a new method is I say do F2L-1 however you want?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 13, 2020)

Not really, because then you're just doing freefop.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 13, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Oof. Does it count as a new method is I say do F2L-1 however you want?


Then your method is just an LSLL method (which have been made) and the however you want part is Freefop or however you want to call it.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 13, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Not really, because then you're just doing freefop.



Ok I just read the page and it says to use WV and then the algorithms set, which would be more VH-esque since it's 3LLSLL

Mine says to use a ZBLS-esque method , which is a 2LLSLL.

Like it's different, but probably not enough to be its own method.
If it is it's own method, Ima call the LS CORALS and the LL CORALL. CORAL method


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 13, 2020)

The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread


For the record I will name the variant I suggested Roux-LSS (=Roux, Last Slot Skip). Just to re-iterate: - FB - Back right 2x2 - Pre-locate FR edge for L5C algorithm - Execute L5C algorithm which auto-solves last slot because FR edge was pre-located - L6E According to the 2x2 L5C thread there...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 13, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread
> 
> 
> For the record I will name the variant I suggested Roux-LSS (=Roux, Last Slot Skip). Just to re-iterate: - FB - Back right 2x2 - Pre-locate FR edge for L5C algorithm - Execute L5C algorithm which auto-solves last slot because FR edge was pre-located - L6E According to the 2x2 L5C thread there...
> ...



OW.


Aight might try learn all the algorithms for that but damn that hurt.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 13, 2020)

It's definitely a cool method and I'm surprised only 2 people have thought of it.


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Sep 13, 2020)

I've thought of this before as well, and I even started to make an ELLCP sheet and gen algs, because I think ELLCP is a good 1LLL subset.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 13, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> I've thought of this before as well, and I even started to make an ELLCP sheet and gen algs, because I think ELLCP is a good 1LLL subset.


lol can i see the sheet? might want to do some of my own.


----------



## whaffle (Sep 13, 2020)

I've thought of this before too. 1-look last slot + CO is too many algs for it to be viable, so you could do form pair then WV, which is COALL(https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/COALL). As an alternative, you could do form pair then WVCP and ELL, which may be less algs than COALL. Regardless, these are 3LLSLL methods which aren't better than regular CFOP LSLL in ergonomics of movecount. Here are ELLCP algorithms(not mine):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zo7jCkXYqHVxRouJwXgG8fJM2cUAjxNQzSHauKLVpCA/edit


----------



## whaffle (Sep 13, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Petrus/Hexagonal Francisco Hybrid (Petrus Francisco)
> 
> 1. 2x2x2 block (Anywhere on the cube)
> 2. 2x2x3 block (Back of the cube)
> ...


Couple of things.

When do you do EO?
Why don't you solve the DF edge earlier? i.e. while blockbuilding F2L after 2x2x3. I don't think solving the DF edge after F2L would be effecient or ergonomic.
By "Simutaneosly Solve the last pair while orienting the last layer corners" do you mean make the pair then do WV or a ZZ-C type thing?
Don't you mean Hawaiian Kociemba instead of Hexagonal Francisco?
I'm going to assume you do EO after 223. Now, to make this method more effecient, you could combine steps 3, 4, and 5, which would be petrus, or combine steps 5 and 6, which would just be HK with blockbuilding.


----------



## MichaelZRC (Sep 13, 2020)

These last few pages in 3 words:
Y'all like HK?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 13, 2020)

You could also do ribbon and insert the final corner while doing CO (CLS) then COALL.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

This is a variant which I think is actually just better than the original 4x4 method
K4 method steps(original)
1.solve opposite centers 
2.solve 3x4x1 (3 cross edges+2 corners
3.solve M slice centers
4.solve to the rest of the first layer
5.solve f3l
6.Cll
7.Ell with commutators.


http://snk.digibase.ca/k4/index.htm


Here's a website for the method,
And heres the fastest av I could find




I thought this was cool but was confused..
Why solve the first layer and than f3l edges..
Why not do f2l style,
Basically solve the corner with either of the f3l edges and insert it.
Than solve each of those corners like that, and insert the last edges with variants of
U R U' m' U R' U' m
New steps
1. Yau cross and centers.
2. Solve corners with 1 edge each.
3. Finish solving F3L
4. Cll ELL or edge orientation oll pll
Please tell my why I'm wrong about this being more efficient and having better finger tricks.

Forgot the last thing I did, you can solve three of the pairs and use keyhole to solve the rest of the edges, insert f3l pair and solve last edge


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> This is a variant which I think is actually just better than the original 4x4 method
> K4 method steps(original)
> 1.solve opposite centers
> 2.solve 3x4x1 (3 cross edges+2 corners
> ...


I've thought of this before lol, didn't pursue it, cause original K4 seems better.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I've thought of this before lol, didn't pursue it, cause original K4 seems better.


but why tho? i dont get why this wouldnt be better..also gosh it is hard to come up with original methods now a days lol, people are just to smart!!


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 14, 2020)

aight so how do you do the thing on cube explorer where you can generate an alg that takes the cube from one state to another?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

I dont think this method is original enough to deserve its own thread tbh


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I dont think this method is original enough to deserve its own thread tbh


yea you have a point. The method is not found anywhere on the speedsolving wiki. 
It has to be proven if its sufficient and good enough.
But that doesnt mean we should stop this method and not use it.
It has potential.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> yea you have a point. The method is not found anywhere on the speedsolving wiki.
> It has to be proven if its sufficient and good enough.
> But that doesnt mean we should stop this method and not use it.
> It has potential.


it could be a decent LL, but that ll already exist )=
i dont get why you would restrict f2l/blockbuilding for no reason tho...thats just restriction not a ¨method¨


----------



## whaffle (Sep 14, 2020)

This method bears little resemblance to Hexagonal Francisco. This method is very similar to the EO 3/4cross variant of HK, except you blockbuild 223, do EO at a different time, and separate HKPLL into 2 different steps. To make this method more efficient, you could do EO first and do DF+PLL in one step, which is HK. Though this method is, "new", it is a worse variant of an already existing method.



Nir1213 said:


> yea you have a point. The method is not found anywhere on the speedsolving wiki.
> It has to be proven if its sufficient and good enough.
> But that doesnt mean we should stop this method and not use it.
> It has potential.


yeah, you probably could get sub-10 or maybe faster with it, but there is a similar method that is more efficient and already proven to be good


----------



## whaffle (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> thats why its called Petrus Francisco instead of Hexagonal Petrus


My point is that this is a worse version of HK.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 14, 2020)

This is a mix of HK and Petrus-W
Next time, post in the new method thread to see if it'll get any attention before making a new thread.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

Well, ok. But it can be improved, and that's what Lukas is looking for, right? So if we improve this this could have a better potential. Methods that seem bad to other people might actually be fit and good for others.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk


----------



## whaffle (Sep 14, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> This is a mix of HK and Petrus-W
> Next time, post in the new method thread to see if it'll get any attention before making a new thread.


he posted it in the new method thread but it didn't get any attention lol


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> This is a mix of HK and Petrus-W
> Next time, post in the new method thread to see if it'll get any attention before making a new thread.


Yes, I forgot to tell him that. You could propose the method there. But this thread could help since it's mainly focused on this method instead of others and here we can talk and make improvements on this method.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk


----------



## whaffle (Sep 14, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> Well, ok. But it can be improved, and that's what Lukas is looking for, right? So if we improve this this could have a better potential. Methods that seem bad to other people might actually be fit and good for others.
> 
> Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk


if we improve this, it'll become HK or a variant


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 14, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> Yes, I forgot to tell him that. You could propose the method there. But this thread could help since it's mainly focused on this method instead of others and here we can talk and make improvements on this method.
> 
> Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk


With that point, we should make new threads for every method to improve them.


----------



## TerryD (Sep 14, 2020)

what is the point of this method, it's inefficient and doesn't have any outstanding features


----------



## mukerflap (Sep 14, 2020)

Just because you think of a weird variant doesnt mean you have to male an entire thread about it, there are 0 positives of this method compared to normal petrus


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

TerryD said:


> what is the point of this method, it's inefficient and doesn't have any outstanding features


It might be now, but it can be improved into a better method.

Sent from my TA-1025 using Tapatalk


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Sep 14, 2020)

Honestly, Petrus Francisco would be 222->223->f2l minus df edge and dfr corner-> hexagonal Francisco finish


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 14, 2020)

Bruh every single method gets made in the MegaThread, even flipping YAU was made in that thread!


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Bruh every single method gets made in the MegaThread, even flipping YAU was made in that thread!


:0
but thats for mega we talkin 3x3 here!


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I have zero idea what you just said but ok


I said the 4x4 method Yau was made in the new method thread


Nir1213 said:


> :0
> but thats for mega we talkin 3x3 here!


I meant mega thread, not megaminx


----------



## Hazel (Sep 14, 2020)

While this method may be unique in its own way, unique doesn't necessarily mean good. In Petrus, you would do EO -> 2-gen-F2L -> ZBLL. This method splits that into four smaller steps. In general, and definitely here, few big steps is faster than many small steps (due to look-ahead, transition time, etc). Not saying you shouldn't try to make methods—because you absolutely should—but this one probably isn't one worth exploring further.

As for it having its own thread, you _are_ supposed to use the megathread, regardless of whether you want your method to have its own thread or not. If you propose a method in the megathread and the general consensus among others is that it's a good method worthy of exploration, only then should it get its own thread.

EDIT: yep, it was moved to the megathread


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> ok so LMCF has its own thread, why dont you move it here. You did it to Petrus Francisco (whoever moved my thread over here).


Because they worked hard on it and didn't make a method in 3 minutes


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LMCF is good/original


----------



## Hazel (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> ok so LMCF has its own thread, why dont you move it here. You did it to Petrus Francisco (whoever moved my thread over here).


I believe it _was_ proposed here first—people talked about it, and decided that it was a method with high potential, and thus it deserves its own thread.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 14, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> wait what are they, i didnt know :0


The thread this is in right now, anything that can be grouped into something else is a mega thread (lol what would you call the megaminx mega thread? Mega mega thread?)


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 14, 2020)

The creator of LMCF spent months genning algs and working on a tutorial. It deserved it's own thread.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i proposed petrus francisco here first before i made my own thread about it. It deserves its own thread


Then there would be about 500 threads just lurking around, advance your method and we'll see


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i proposed petrus francisco here first before i made my own thread about it. It deserves its own thread


When everyone ignores a method, it generally means it doesn't deserve it's own thread.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i proposed petrus francisco here first before i made my own thread about it. It deserves its own thread


thats not how it works lol


----------



## Gnome (Sep 14, 2020)

So you're proposing 1 days worth of "waiting" is equal to months of hard work, algorithm generation, tutorials and example solves?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/page-334 yesterday at 2:40PM EST and I made the thread about it TODAY. There is proof.


Ok. But that's not the point. I've posted plenty of ignored methods here, but I didn't make a new thread for every single one of them.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/page-334 yesterday at 2:40PM EST and I made the thread about it TODAY. There is proof.


Cool, but you don't need a new thread for every method on here. Super cool methods were developed ONLY on this thread, and example would be Yau.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

You can also use specific threads for vairiants of methods,
like this is a petrus vairiant so use a petrus thread


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

Aerma said:


> While this method may be unique in its own way, unique doesn't necessarily mean good. In Petrus, you would do EO -> 2-gen-F2L -> ZBLL. This method splits that into four smaller steps. In general, and definitely here, few big steps is faster than many small steps (due to look-ahead, transition time, etc). Not saying you shouldn't try to make methods—because you absolutely should—but this one probably isn't one worth exploring further.
> 
> As for it having its own thread, you _are_ supposed to use the megathread, regardless of whether you want your method to have its own thread or not. If you propose a method in the megathread and the general consensus among others is that it's a good method worthy of exploration, only then should it get its own thread.
> 
> EDIT: yep, it was moved to the megathread


 i guess you got a point.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i understand my method is not that good but is should be deserving of its own thread


for a method to have its own thread, its gotta be worthy of it. But the method you made isnt really the best.
Im sorry, lukas.



LukasCubes said:


> ok whatever, any ideas to improve petrus francisco?


nvm it isnt worth making improvements anymore
you could do it for fun


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> of course its not. Well have fun.


Just allow it to be Do anything to create f2l-1 that is soo much better


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> of course its not. Well have fun.


im not doing it lol


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

that doesnt make it developed,
you dont have an algset generated for ll even a bad simple one.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> does winter variation count as an algset? Its in the method, its an entire step.


what about that corner orientation step
thats a major step that is uncounted for


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> yes i have my own algset generated for that but i am not ready to post it yet


ya right lol


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ya right lol


*scoffs*


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> yes i have my own algset generated for that but i am not ready to post it yet


why would you be not ready to post an algset???
its an algset...
that is the reason i think this is a lie and i think
he hasnt generated one


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

thats not an algset and M U doesnt orient corners


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> no im talking about EO+DF edge for step 5. Just use the entire Winter Variation for step 4 after intuitively pairing up the last slot.


entire wv is awful and long there is no reason to use it,
its pretty bad
you should just orient corners after,
and you can do coll after edge orientation


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i get your point but to have more hexagonal francisco in the method, ima keep my way. I dont disrespect your opinion, im just saying i like my version better. I will keep you idea in mind tho incase i do change it.


alright,
atleast for people getting into the method they should be allowed to also do EO COLL as many already now the algset.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 15, 2020)

Dont know if this is original or not but created this method along time ago to learn basic edge comms,
Solve 2x2x3(like petrus) into back.
solve front two corners.
Coll
L7E
(you could solve L7E with COMMS or a specific L7E alg set)
this method can be like fairly efficient if you know comms well,
plus the blockbuilding aspects.
you could also solve the last cross piece with corners and than do comms it might be better for fingertricks while bieng less efficient.


----------



## whaffle (Sep 15, 2020)

I was trying to create a speedsolving method based on DR/Belt, and here are some of my ideas:

DR:
I think the fastest(not necessarily most efficient) way to achieve DR is EOBelt -> CO. Belt edges don't have to be solved, they just have to be in the E slice and oriented. After EOBelt, you can use TSLE Edge in slot algorithms to solve CO of one side, and then solve CO of the other side with OCLL. Alternatively, to avoid a z2 rotation, you can orient 3 corners on the bottom during EOBelt then orient the remaining corners. You could also blockbuild DR F2L and do OLL, but I haven't tested this too much and I don't think it would be too efficient.

Solve after DR:
I have thought of 3 ways to solve after DR that could be fast:

Reduce to <R2, L2, U2, D2, F2, B2> then solve F2B, which leaves you with 4c
Blockbuild F2L then PLL/ Blockbuild to F2L-1 Corner then TTLL
Blockbuild 223 and finish with Mehta

I think if you do

EOBelt -1 edge + 3CO
TSLE
Reduction to <R2, L2, U2, D2, F2, B2>
Roux finish

it might me a decent method.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 15, 2020)

I think we need more Petrus Variations, and we need more CP methods, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone? A Petrus variation with CP instead of EO!

1) 2x2x2 in back

2) 2x2x3 in back

aight so i don't know how this'll be done, since i can't do CP, but

3) CP for remaining corners

4) 2 F2L pairs

5) Flip corners to be solved and orient edges

6) L5EP

Thoughts?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 15, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I think we need more Petrus Variations, and we need more CP methods, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone? A Petrus variation with CP instead of EO!
> 
> 1) 2x2x2 in back
> 
> ...


Why the heck is EO solved and you didn't even do EO?


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 15, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Why the heck is EO solved and you didn't even do EO?



Ima edit to make more sense


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 15, 2020)

whaffle said:


> I was trying to create a speedsolving method based on DR/Belt, and here are some of my ideas:
> 
> DR:
> I think the fastest(not necessarily most efficient) way to achieve DR is EOBelt -> CO. Belt edges don't have to be solved, they just have to be in the E slice and oriented. After EOBelt, you can use TSLE Edge in slot algorithms to solve CO of one side, and then solve CO of the other side with OCLL. Alternatively, to avoid a z2 rotation, you can orient 3 corners on the bottom during EOBelt then orient the remaining corners. You could also blockbuild DR F2L and do OLL, but I haven't tested this too much and I don't think it would be too efficient.
> ...


SSC does DR reduction. After that, no one really knows the best way to do it, but I quite like the HTR->blocks->4c idea, even if it would be difficult/maybe impractical for speedsolving.


----------



## whaffle (Sep 15, 2020)

Great Idea! Doing EO right after FB restricts SB and corners for a small benefit in LSE, so why don't we move EO to after CMLL? ...oh wait, that's roux


----------



## Hazel (Sep 15, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Ok so don't scream at me for doing this again but i will admit, it ain't that good and its m own varient of roux. Here is how it goes.
> 
> Roux 1st Block
> EO
> ...


It's interesting, but whaffle is right—there's more negatives than positives moving EO to after FB, sorry


----------



## TerryD (Sep 15, 2020)

i think the roux one is better


----------



## Hazel (Sep 15, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> yes thanks. Also the method doesn't have a name yet so I am open to ideas on method names and how to improve the method.


Again as Whaffle said, the best way to improve the method would be to remove EO before second block, and just do it at the beginning of LSE—but then that isn't a new method, it's just Roux.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 15, 2020)

this is simular to leor,
basically just leor actually lol rip....


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 15, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> --LEOR--
> Roux 1st Block
> EO-Stripe
> Petrus F2L
> ...


Oh, so its just worse leor..
or worst roux..
hopefully you can figure out a way to make it good!!
also it would be LEORCL


----------



## Athefre (Sep 15, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Ok so don't scream at me for doing this again but i will admit, it ain't that good and its m own varient of roux. Here is how it goes.
> 
> Roux 1st Block
> EO
> ...











Accomplishment Thread


Random method #3482734 (nowhere else to put it, I have thousands of ideas like this and never commit them to text). 1x2x3 -> EO and CentreOrientation -> SB -> CMOLL -> PermLSE rowan: it makes LSE and second block crazyfast Lawl RouxZZ. Shame EO step prob sux. EDIT; EO can be detected by...




www.speedsolving.com





He had other posts about it besides this one.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Athefre said:


> Accomplishment Thread
> 
> 
> Random method #3482734 (nowhere else to put it, I have thousands of ideas like this and never commit them to text). 1x2x3 -> EO and CentreOrientation -> SB -> CMOLL -> PermLSE rowan: it makes LSE and second block crazyfast Lawl RouxZZ. Shame EO step prob sux. EDIT; EO can be detected by...
> ...


whats obvious is obvious,
everyone has already thought of that method.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Pseudo Hexagonal Francisco:
1.Solve A 1X3X3 plus one corner(like Fransisco)
BUT use any oriented edges and corners.
2.Solve middle edges aslong as thier oriented(bassically can be solved with R2, F2, OR R2 F2(also L2 B2)EXCEPT one Edge.
3.put an oriented edge into the bottom slot~ than solve Pair (oriented corner plus oriented edge)
4.Psuedo OLL(just recog like normal oll normal oll algs)
5.Domino state
(for number 5 solve the cube in any way you want im not going to be restrictive to be restrictive that would make the method worse)
6.Solved.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Could also do Pseudo 2x2x3
Psuedo Pairs plus Phsuedo Edge 
Psuedo OLL
Domino state


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Pseudo Hexagonal Francisco:
> 1.Solve A 1X3X3 plus one corner(like Fransisco)
> BUT use any oriented edges and corners.
> 2.Solve middle edges aslong as thier oriented(bassically can be solved with R2, F2, OR R2 F2(also L2 B2)EXCEPT one Edge.
> ...


This is an orient first method that I'm 100% sure it has been made cause I thought of it and someone else thought of it too,
SSC is better.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> This is an orient first method that I'm 100% sure it has been made cause I thought of it and someone else thought of it too,
> SSC is better.


just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks
and lol ik SSC is better.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

heres a nother psuedo (prob already thought of it)
1. solve one waterman block but edges can be any oriented edge(solve corners normally)
2.CLL/WCLL
3.solve other block with any oriented edges
4.EO
5. Solve final L and R edges with the CF final edge Alg
6.Solve Middle edges
(Rotate to have M edges on the E slice)
7.Columns first style L8E(but with EO already done)


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> heres a nother psuedo (prob already thought of it)
> 1. solve one waterman block but edges can be any oriented edge(solve corners normally)
> 2.CLL/WCLL
> 3.solve other block with any oriented edges
> ...


Sounds like Waterman with unnecessary extra steps.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Sounds like Waterman with unnecessary extra steps.


it could be more efficient maybe, also its a hybrid of Columns and waterman with qsuedo ""elements""
lol forgot cll wcll are algs im so tired
the steps arnt really "extra" they are just solved seperately like spuedo waterman blocks is more efficient but later on you have to reorient them


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> it could be more efficient maybe, also its a hybrid of Columns and waterman with qsuedo ""elements""
> lol forgot cll wcll are algs im so tired


No, but it's interesting so nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> No.


why not?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why not?


Too many steps, like why wouldn't you solve just strictly solve the redges? it leads to an unnecessary extra step.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Too many steps, like why wouldn't you solve just strictly solve the redges? it leads to an unnecessary extra step.


I guess youre right, but adding steps doesnt make it less efficient as the smaller steps themselves are more efficient individually


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

you could do 
Psuedo FB 
CLL/WCLL
Normal SB + EO
Last 2 L R edges (l2lr?)
(rotate)
L8E+E slice(which is actually pretty nice in columns)


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I guess youre right, but adding steps doesnt make it less efficient as the smaller steps themselves are more efficient individually


I really wouldn't say intuitive L8EP is efficient.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I really wouldn't say intuitive L8EP is efficient.


i mean, it is tho also did i say it had to be intuitive?
also dude the edges are already oriented so yes it is.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> you could do
> Psuedo FB
> CLL/WCLL
> Normal SB + EO
> ...


if the Pseudo FB pieces aren't oriented, you wouldn't get L8EP in the end.



ObscureCuber said:


> i mean, it is tho also did i say it had to be intuitive?
> also dude the edges are already oriented so yes it is.


L8EP would be like so many algs, just learn 1LLL instead lel also, how?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

they are
i said they would be
i thought thats what phsuedo meant
for example
like Orange face with only red and orange edges oriented


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> they are
> i said they would be
> i thought thats what phsuedo meant
> for example
> like Orange face with only red and orange edges oriented


You're making it seem like L8EP seems brilliant.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

because L R are oriented edges and you do EO, L8E is also oriented


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> You're making it seem like L8EP seems brilliant.


??????? what?
i was explaining what i meant there,
also i never said it was BrIlIANTANTT
i was explaining how the step worked.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

lol please actually reply instead of doing eyes up


----------



## Hazel (Sep 16, 2020)

As someone who's used PCMS more than most, I can say for sure that L8E or even L8E with EO done beforehand, isn't a great step. The fastest method to solve L8E is probably to reduce it to Roux LSE, and then you're just doing a slow hybrid of PCMS and Roux, if I understand your steps correctly


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ??????? what?
> i was explaining what i meant there,
> also i never said it was BrIlIANTANTT
> i was explaining how the step worked.


firstly, L8EP on the side would have terrible ergonomics


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Aerma said:


> As someone who's used PCMS more than most, I can say for sure that L8E or even L8E with EO done beforehand, isn't a great step. The fastest method to solve L8E is probably to reduce it to Roux LSE, and then you're just doing a slow hybrid of PCMS and Roux, if I understand your steps correctly


i never said you couldnt reduce it to that


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> firstly, L8EP on the side would have terrible ergonomics


read my post i say rotate first twice


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

Aerma said:


> As someone who's used PCMS more than most, I can say for sure that L8E or even L8E with EO done beforehand, isn't a great step. The fastest method to solve L8E is probably to reduce it to Roux LSE, and then you're just doing a slow hybrid of PCMS and Roux, if I understand your steps correctly


Even what you're talking about is PCMS L8E which is UR UL UF UB DF DB DR DL and this is LSE + FR and BR, PCMS' L8E is more ergonomic.


ObscureCuber said:


> read my post i say rotate first twice


rotating would actually make it worse xd


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Psuedo FB
CLL/WCLL
Normal SB + EO
do OREO
Last 2 L R edges (l2lr?)
solve last two edges with final edge alg
(ROTATE)
L8E+E slice(which is actually pretty nice in columns) just solve l8e however and use M2 U2 before rotation or R2 U2 after to solve edges
(clarifications)
also it would be fairly efficient L8E because before the rotation you would only have to do L6E EO instead of L8E EO


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> i never said you couldnt reduce it to that


It would just be Waterman.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> It would just be Waterman.


what? lol how
you do all the previous steps and than solve L8E, one way is to Reduce to L6E and solve that


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> what?


Layer - 1 edge
WCLL
3 redges (reducing it to LSE)
LSE


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> FB
> WCLL
> 3 redges (reducing it to LSE)
> LSE


thats not what i said,
Psuedo FB
CLL/WCLL
Normal SB + EO
Last 2 L R edges (l2lr?)
(rotate)
L8E+E slice(which is actually pretty nice in columns)
You can reduce L8E TO L6E


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> thats not what i said,
> Psuedo FB
> CLL/WCLL
> Normal SB + EO
> ...


I'm sorry but that's just worse than what I said.
EO in the middle would impact lookahead a ton, then rotating (!!!!!11111) then L8E + E slice and the ergonomics for it is not great.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I'm sorry but that's just worse than what I said.


ok so??


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

[/QUOTE]
EO in the middle would impact lookahead a ton, then rotating (!!!!!11111) then L8E + E slice and the ergonomics for it is not great.
[\QUOTE]
What you said is just waterman also here's the rundown
Fb-more efficient
2b-more efficient
Eo(same efficiency)
Oriented L8E(worse efficiency)
And a single rotation
So no you're wrong
They should be around the same in efficiency with it being slightly more so but having 1 rotation
Also eo In the middle wouldn't impact Ll ahead that much because it's right before a rotation, so the rotation is the look ahead problem, also oriented l8e is easy to recog also it's in the same spot it would be normally not in the middle


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> (from me) "EO in the middle would impact lookahead a ton, then rotating (!!!!!11111) then L8E + E slice and the ergonomics for it is not great."
> What you said is just waterman also here's the rundown
> Fb-more efficient
> 2b-more efficient
> ...


L8E + E slice ergonomics would impact a ton, and it's less efficient, the problem is not EO's efficiency, no it's objectively small but it's definitely gonna make you pause for 500 years.

(EO in the middle is actually the main reason Petrus is dismissed in the community.)

Those two downsides alone can make this method bad.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> L8E + E slice ergonomics would impact a ton, and it's less efficient, the problem is not EO's efficiency, no it's objectively small but it's definitely gonna make you pause for 500 years.
> 
> (EO in the middle is actually the main reason Petrus is dismissed in the community.)


Just do U m2 U2 stuff before rotation


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Just do U m2 U2 stuff before rotation


what? it kinda looks like you're denying disadvantages and just go with it.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> what?


After Eo you dont have to use E slice because you can permute edges before rotation


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

EO in the middle would impact lookahead a ton, then rotating (!!!!!11111) then L8E + E slice and the ergonomics for it is not great.
[\QUOTE]
What you said is just waterman also here's the rundown
Fb-more efficient
2b-more efficient
Eo(same efficiency)
Oriented L8E(worse efficiency)
And a single rotation
So no you're wrong
They should be around the same in efficiency with it being slightly more so but having 1 rotation
Also eo In the middle wouldn't impact Ll ahead that much because it's right before a rotation, so the rotation is the look ahead problem, also oriented l8e is easy to recog also it's in the same spot it would be normally not in the middle
[/QUOTE]
Nope, EO in the middle still impacts alot and oriented L8E is bad for efficiency and ergonomics. (Petrus EO is less bad as you don't have to orient as many edges.)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> what? it kinda looks like you're denying disadvantages and just go with it.


I literally agreed in my post before last, I'm not doing that lol


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> EO in the middle would impact lookahead a ton, then rotating (!!!!!11111) then L8E + E slice and the ergonomics for it is not great.
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> Also eo In the middle wouldn't impact Ll ahead that much because it's right before a rotation, so the rotation is the look ahead problem, also oriented l8e is easy to recog also it's in the same spot it would be normally not in the middle


Nope, EO in the middle still impacts alot and oriented L8E is bad for efficiency and ergonomics.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Nope, EO in the middle still impacts alot and oriented L8E is bad for efficiency and ergonomics.


[/QUOTE]
Also it being bad for ergenomics doesn't matter 
A. It's only slightly worse.
B. It's made up for by more efficient steps through the rest of the solve


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Also it being bad for ergenomics doesn't matter
> A. It's only slightly worse.
> B. It's made up for by more efficient steps through the rest of the solve


A. How? I've actually thought of L8E like this before, I dismissed because of the ergonomics.
B. How?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

BTW I'm not saying it's better than waterman I'm just arguing for why I think it's not a bad method and has pros


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> BTW I'm not saying it's better than waterman I'm just arguing for why I think it's not a bad method and has pros


Every method has cons and this also has cons, I'm just pointing them out cause they are pretty significant here.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> A. How? I've actually thought of L8E like this before, I dismissed because of the ergonomics.
> B. How?


Ask people who use pcms, literally just one d move out put nthe two edges, put back l6e those arnt awful ergonomics lol.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Ask people who use pcms, literally just one d move out in two edges, put back l6e those arnt awful ergonomics lol.


Well then they don't do it the best way, also, how is it relevant here? PCMS L8E is in different position while this L8E is in UR UL UF UB DF DB FR BR


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Well then they don't do it the best way.


I don't use pcms, also youre prob wrong because you don't use it also this is just the most common approach not the approach for every solve


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Also one D move and M U are not bad ergonomics


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Also one D move and M U are not bad ergonomics


May I ask how the heck do you setup FR and BR to the D layer without using awkward moves? (wait I'm dumb, it's R' D2 R but that would disrupt everything else and would make the efficiency much worse.)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

M2 and U to bring pieces to top layer than M U2 M'


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Lol M U2 M" XD


Nope, that just affects pieces on the M and U layer, your L8E is UR UL UF UB DF DB *FR BR *how do you setup them correctly to the D layer? R' D2 R2,
also that just adds 6 more moves to your already meh L8E efficiency


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Nope, that just affects pieces on the M and U layer, your L8E is UR UL UF UB DF DB *FR BR *how do you setup them correctly to the D layer? R' D2 R2,
> also that just adds 6 more moves to your already meh L8E efficiency


No it isn't? Edges are oriented columns are oriented it is M U D e slice and cmll and eo are solved


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> No it isn't? Edges are oriented columns are oriented it is M U D


I seriously question how you get your facts. You said that your L8EP is on *FR BR *UL UR UF UB DF DB, so I ask again *How is it MUD gen?*


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I seriously question how you get your facts.


I created it? And solved with it????
And it works??


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Also it wod just be Late+6 moves efficiency wise


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Also it wod just be Late+6 moves efficiency wise


3 move setup to MU gen L8E
2 more pieces to solve in LSE means more moves
3 move reverse setup.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> 3 move setup to MU gen L8E
> 2 more pieces to solve in LSE means more moves
> 3 move reverse setup.


What three move setup?
D M' U2 M D M' U2 M or D M' U2 M2 U2 M D OR D M' U2 M


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

It's like you don't know what you're talking about 75 percent of you're arguments have been you not reading something right or doing something wrong


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> What three move setup?
> D M' U2 M D M' U2 M or D M' U2 M2 U2 M D OR D M' U2 M


That doesn't put the FR and BR edges on the bottom so no.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

It


Username: Username: said:


> That doesn't put the FR and BR edges on the bottom so no.


 ? FR BR ???


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> That doesn't put the FR and BR edges on the bottom so no.


You're changing it to LSE why would it be those edges lol(D L AND D R NOT FR BR)


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> It's like you don't know what you're talking about 75 percent of you're arguments have been you not reading something right or doing something wrong


Misunderstanding's cause is often because of the writer.
Your method proposal was very vague and unclear on which edges are the L8E on.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Psuedo FB
CLL/WCLL
Psuedo SB + EO
(do OREO)
Last 2 L R edges (l2lr?)
solve last two edges with final edge alg
(ROTATE)
L8E+E slice(which is actually pretty nice in columns) just solve l8e however and use M2 U2 before rotation or R2 U2 after to solve edges
(clarifications)
also it would be fairly efficient L8E because before the rotation you would only have to do L6E EO instead of L8E EO
What is there to misunderstand???
Later on clarified to do e slice before rotation


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Psuedo FB
> CLL/WCLL
> Psuedo SB + EO
> do OREO
> ...


A lot, also, do an example solve to clear the doubts (and see if the method is decent or not) once and for all.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> A lot.


That's not an answer


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> A lot, also, do an example solve to clear the doubts (and see if the method is decent or not) once and for all.


At some point tommorow it's 1 am do r me


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> At some point tommorow it's 1 am do r me


Also, I just want to say that reducing to LSE is probably the best way to do L8E, LSE is objectively better than L8E.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Also, I just want to say that reducing to LSE is probably the best way to do L8E, LSE is objectively better than L8E.


That's what I was trying to tell you earlier lol by this point if so tired I'm relying on surrocoreecry to type for me


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> That's what I was trying to tell you earlier lol by this point if so tired I'm relying on surrocoreecry to type for me


Not my fault if you were unclear.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Psuedo FB
> CLL/WCLL
> Normal SB + EO
> do OREO
> ...





ObscureCuber said:


> Ask people who use pcms, literally just one d move out put nthe two edges, put back l6e those arnt awful ergonomics lol.





ObscureCuber said:


> I don't use pcms, also youre prob wrong because you don't use it also this is just the most common approach not the approach for every solve





ObscureCuber said:


> Also one D move and M U are not bad ergonomics





ObscureCuber said:


> M2 and U to bring pieces to top layer than M U2 M'


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Accedentally added to many woutes btw sorry about that


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

Lol. I guess I'll just wait until the example solve.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Lol. I guess I'll just wait until the example solve.


It's easier than you think (-: I'll try to make it tommorow keep in mind I'm not good at pcms or waterman also the method we just invented today


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> It's easier than you think (-: I'll try to make it tommorow keep in mind I'm not good at pcms or waterman also the method we just invented today


We never know if it's not created already.. (lol sorry it's just that there's a chance that your method is already made, method development.)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> We never know if it's not created already..


Lol this method is SUPER WIERD IM 90 perxe t Shure it hasnt


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Lol this method is SUPER WIERD IM 90 perxe t Shure it hasnt


The cubing community is full of weird things, we'll never know (I think I already made this method without the L8E and Pseudo FB step but Pseudo FB kinda counts as an A3 first step)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

just did 2 example solves for my waterpcms variant thing,
am uploading them now(will take a while)
My L8E wasnt that effiecient in the solves, couldve done it better.
also i said in the video the last R edge beforeEO has to be the last L edges color or oppisite(this is not true) do any edge before EO and than whatever 2 edges would be left after EO do those.
(make sure after that last R edge only the First blocks top color and the other sides top or oppisite have the unsolved pieces


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

read the discription for more indepth explanation of EO
to understand how to use the methods EO correctly


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

updated description with Pros cons and thoughts


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

here's a version were you get L6E
1.Solve normal Waterman Block 
2.psuedo Style second block 
3.OREO 
4.Solve middle layer
5.Rotate LSE
or 
1.Solve Psuedo Waterman Block 
2.Psuedo Style second block 
3.OREO 
4.Solve middle layer
5.Rotate LSE


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Sep 16, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> here's a version were you get L6E
> 1.Solve normal Waterman Block
> 2.psuedo Style second block
> 3.OREO
> ...


OREO would be kind of hard to use here...


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 16, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> OREO would be kind of hard to use here...


look at my vid discription i say that,
but not really because you would just recog the L R pieces like normal pieces so it would be just as easy, also you can use the easiest of whatever the two possible edge cases are(since L R edges can be oriented either way at end of EO)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 18, 2020)

That made no sense.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> That made no sense.


it didnt matter anyway because it wasnt good.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> That made no sense.


Ah, that's maybe why I misunderstood. (any way there's nothing to understand)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 18, 2020)

Here's what you've all been waiting for (I can guarantee that if it you saw a shooting star this would be what you would wish for), a *direct solving 4x4 method that's speedsolving viable!*

The steps are pretty simple and mirror CFOP/Zipper relatively well, there are 0 steps that reduce the cube to a 3x3. Also uses comms but equally could be used without a knowledge of them.



Spoiler: The steps



Step 1: Opposite centres with one that is your D colour, exactly the same as Yau.
Step 2: 3 cross edges, exactly the same as Yau.
Step 3: Last 4 centres, exactly the same as Yau.
Step 4: Final cross edge, exactly the same as Yau. (You could also pair up an F2L edge in the exact same way as Yau). 
Step 5: F2L-1. This isn't the same as Yau. You solve the D corner and the wing that forms the F2L pair. 


Spoiler: More



The way you recognise if the wing is the second or third layer wing is by firstly determining its orientation. If it is orientated (using ZZ rules) and is the final wing (going clockwise on U, F or B) out of the two on its dedge, it is the F2L wing. If it is bad and is the first one, it is the F2L wing. You could also use trial and error to develop a sense of knowing.


Step 6: Keyhole in 3 3rd layer edges by using the empty slot.


Spoiler: More



If the final slot is in FR, you can do Uw* to move the place you insert your wing to FR then you can insert the wing like any 3 move insert. Repeat for the other 2.
You can use R U R' F' R' F R to flip the wing from RFd to FRu.


Step 7: Finish F2L.
Step 8: CLL.
Step 9: L9W (last 9 wings). In this step you use either comms or intuition (and a parity alg when necessary) to solve the final 9 wings.


Spoiler: More



Using the base comms of [L u L', U*] and [y/Uw: [R' u' R, U*]], along with sledges/inserts, you can solve the wings fully intuitively (along with a parity alg). If you want to optimise it further, read the (extremely clear) Google doc linked. I'm going to make a video and I'll go most in depth into this step.








Spoiler: Comparison to Yau



Obviously, the first 4 steps are exactly the same, so we can discount them. 
Steps 5 and 7 are equal to F2L in Yau.
CLL is approximately equal to OLL.
Now we're left with 2 steps: F3L-1+L9W compared to PLL and 3-2-3 edge pairing. I would, at a guess, say that they're almost equal but it is definitely a lot harder to quantify. At the very worst, this method will only be a bit slower than Yau, but best case scenario it is slightly faster.
Parity is worse in this method than OLL by a very small amount but you don't have 2 parity algs to watch out for. Parity in this method is a lot more obvious than PLL parity too, so this would help a little bit to balance out any differences if it is worse.





Spoiler: Use on larger cubes



Steps 1-4: Yau cross.
Step 5: F2L-1
Step 6: Keyhole in edges to give F(N-1)L-1.
Step 7: F2L
Step 8: Use K4 style F3L to finish the wings up to and including the edge (on a 5x5 this is inserting just the edge, on 6x6 it's the wing and on 7x7 it's the wing and the edge).
Step 9: CLL
Step 9b: ELL on odd layered cubes.
Step 10: L9W for each remaining layer.


Here's my Google doc with all the parity algs needed and an example solve. It also has some clarification for the final step and is very much a rough thing. Note that if you want a Hoya start instead, you can. 

Any ideas to improve welcome! Also having people try this method out would be great too.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 18, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> This is a variant which I think is actually just better than the original 4x4 method
> K4 method steps(original)
> 1.solve opposite centers
> 2.solve 3x4x1 (3 cross edges+2 corners
> ...


i did something very simular like a week ago
so did @Username: Username: before I


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 18, 2020)

That is basically K4, is the variant used in the video and was proposed in the original proposal thread by Erik Akkersdijk. This is also similar to K4 in the sense that it's a direct solving LBL but is, imo, better because L9W has better ergos than ELL.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 18, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> That is basically K4, is the variant used in the video and was proposed in the original proposal thread by Erik Akkersdijk. This is also similar to K4 in the sense that it's a direct solving LBL but is, imo, better because L9W has better ergos than ELL.


just solving Edge permutation than oll pll has even better ergonomics(i think)
even though its less efficient, and is also already algorithmized.




IGNORE the rest of the video except for LL


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 18, 2020)

If you wanna do that, you could use FRu to pair the edges more quickly. Both work.


----------



## Gnome (Sep 18, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> just solving Edge permutation than oll pll has even better ergonomics(i think)



You are correct, directly solving each edge as it's own piece (intuitive pairing) as opposed to attempting OLL into EPLL or EOLL into PLL, both of which imo are ilogical, is far easier to manage intuitively, ergonomically and at speed.

This is simply because of your ability to abuse the fact that mis-oriented edges are a single quarter slice from solved, you would need to do a double slice and or a double face turn to set them up (for the first two edges) if you were to orient them first.

None of this however affects the last 2 edges (or those cases that end with a pure 3 cycle) which are present in many methods but simply have more cases when solving by-layer or directly.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 18, 2020)

I guess K4 is the next petrus lol,
exploding back to popularity out of nowhere


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 18, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> I guess K4 is the next petrus lol,
> exploding back to popularity out of nowhere


By exploding back to popularity out of nowhere, do you mean 1 more person switching and someone else maybe switching to a direct solving method that's similar? Then yes, it is exploding back to popularity.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 20, 2020)

This is probably not comp legal but I might know how to always avoid parity for 4x4.

How about colored screws or making the plastic pieces under the center pieces colored the color of the solved state.

So parity only comes when the centers are misaligned right? Ignoring 4 opposite centers and 2 (counter) clockwise cycles.

So what if you always put X color's center pieces on the same colored plastic for all of them? Shouldn't you always avoid parity then?


----------



## Hazel (Sep 20, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> This is probably not comp legal but I might know how to always avoid parity for 4x4.
> 
> How about colored screws or making the plastic pieces under the center pieces colored the color of the solved state.
> 
> ...


This might avoid PLL Parity, but I don't think it would avoid OLL parity. And this definitely would not be competition legal 
EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure if it would affect either parity.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 20, 2020)

The only way to avoid OLL parity that I know of is bld tracing the wings. If you have an odd number of targets, you have to do an odd number of slice moves before 3x3 stage. It would be cool though if there was some sort of way to figure out how to avoid parity easily.


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 20, 2020)

Oh ok, I thought so because on the void cube if the centers are off in a way, you get parities


----------



## tsmosher (Sep 20, 2020)

Kinda like forced block building:

Build arrow on DF, DR, DL.
Put correctly oriented UL or UR edge into UF.
Execute: M.
Insert matching FL and FR F2L pairs.
Swivel each into place with L and R' respectively.
Insert matching F2L pair into FR or FL.
Swivel into place with F or F' respectively.
Insert final F2L pair.
LL. (limitless possibilities)

If any of the first 3 F2L insertions can be done with a Sledgy (i.e., R' F R, and its numerous mirrors/inverses), the next swivel step is skipped.

Alternatively, as ZZ variant requiring no regrips since all insertions are into FR or FL:

Build EOArrow on DF, DR, DL.
Execute: M.
Insert matching FL and FR F2L pairs, preserving EO.
Swivel each into place with L and R' respectively.
Insert matching F2L pairs into FR and FL, preserving EO.
COLL. (42 alg)
EP5. (16 alg)

I imagine these ideas cannot be 100% new. They've decreased my F2L times drastically though.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

New petrus 4x4 method?
kinda simular to hoya and obli in a since.
1.solve opposite centers(like hoya)
2.solve cross edges of the two opposite centers and put them in place
3.solve bottom and back centers while solving the back cross edge.
4.solve back two edges and than attach these with there corners to solve (3x4x3?) what would be 2x2x3 in petrus once reduced
5.solve one edge to bottom if there already is one paired.
use 2 style edgepairing to solve multiple edges while solving one into bottom
6.solve rest of the edges.
7.petrus


----------



## CyoobietheCuber (Sep 21, 2020)

tsmosher said:


> Kinda like forced block building:
> 
> Build arrow on DF, DR, DL.
> Put correctly oriented UL or UR edge into UF.
> ...


makes sense until steps 6 & 7. Are you able to explain it more?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

solve first layer - back edge front edge and right corner
than do rest of edges fransisco style untill last pair,
solve last pair normally
solve cmll
LSE
decent begginers method as an introduction into roux
and i think is much less complicated as a starting point
(could use anyway to solve top corners)
now averaging ~21-22


----------



## tsmosher (Sep 21, 2020)

CyoobietheCuber said:


> makes sense until steps 6 & 7. Are you able to explain it more?


Sure. The original placement of the UR/UL edge on UF (in step 2) sets up steps 6 and 7.

You are essentially inserting your DF cross edge and the matching corner in these steps.

Let's assume White top, Green front. Let's assume the edge I found back in step 2 was WO. It is now in DF. I would insert WG+WGO F2L pair into FR. Then, F swivels the square into place-- leaving one final F2L slot.


----------



## KillKqt (Sep 21, 2020)

What do you mean by fransico style, does it use The M slice


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> solve first layer - back edge front edge and right corner
> than do rest of edges fransisco style untill last pair,
> solve last pair normally
> solve cmll
> ...


Please just do normal Roux, it's way worse.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Please just do normal Roux, it's way worse.


i know lol i said this is a begginers method
i average 14 with roux


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> i know lol i said this is a begginers method
> i average 14 with roux


_Just do normal Roux, it's not that hard...... you'll get a way better method and it's not that harder than this method._


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> _Just do normal Roux, it's not that hard...... you'll get a way better method and it's not that harder than this method._


you transistion from this to roux,
the concepts here are easier and actually teach you more about the cube/blockbuilding than the beginner version of roux


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> you transistion from this to roux,
> the concepts here are easier and actually teach you more about the cube/blockbuilding than the beginner version of roux


no. like, just do Roux I beg you, also, nice to see an unproven claim at the end.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> no. like, just do Roux I beg you


instead of using a keyhole you actually do blockbuilding with corners.
also this is litterally just a way of building first 2 blocks with roux
this doesnt teach you nearly as much about blockbuilding as the method i was saying would,
making a transition to more advanced roux easier and making you learn to have blockbuilding efficiency earlier on




basically steps for this for a begginer would be
1x1x3 (roux corners and bottom edge) 
doing those edges using fransisco
1x1x2 on other side 
solve that edge using fransisco
last corner
using one of a couple of edge inserts to finish sb


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> instead of using a keyhole you actually do blockbuilding with corners.
> also this is litterally just a way of building first 2 blocks with roux
> this doesnt teach you nearly as much about blockbuilding as the method i was saying would,
> making a transition to more advanced roux easier and making you learn to have blockbuilding efficiency earlier on
> ...


That literally is just a set way to do F2B, not a new method, also, this reminds me that we really need a "change my mind" thread


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> That literally is just a set way to do F2B, not a new method.


thats what i literally just saiiiid


ObscureCuber said:


> also this is litterally just a way of building first 2 blocks with roux


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> thats what i literally just saiiiid


Am still convinced beginner Roux to doing F2B is better.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Am still convinced beginner Roux to doing F2B is better.


why


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why


It's simpler, put down DL edge and solve the pairs, put down the DR edge then solve the other pairs.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why


when the person you're debating doesnt give reasons and just eyes up your post.
any ways the reason this to advanced is good
the person could easily figure out ways to solve the edge and corner simutatneosly while doing insertation
since they have already learned blockbuilding and edge pairing concepts.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> It's simpler, put down DL edge and solve the pairs, put down the DR edge then solve the other pairs.


 lol watch the tutorial thats not how it works


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> when the person you're debating doesnt give reasons and just eyes up your post.
> any ways the reason this to advanced is good
> the person could easily figure out ways to solve the edge and corner simutatneosly while doing insertation
> since they have already learned blockbuilding and edge pairing concepts.


lmoa you just put one word and that can be classified as spamming, anyway my strength for debating is over, I think I'm also bad on my part for being to harsh, I'm just saying, don't do the lazy bad thing and just learn the hard but good thing.


ObscureCuber said:


> lol watch the tutorial thats not how it works


t-triple post incoming


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> lmoa you just put one word and that can be classified as spamming, anyway my strength for debating is over, I think I'm also bad on my part for being to harsh, I'm just saying, don't do the lazy bad thing and just learn the hard but good thing.
> 
> t-triple post incoming


it is actually much faster and more efficient then the bigenner method in that vid
so no its not the worst/lazy thing
also it makes learning advanced roux EASIER


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> it is actually much faster and more efficient then the bigenner method in that vid
> so no its not the worst/lazy thing
> also it makes learning advanced roux EASIER


ObscureCuber pls. tell me what's the steps again


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> ObscureCuber pls, tell me what's the steps again


ok (-=
so 
1x1x3 (corners plus bottom edge on left)
solve the 2 left block edges using fransisco style
1x1x2 on back right(again use fransisco to pair its edge)
insert last sb corner, use R U into M moves to insert last edge(or R U')


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ok (-=
> so
> 1x1x3 (corners plus bottom edge on left)
> solve the 2 left block edges using fransisco style
> ...


This is very very very similar to VDW, which is worse than normal Roux no offense


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

just be like me and admit when one of your 50 proposed methods is bad


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

AGAIN THIS IS FOR BEGINNERS LEARNING ROUX
that was my WHOLE point i NEVER said it was better than roux
What are you talking about???????
this isnt for bieng good jesus christ...
you litterally transition to advanced roux from this


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> just be like me and admit when one of your 50 proposed methods is bad


Really, there's no hate here, just criticisms lol


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> AGAIN THIS IS FOR BEGINNERS LEARNING ROUX
> that was my WHOLE point i NEVER said it was better than roux
> What are you talking about???????
> this isnt for bieng good jesus christ...



but roux is only slightly harder as a beginner method and is actually used world class.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> AGAIN THIS IS FOR BEGINNERS LEARNING ROUX
> that was my WHOLE point i NEVER said it was better than roux
> What are you talking about???????
> this isnt for bieng good jesus christ...
> you litterally transition to advanced roux from this


Who took a piss in your cereal my guy, correct your grammar please.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> but roux is only slightly harder as a beginner method and is actually used world class.


this is litterally just a better way to build roux blocks than the normal roux begginers method,
teaching many more concepts and easier as a transition


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Who took a piss in your cereal my guy, correct your grammar please.


my "girl


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

Seriously, my dad wants to solve a cube, i'm showing him kian's roux tutorial and he says he finds it much easier than LBL


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> my "girl



guy is gender neutral


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> guy is gender neutral



and you can't tell him to correct his grammar if you only used one "


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> this is litterally just a better way to build roux blocks than the normal roux begginers method,
> teaching many more concepts and easier as a transition


This thread is evolving, just backwards.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> guy is gender neutral





TheSlykrCubr said:


> Seriously, my dad wants to solve a cube, i'm showing him kian's roux tutorial and he says he finds it much easier than LBL


ok.
for second thing
look at my post it is not LBL,
and im not saying this is easier im saying it is better if x user wants to get fast


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> and you can't tell him to correct his grammar if you only used one "


there's a diffrence between my bad grammar and pronouns dude


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ok.
> for second thing
> look at my post it is not LBL,
> and im not saying this is easier im saying it is better if x user wants to get fast



why would i show my dad this over roux?


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> there's a diffrence between my bad grammar and pronouns dude


 
you confuse me greatly


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> ok.
> for second thing
> look at my post it is not LBL,
> and im not saying this is easier im saying it is better if x user wants to get fast


Honestly, advanced Roux is not that harder than beginner Roux and it's way better, like beginner Roux is just there for introducing you to Roux, I guarantee your reply to this will have ?????? everywhere.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> why would i show my dad this over roux?


you wouldnt because there isnt a tutorial because i just thought of this and also this is what i was going to say
if x user wanted to get faster than this would be a better option(probably not your dad)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Honestly, advanced Roux is not that harder than beginner Roux and it's way better, like beginner Roux is just there for introducing you to Roux, I guarantee your reply to this will have ?????? everywhere.


did you start with roux?
or transition from another method
also if you dont want me to come off as rude please stop bieng rude to me for no reason.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> you wouldnt because there isnt a tutorial because i just thought of this and also this is what i was going to say
> if x user wanted to get faster than this would be a better option(probably not your dad)



my father is now irrelevant to this debate.

and no, it wouldn't


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> did you start with roux?
> or transition from another method


for learning Roux I learned beginner Roux then learned advanced Roux not longer after.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> for learning Roux I learned beginner Roux then learned advanced Roux not longer after.


but did you use roux as your first method?


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> but did you use roux as your first method?


LBL, it's very much possible for anyone to learn beginner Roux as their first method though, also, Roux is my second ever method lol


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> LBL, it's very much possible for anyone to learn beginner Roux as their first method though.


so, what im saying here with this method is,
with people who transition to roux they already have some cubing knowledge,
making blockbuilding an easier concept.
now in the kian tutorial (atleast for first block) 
there isnt really much actuall blockbuilding.
meaning that for a begginer that wanted to get fast with roux 
it would be easier to transition from a version that already includes blockbuilding
to advanced


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> so, what im saying here with this method is,
> with people who transition to roux they already have some cubing knowledge,
> making blockbuilding an easier concept.
> now in the kian tutorial (atleast for first block)
> ...


no just literally learn beginner Roux and the advanced variant after it, like it's possible to learn beginner Roux without learning another method before, but learning LBL before beginner Roux is way easier so it's very common to have someone learn LBL then beginner Roux.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> no just literally learn beginner Roux and the advanced variant after it, like it's possible to learn beginner Roux without learning another method before, but learning LBL before beginner Roux is way easier so it's very common to have someone learn LBL then beginner Roux.


im not disagreing with you,
im saying if someone knew lbl
they would be able to learn blockbuilding concepts
and it might even be easier becase it incorperates
lbl in 1x1x3 and 1x1x2.
will continue this discussion tomorrow.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> im not disagreing with you,
> im saying if someone knew lbl
> they would be able to learn blockbuilding concepts
> and it might even be easier becase it incorperates
> lbl in 1x1x3 and 1x1x2.


you know what? just learn blockbuilding as your beginner Roux, lol solution that negates this (considering he learnt LBL as his beginner method.)


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 21, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> you know what? just learn blockbuilding as your beginner Roux, lol solution that negates this (considering he learnt LBL as his beginner method.)


You weren't talking about your self?
90% of people who know lbl cant "just blockbuild"
That's way to complicated for someone at that level usually, so this is more of a transition which is necessary as that's not really possible.


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 21, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> You weren't talking about your self?


No, I meant, if he learnt LBL then learnt Roux, if he learnt blockbuilding early, he could skip those intermediate methods (like yours) it is a steep learning curve though, kinda unrealistic but very much possible, and Roux doesn't really need intermediate methods, it's fine as is.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 22, 2020)

This is not origional but I will propose it.

For Megaminx:
Star
F2L
S2L-A Face
EO
Petrus Rest of S2L
Last Layer (However you want)

So obviously this is just a hybrid of MegaCFOP and MegaPetrus, but I think its faster than MegaPetrus. I wont say the same for MegaCFOP.

This is actually my main method for speedsolving the megaminx. Luckily I have a list of Pros and Cons for it.

Pros: 1. Lower alg count that MegaCFOP: so the MegaCFOP OLL count is 260, but with this method, the alg count goes down to 16.
2. Petrus Rest of S2L is Fast: Petrus Rest of S2L can ONLY be solved with R and U moves. R and U moves are fast, AND its 2-GEN.
3. Faster than MegaPpetrus: MegaPetrus is honestly a pretty bad method, but only for the blocks and expanding them. Everything else is pretty fast. If you combine EO and everything after that with MegaCFOP's Star, F2L, and Most of S2L, you got a good method. Not origional, but good.

Cons: 1. Still a high alg count: If you want to learn full megaminx PLL, thats 151 algs and it dont shorten once you use this method unfortunatly. That plus the 16 OLL algs. If its even possible, maybe someone can make/learn MegaZBLL. I wont gen the algs.
2. Not as fast as MegaCFOP: When you are done with S2L-A Face, you have to pause to recognize EO making time go by.
3. EO Drawbacks: Like I said before, you obviously have to pause to recognize EO and execute it, and you have to keep track of EO.EO also results in lower tuurning speed which is bad.

Resources:
16 OLL algs (if EO done correctly) _








OLL cases - Megaminx PLL & more


For the first time ever, all PLL's for the Megaminx, also all OLL-C and more...




sites.google.com




_151 Full PLL: _



_ Video belongs to Raul Low so props to him for knowing full MegaPLL.

Wiki Page for MegaPetrus: _





Petrus method (Megaminx) - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com




_ZZ-Spike WIki Page: _










ZZ-Spike - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com




Thats all I could find for the method._


----------



## Silky (Sep 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> This is not origional but I will propose it.
> 
> For Megaminx:
> Star
> ...







__





ZZ-Spike - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 22, 2020)

Silky said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh yeah i forgot that sorry lol. I will put that on there too


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> This is not origional but I will propose it.
> 
> For Megaminx:
> Star
> ...


this is litterally what multiple people already use(including me)
but that bieng said most very advanced people solve Star sometimes or blockbuild sometimes and this is just a bad restricted megapetrus(which is already just worse mega normally)((also no one uses the original megapetrus anymore that was a proof of concept))
why would you need to propose this if it isnt even original?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 22, 2020)

Here's a megaminx method with EO i just thought of,
kindve an intermediate between MegaPetrus and ZZ-Spike.
1.solve f2l(an any way)
2.solve this style of block-
2 Balint style blocks with an s2l pair in between(this doesnt have to be solved in this way)
3.put the block in back, solve another normal balint pair opposite(now front side)((or just put to oriented edges of that side in balint spot))
(((but this is more akward because having to solve it when edges or oriented)))
4.Do ZZ-Spike style EO
5.blockbuild L and R sides
6.Solve last layer(edges oriented)
Eo affects 3 sides(L,R,U)
instead of 1(like in megapetrus)
but less than in ZZ-spike,
also has better lookahead during eo as the only unsolved sides are L R U(compared to spike)


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 22, 2020)

I made a 4x4 method for Petrus users. I can't see anything like it on the wiki other than Obli.

1) 3 adjacent edges

2) pair up the three necessary edges to make a 3x3x3

3) L3C

4) extend to a 3x3x4 by pairing up 2 necessary edges.

5) finish pairing up edges with a 3-2-3 type pairing method


6) EO+parity

7) solve with ZBLL, COLL+EPLL or something similar. Parity if necessary

Centres are easier since we have to preserve just the back, and edge pairing seems easy.

Look-ahead seems decent, and if you're good, you'll be able to look into petrus eo since it comes right after the edge pairing

I honestly think this is the best method I've ever proposed (not saying much)


----------



## Redcrosscfop (Sep 22, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I made a 4x4 method for Petrus users. I can't see anything like it on the wiki other than Obli.
> 
> 1) 3 adjacent edges
> 
> ...



I personally don't have a problem with yau centers but I know others might because they are awkward. 
But wouldn't doing 
F2C
2 adjacent cross edges + the edge in-between them (to make the 2x2x2 block in petrus) yau style
Yau L4C
Make random edge and place in DF
Pair all edges using 3-2-3
Make 2x2x2 block
Continue with petrus.

Thats 4trus oops

Wouldn't that be faster because of the freedom with pairing the block edges help? However if you don't like yau centers this is great for you then! And I understand turning every reduction ( non-direct solving) method in to yau isn't fun. But I think this method is very fun to use and does have some potential. Have a good day.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 22, 2020)

Redcrosscfop said:


> I personally don't have a problem with yau centers but I know others might because they are awkward.
> But wouldn't doing
> F2C
> 2 adjacent cross edges + the edge in-between them (to make the 2x2x2 block in petrus) yau style
> ...



I feel like this could even just be an alternative to Yau by simply not doing eo, and just inserting the last cross edge to bring you to f2l-2.

thanks for saying it has potential!

I needed that I make too many bad methods


Anyway, I'm actually faster with this method than Yau, sooooooo


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 22, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> I made a 4x4 method for Petrus users. I can't see anything like it on the wiki other than Obli.
> 
> 1) 3 adjacent edges
> 
> ...


this is just worse obli


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 22, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> this is just worse obli



centre's are easier, and edge pairing doesn't require to make the cross edge first. I'll just make it a variant of Obli


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 22, 2020)

centers are not easier, look at the wiki and go to the virus version of obli
also last 2 centers are WAY better than last 3


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 22, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> centers are not easier, look at the wiki and go to the virus version of obli
> also last 2 centers are WAY better than last 3


just try the L3C it's really f'ing easy


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 22, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> just try the L3C it's really f'ing easy


hoya l2c(same as obli is better) even if only slightly,
making this just again a slightly worse version of virus obli


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 22, 2020)

and the thing about not having to make the last cross edge is really nice, to be more adaptable to Petrus-W.



ObscureCuber said:


> hoya l2c(same as obli is better) even if only slightly,
> making this just again a slightly worse version of virus obli



difference is making the centres preserving only a 3x3 in the back, which is really easy.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 22, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> difference is making the centres preserving only a 3x3 in the back, which is really easy.


this is what happens in virus,
3x3(same thing as what you do)
solve another center and solve the edges to make petrus block
than last two centers and no you dont make the last cross edge i said hoya last two centers not hoya.
and this is more ergonomic and efficient.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 23, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> this is what happens in virus,
> 3x3(same thing as what you do)
> solve another center and solve the edges to make petrus block
> than last two centers and no you dont make the last cross edge i said hoya last two centers not hoya.
> and this is more ergonomic and efficient.


 in the wiki page, it specifically says to solve the last cross edge before edge pairing. My variant doesn't require that, meaning if there's already an edge pair made, you can use that. 

while obli focuses on bringing it to f2l-2, this focuses on bringing it to petrus eo stage.

If you actually try my variant, you'll be surprised. I've tried every combination of doing Obli, and i got worse times than with this


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 23, 2020)

4x4 Corners first.

1. Corners
2. U+D Centers (Using mainly slice moves)
3. 3/4 L-edge pairs after Z/Z' rotation (put missing edge pair on UL)
4. Repeat with R edges (without the rotation) [Put missing edge pair on UR]
5. Edge pairing
6. Solve UL and UR edge pairs while simutaniously orienting the rest of the edge pairs.
7. Solve remaining centers

This is primarily for Corners First solvers.

Your Thoughts?

ok i have another 4x4 method made primarily for petrus users.

Pick any corner and turn it into a 2x2x2 block
Extend that 2x2x2 block into a 3x3x3 block
Extend that 3x3x3 block into a 3x3x4 block
Solve remaining centers
Pair remaining edges
3x3 stage (petrus style) [OLL and PLL parity involved]

Your thoughts?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 24, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> ok i have another 4x4 method made primarily for petrus users.
> 
> Pick any corner and turn it into a 2x2x2 block
> Extend that 2x2x2 block into a 3x3x3 block
> ...


im actually right this time lol,
this is just restricted obli ((((worse obli))))
please do research before you post methods


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 24, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> ok i have another 4x4 method made primarily for petrus users.
> 
> Pick any corner and turn it into a 2x2x2 block
> Extend that 2x2x2 block into a 3x3x3 block
> ...



yea just obli-to-petrus but with weird 3x3x3




ObscureCuber said:


> im actually right this time lol,
> this is just restricted obli ((((worse obli))))
> please do research before you post methods



does this mean you actually tried my variant?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

idk if this is original but, here it is
1. Solve First two layers, but all edges are just oriented(example white/yellow if using white side) and centers can be misaligned
2. OLLCP(OrientLL+Corner permutation)((could just do CLL/ELL or 2look, COLL for now))
3. Aline centers(if misaligned)
4.Oriented L8E
without using misaligned centers:
1.Solve First two layers, but all edges are just oriented(example white/yellow if using white side)
2.OLLCP
3.Oriented L8E
FOAL/FOL


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> idk if this is original but, here it is
> 1. Solve First two layers, but all edges are just oriented(example white/yellow if using white side) and centers can be misaligned
> 2. OLLCP(OrientLL+Corner permutation)((could just do CLL/ELL or 2look, COLL for now))
> 3. Aline centers(if misaligned)
> ...


Dude, this sounds a lot like my Pillman-U method, Very cool, now, which edges are the L8E on and what's your approach to it?


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Dude, this sounds a lot like my Pillman-U method, Very cool, now, which edges are the L8E on and what's your approach to it?


so,its kindve like columns first(all f2l pairs+top corners are solved)
and because of doing OLLCP you orient the top edges(while bottom edges already are)
what im doing at the moment is solving L D R D edges(this is probably not best)
and than just doing oriented L6E
i recommend trying the blockbuilding(hard as it is)
im getting ~38-44 move average during slow solves even though ive never done this type of blockbuilding before(and am doing CLL ELL not OLL CP)


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> so,its kindve like columns first(all f2l pairs+top corners are solved)
> and because of doing OLLCP you orient the top edges(while bottom edges already are)
> what im doing at the moment is solving L D R D edges(this is probably not best)
> and than just doing oriented L6E
> ...


OLLCP might be too much algs for little worth, and I think the L8E sounds like PCMS L8E.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> OLLCP might be too much algs for little worth, and I think this sounds like PCMS L8E.


i just told you, it is pcms L8E


ObscureCuber said:


> so,its kindve like columns first(all f2l pairs+top corners are solved)
> (responding to your eo questions)


one sec i have an idea
got to try it out, would reduce alg count


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

here are new steps for reduced algset,
1.EO(can be partially combined with second step)
2.Blockbuild F2l with any edge pieces
3.COLL
4.L8E
EFCL
but this is bassically just a columns first method now rip,
the OLLCP makes it interesting+this would reduce efficiency


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 26, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> here are new steps for reduced algset,
> 1.EO(can be partially combined with second step)
> 2.Blockbuild F2l with any edge pieces
> 3.COLL
> ...


Nah, now it's just a corners first variant.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Sep 26, 2020)

@ObscureCuber
do you still think my 4x4 method is worse than obli cause i am ready to make a 40-min rant if anyone disrespects me

@Username: Username: 
you aren't safe either, come on.


----------



## PetraPine (Sep 26, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> @ObscureCuber
> do you still think my 4x4 method is worse than obli cause i am ready to make a 40-min rant if anyone disrespects me
> 
> @Username: Username:
> you aren't safe either, come on.


IDK,
Virus without final cross edge seems better for lookahead/center pairing


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 2, 2020)

hehe bad OH roux thing

1) 1st block on left + opposite cross edge. It should look like a T on the bottom

2) EO (2+2 type)

3) CMLL

4) 4b and 4c


----------



## Ashton (Oct 4, 2020)

PBLL is an intermediate LL variant based on pattern building (H). It has four cases:

#1) apply R U R' U R U' R' U R U2 R' on a solved cube
#2) apply F U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U' R' F' on a solved cube
#3) apply r U' r' U' r U r' F R' F' R2 U' R' on a solved cube
#4) apply F U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' F' U' on a solved cube

Example solves (pre-LL steps taken from The ZZ "Example Solve" Game! thread):

D' F2 U' B2 F2 D2 U' L2 D2 R2 B' L B2 F2 R B' U' F L R2

z2
F2 U L R' F L R' D 
U L' R' U' R2 U2 L U2 R 
U2 L U L U L2 U L2 
U2 R U R' U R U2 R' // PB1#3
R U R2 F R F' r U' r' U r U r' U2 // PS

D' R2 U R2 U2 B2 F2 U F2 L2 U' F' D2 L' B' F2 D' B R2 B R2

z2
L' B' U L' D' F 
U2 R2 U2 R U2 L R2 U2 L2 U' L' 
U R U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R U' R' 
R U R' U R U2 R' U' // PB1#3
M2 U M' U2 M U M2 // PB2
R U R2 F R F' r U' r' U r U r' U2 // PS


D2 F' D' B U' L' D L2 F D' L U2 D2 L U2 R' B2 R2 F2 L2 U2

x2
M' U l U' D B' L U' R2 D'
L' U2' R'
U L2' R' U R U2 L
R' U2' R U R' U2' R // PB1#3
U M2 U M' U2 M U M2 U' // PB2
R U R2 F R F' r U' r' U r U r' U // PS


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 4, 2020)

So the aim is to, during LL, reduce the cube to one of 4 cases, or am I misunderstanding? What advantages does it have over OLL/PLL?


----------



## Ashton (Oct 4, 2020)

Hi. I'm not an experienced cuber. I've had this idea for a long time but I didn't know how to present it in an acceptable way. I think PBLL has no advantages over OLL / PLL. It may be of some help as an add-on to reduce cases in specific situations. Everyone can choose the patterns that can serve as a model to reduce cases if it's worth it.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Oct 5, 2020)

Ashton said:


> Hi. I'm not an experienced cuber. I've had this idea for a long time but I didn't know how to present it in an acceptable way. I think PBLL has no advantages over OLL / PLL. It may be of some help as an add-on to reduce cases in specific situations. Everyone can choose the patterns that can serve as a model to reduce cases if it's worth it.


Yep, that's a pretty common opinion. IMO the only variation of PBL (I think you meant permute both layers unless that extra L was on purpose) that's actually decent is Pseudocross but even that's not very similar to PBL. PBL should be saved for Ortega and square-1.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 5, 2020)

The more I look at it, the more I see that it's worse than OCLL/PLL. For one, you have to do 3 algs sometimes (could be reduced, but hey), for another, there are as many algs for that (if not more) than the 28 needed for OCLL/PLL, and those algs are fast. Like super fast. I don't say this to be mean, in fact keep on thinking!


----------



## crazykitten499 (Oct 5, 2020)

I'm creating a more efficient way to do the last two slots
what do you guys think?


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 5, 2020)

crazykitten499 said:


> I'm creating a more efficient way to do the last two slots
> what do you guys think?


I can't say if you don't tell what you're doing.


----------



## crazykitten499 (Oct 7, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> I can't say if you don't tell what you're doing.


algs to insert two blocks at once in f2l more efficiently


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 7, 2020)

Multislotting. It already exists. Welcome to a hobby that people have been optimising for 40 years!


----------



## crazykitten499 (Oct 8, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Multislotting. It already exists. Welcome to a hobby that people have been optimising for 40 years!


oof
somebody always beats me to it!!!

LOL


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 8, 2020)

eolr but you place the BD edge instead of l and r and then follow up with l5ep


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 8, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> eolr but you place the BD edge instead of l and r and then follow up with l5ep


ye eolr has way more resources and is more efficient + with this you have to learn algs for LSE (L5EP) and that is one thing that Rouxers don't like, algs, otherwise, pretty kewl.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> ye eolr has way more resources and is more efficient + with this you have to learn algs for LSE (L5EP) and that is one thing that Rouxers don't like, algs, otherwise, pretty kewl.


does it exist yet?


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 8, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> does it exist yet?


Most likely as it's not that hard to come up with such a thing.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 8, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> Most likely as it's not that hard to come up with such a thing.


i was pretty surprised tho cause it isn't on the wiki


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 8, 2020)

Yes, it does exist, just it's not on the wiki because it's worse than normal LSE. Similar to insert DFDB and do OLL/PLL.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 9, 2020)

Beginner ribbon method for people who know oll

ribbon

f2l-1

literally any tols+ or tols- case to orient Bottom layer coner

oll

2 look ttll


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 9, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> Beginner ribbon method for people who know oll
> 
> ribbon
> 
> ...


or, f2l-1 insert edge+1 top corner,
oll
(corner)ttll
epll


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 9, 2020)

how about as another ribbon method variant but not a beginner method

1) ribbon

2) f2l-2

3) VHLS. works since the other edge is already in

4) TOLS cases with cross

5) TTLL

thinking about making a set of algs for the cross cases to place bottom corner and then just to PLL


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 9, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> how about as another ribbon method variant but not a beginner method
> 
> 1) ribbon
> 
> ...


its better to just do ZB at that point


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 9, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> its better to just do ZB at that point


if you used zbls instead of vhls then they would both be 3-look last 2 slots and last layer


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 9, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> if you used zbls instead of vhls then they would both be 3-look last 2 slots and last layer


i dont mean to make the variant better,
i just mean that variant is just worse ZB


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 9, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> i dont mean to make the variant better,
> i just mean that variant is just worse ZB


I'm just pointing It out


----------



## Cubing Forever (Oct 10, 2020)

So...I came up with this by accident. Let me know If this has been proposed earlier.
The basic idea is that you solve F2L however you would until the last slot, and when you arrive at it, you look at how the yellow edges are oriented, regardless of the F2L case and you use the three EO algs from 2 look OLL i.e. F R U R' U' F' if there is a line, F U R U' R' F' if there is an L, and the dot case which requires you to do the first alg, U2 and the second alg to orient the U layer edges and the next step is solve the last slot as usual and proceed with ZBLL, COLL/EPLL or OCLL/PLL.

WEIRD CASES

LS edge flipped : there may be one yellow edge sticker on the top and the edge in the slot will be twisted. for this, check for an edge having green or blue on top and its position relative to the yellow sticker and perform the corresponding algorithm. 

U layer edges oriented, LS edge flipped : do a y/y' and continue as usual.


PROS:
Saves you from learning 306 algs for ZBLS 
Turns bad cases such as wrongly connected pairs into 6 movers or sometimes 3 movers

CONS:
Not so easy recognition
Lookahead problems
Turns good cases into bad cases

I'd recommend this only for bad F2L cases


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 10, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> So...I came up with this by accident. Let me know If this has been proposed earlier.
> The basic idea is that you solve F2L however you would until the last slot, and when you arrive at it, you look at how the yellow edges are oriented, regardless of the F2L case and you use the three EO algs from 2 look OLL i.e. F R U R' U' F' if there is a line, F U R U' R' F' if there is an L, and the dot case which requires you to do the first alg, U2 and the second alg to orient the U layer edges and the next step is solve the last slot as usual and proceed with ZBLL, COLL/EPLL or OCLL/PLL.
> 
> WEIRD CASES
> ...


this is similar to VHLS right?
I mean like in VHLS you solve all edge-corner pairs except the last one, and when you pair up the last one you also orient all edges while slotting it in?


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 10, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> Turns bad cases such as wrongly connected pairs into 6 movers or sometimes 3 movers
> […]
> I'd recommend this only for bad F2L cases


That about sums it up. This is really bad for most F2L cases; most of the time you can either just do LS normally, do VHLS, or do Petrus-like EO (F' U F and similar) and these will all be better.


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Oct 10, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> this is similar to VHLS right?
> I mean like in VHLS you solve all edge-corner pairs except the last one, and when you pair up the last one you also orient all edges while slotting it in?


vhls is in essence a worse version of zbls just that it has way less algs


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 10, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> vhls is in essence a worse version of zbls just that it has way less algs


yes but its useful at least


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 10, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> So...I came up with this by accident. Let me know If this has been proposed earlier.
> The basic idea is that you solve F2L however you would until the last slot, and when you arrive at it, you look at how the yellow edges are oriented, regardless of the F2L case and you use the three EO algs from 2 look OLL i.e. F R U R' U' F' if there is a line, F U R U' R' F' if there is an L, and the dot case which requires you to do the first alg, U2 and the second alg to orient the U layer edges and the next step is solve the last slot as usual and proceed with ZBLL, COLL/EPLL or OCLL/PLL.
> 
> WEIRD CASES
> ...


I do this already because I hybrid petrus and freefop+eo and I do that intuitively


----------



## Cubing Forever (Oct 11, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> this is similar to VHLS right?
> I mean like in VHLS you solve all edge-corner pairs except the last one, and when you pair up the last one you also orient all edges while slotting it in?


No it isn't similar. In VHLS, you connect the pair, and then you use an algorithm to solve EO and LS. Here you solve EO before LS


xyzzy said:


> That about sums it up. This is really bad for most F2L cases; most of the time you can either just do LS normally, do VHLS, or do Petrus-like EO (F' U F and similar) and these will all be better.


Sorry I forgot something.
By good cases I meant R U R' and R U' R' insert cases. For all the other cases, after EO the cases are 2 gen 7 movers.
You can do this for cases where the pieces are unconnected and also for flipped edges where corner is on U. This saves atleast 6 moves(if you use OCLL/PLL)


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 11, 2020)

Is there a set of algs for roux LSE that solves 4b and 4c at the same time? I'm sure someone's come up with that before


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 11, 2020)

L6EP exists. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_V7I5yWftss7ezdfhs43eMoon8S3I6z6boeQmiH6lgU/edit


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 13, 2020)

Idea:

EO2x2x2 in DBL
Expand to EO2x2x3 with square in BR
COLL
L7EP


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 13, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> Idea:
> 
> EO2x2x2 in DBL
> Expand to EO2x2x3 with square in BR
> ...


This is bad because L7EP and also just like one of a million rehashed concepts thrown together like most modern day post here ) =


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 13, 2020)

What if while we did F2l, and when you insert a solved pair, for example U R U' R' or something like that, you also pair up another edge and corner to solve?
for example i show in this video a case for this:





Gofile - Free file sharing and storage platform


Gofile is a free file sharing and storage platform. You can store and share your content of any type without any limit.




gofile.io





Making a full f2l method for this will have ALOT of algs so probably only some algs will be useful.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 13, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> What if while we did F2l, and when you insert a solved pair, for example U R U' R' or something like that, you also pair up another edge and corner to solve?
> for example i show in this video a case for this:
> 
> 
> ...


this seems like an actually good CFOP extention,
if you find usefull algs definitely make a vid about it or something
this is bassically multislotting+ kinda like multislotting but with unsolved pairs.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 13, 2020)

I got a video on a good, intuitive efficient megaminx ls/ll method coming out later today (= will post it here when its done


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> this seems like an actually good CFOP extention,
> if you find usefull algs definitely make a vid about it or something
> this is bassically multislotting+ kinda like multislotting but with unsolved pairs.


im suprised no one came up with this but anyway this is good
we now just need someone who can come up with the algs for this


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

here it is! Megaminx/tripod LsLL method,
sorry about my bad explanation
here are steps
Orient edges during/before last slot
Solve tripod on top while/before solving last pair
use commutators to solve rest of pieces
the method is actually much better for the second step than i showed in the vid, i was just anxious.


----------



## Rouxster (Oct 14, 2020)

Hello,
Just came up with a way of using roux on 4×4:
Step 1: make to opposite centers.Keep them on your left and right. One of them should be a first block center and the other one will be second block center.
Step 2: make two 1×3×3 squares around the both centers with matching back and bottom colours.( Just like f2b, but minus the front 2 pairs)
Step 3: solve the remaining 4 centers.
Step 4: solve 2 edges using free front slots. Keep them at DF and DB position using M and U moves.
Step 5: Pair up the last six edges two at a time, using the free front slots.
Step 6: solve the front pairs of f2b. Then just do cmll, lse, and parity if needed.
Pros: - rotationless after the first 2 centers.
- very easy lookahead for edge pairing.
Cons: - inefficient edge pairing compared to 3-2-3
- hard lookahead for the first two squares.

So, what do you think of this method?(I know that most of the people here use cfop, but still, please share your opinion.)
Meyer vs this method?
Has someone invented this before?


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

Rouxster said:


> Hello,
> Just came up with a way of using roux on 4×4:
> Step 1: make to opposite centers.Keep them on your left and right. One of them should be a first block center and the other one will be second block center.
> Step 2: make two 1×3×3 squares around the both centers with matching back and bottom colours.( Just like f2b, but minus the front 2 pairs)
> ...


i thought of this but didnt post this because its not great
its bad because meyer has edge pairing almost as good as yau, and the small time save of solving one more piece(3x3 stage) isnt worth it


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> i thought of this but didnt post this because its not great



Bruh trying to steal credit. Lmoa


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

LNB Films said:


> Bruh trying to steal credit. Lmoa


why would i do that if it was a bad cubing idea(no offense to poster)? oh, you probably think that because you're new and don't know how much everything has already been explored,
do you know how often people say "oh ive already had that idea" all of the time dude,
just go back and look.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why would i do that if it was a bad cubing idea(no offense to poster)? oh, you probably think that because you're new and don't know how much everything has already been explored,
> do you know how often people say "oh ive already had that idea" all of the time dude,
> just go back and look.


1, check how long I've been here (Since February 5, 2020), and 2, sometimes you just don’t know what someone is tring to do... I wasn’t trying to offend you. I have posted in this thread a while back too. I did post here in early 2020. Thanks!


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

LNB Films said:


> 1, check how long Ive been here, and 2, sometimes you just don’t know what someone is tring to do... I wasn’t trying to offend you. I have posted in this thread a while back too. In early 2020.


Just know this-people do not try to steal ideas like that
- cubing is just already(especially 3x3, 2x2, 4x4, skewb, pyra, clock, oh) VERY explored ive only come up with like one actually original method for 3x3((and it was very meh)) and 2 for megaminx.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Just know this-people do not try to steal ideas like that
> - cubing is just already(especially 3x3, 2x2, 4x4, skewb, pyra, clock, oh) VERY explored ive only come up with like one actually original method for 3x3((and it was very meh)) and 2 for megaminx.


Just saying ig, you don’t know about that anywhere on the internet. I don’t wanna start an argument. I just want people to get along, especially during my depression.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

than why did you even say that....


LNB Films said:


> Bruh trying to steal credit. Lmoa


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> than why did you even say that....


Sometimes people say statements, not expecting a response. I was not expecting a response, but you responded, which is totally fine. It is just that it was directed in such a way that made me defensive. Questions are a form of speech that usually end up in a response from the other party.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

WaterPCMS2:
1.start by solving an"H" on the first side to create this solve the 4 corners and two edges on the E slice(are left E slice edges if you put block on left)
2.Solve corners of seconds Layer(cll / twcll ect.)
3.Solve the two E slice edges on the other side
4.last 8 edges
comparison with waterpcms1:
pros:
-Much more straightforward steps
-easier recognition(no pshuedo blocks)
-very efficient/simple blockbuilding
-no rotation
-less steps
cons:
-L8E EO is worse(since there are two more pieces to orient properly)
-Doesnt reduce to L6E(but is still better as there is no rotation)
(wanted to create a 2.0 of waterpcms as the first version i made was kinda to just do a interesting indirect way of solving pcms, and using to different types of LxE which i found interesting, this one is more usuable.)


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 14, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> WaterPCMS2:
> 1.start by solving an"H" on the first side to create this solve the 4 corners and two edges on the E slice(are left E slice edges if you put block on left)
> 2.Solve corners of seconds Layer(cll / twcll ect.)
> 3.Solve the two E slice edges on the other side
> ...


I might try that out, lemme get home from school, that sounds good!


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 14, 2020)

Here is something

Roux 1st Block (on left)
Solve DF+DB edges (2x2x3 block on left
Blockbuild F2L minus FR+DFR pair (without rotating)
EO
TTLS
TTLL

I do not know all the algs but i might as well mention this crappy method with lots of algs.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Here is something
> 
> Roux 1st Block (on left)
> Solve DF+DB edges (2x2x3 block on left
> ...


this is just much worse ZZ-ct or worse LEOR+CT
why not just like build a 2x2x3 normally? theres no point to that step bieng the way it is.
And LEOR+CT is just worse LEOR


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 14, 2020)

Im SURE this already exist but was messing around with skewb and decided to post this:
Skewb corners first-
solve any corners around any center
(white corners around orange center will be example)
solve the top corners
(yellow)
know from here you could do 2 things:reduce to sarahs advanced
or solve the yellow/white center and do beginners centers.
-~-
could also solve 3 centers and reduce to last 3 center algorithms.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Oct 14, 2020)

I've done and seen that somewhere not sure where though probably the speedsolving wiki under skewb methods.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 15, 2020)

LNB Films said:


> Bruh trying to steal credit. Lmoa


haha lmoa
lmoa lmoa lmoa
PetrusQuber does know alot so he prob thought of this that or something
its now really hard to come by a new good method.


> Here is something
> 
> Roux 1st Block (on left)
> Solve DF+DB edges (2x2x3 block on left
> ...


this is just much worse ZZ-ct or worse LEOR+CT
why not just like build a 2x2x3 normally? theres no point to that step bieng the way it is.
And LEOR+CT is just worse LEOR 

bruh you shoudn't be criticizing people all the time and discouraging them its annoying
afterall anyone can post any method regardless of its usefulness.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 15, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> haha lmoa
> lmoa lmoa lmoa
> PetrusQuber does know alot so he prob thought of this that or something
> its now really hard to come by a new good method.
> ...



Sorry, I will try to stop discouraging people.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 15, 2020)

LNB Films said:


> Sorry, I will try to stop discouraging people.


not you ITS PETRUS QUBER


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 15, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> This is bad because L7EP and also just like one of a million rehashed concepts thrown together like most modern day post here ) =


No, it genuinely could be good, also, L7EP isn't bad, it has potential. (talking about intuitive L7EP cause alg L7EP is just bad)


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 15, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> not you ITS PETRUS QUBER


Okay, phew... thanks!


----------



## MichaelV9304 (Oct 15, 2020)

elrog said:


> *Please read before posting*
> 
> I'm making this thread for all of those ideas you have that are interesting, yet are not fully developed. This is a place to post them. I have come up with many ideas and didn't want to post a new thread for every one of them when most don't get very far. Perhaps if an idea gets very far, it may deserve its own thread, but until then, it should go here.
> 
> ...


I agree with a lot of the methods you mentioned; however, the belt method is the one I disagree with because it involves flipping the cube and moving pieces around the cube.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 15, 2020)

Dear fellow speedsolvers,
I do not know if this method for 5x5 has been thought of, or how good it is, so please let me know. Personally, I call it *ERedux*. anyway, here it is:

Step 1: E-Slice edges first (4)
Step 2: Solve all 6 centres
To solve all the centres, you will need to move the R and L faces the same amount, and the same direction when moving some centrepiece, but not all.​Step 3: Solve the final 12 edges
Solve these by moving all of the current four solved edges to the U face do an x2, then solve like normal redux.​Step 4: Solve Parity (if any)
Step 5: Solve the 3x3 Stage

I will update y’all when I have a video out on my YouTube channel explaining this in further depth. It is very close to Yau, but different in a way.

If any of y’all have any questions or need any further explanation of any (the) step(s), just quote this post and let me know! Thanks!


----------



## Spacey10 (Oct 16, 2020)

LNB Films said:


> E4C6E8TxT


Try saying that 5 times fast
ERedux sounds better
Sound like a Yau redux hybrod saving a rotation, but you have to do half x' moves everytime you need to look at the back.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 16, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> Try saying that 5 times fast
> ERedux sounds better
> Sound like a Yau redux hybrod saving a rotation, but you have to do half x' moves everytime you need to look at the back.



Sure, I guess I will be calling it ERedux then. Lol, but thanks!


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 16, 2020)

MichaelV9304 said:


> I agree with a lot of the methods you mentioned; however, the belt method is the one I disagree with because it involves flipping the cube and moving pieces around the cube.


you never know


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 16, 2020)

i also have an idea why don't you do zbll while your doing vhls. I mean vhls and zbll are apart, but why not make them into a long alg to just 1LLL the last layer earlier?
i mean for example a vhls/zbll case:


sorry for the low quality
but if you think about it its a vhls/zbll case because you insert the f2l pair while solving the cross, but also the corners!
vhls and zbll are supposed to be together already but if you do them simultaneously it will skip the pause and recog later on
but this set would probably have 50000 algs so just use the ones that are useful


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 16, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i also have an idea why don't you do zbll while your doing vhls. I mean vhls and zbll are apart, but why not make them into a long alg to just 1LLL the last layer earlier?
> i mean for example a vhls/zbll case:
> 
> View attachment 13641
> ...



yea could be good


so basically just WVCP but with edges too? would probably work for good cases



would like to propose magic wondeful corner permutation (MWCP) does what it says on the tin.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 16, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> yea could be good
> 
> 
> so basically just WVCP but with edges too? would probably work for good cases
> ...


i would call my idea WMCEP "Winter Variation Corner/Edge Permute
we now need to program all the cases


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 17, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i would call my idea WMCEP "Winter Variation Corner/Edge Permute
> we know need to program all the cases



or WVLL (Winter Variation and Last Layer)


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 17, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> or WVLL (Winter Variation and Last Layer)


that one is better imo
also is there a program that can help you make cases because im not sure how you make new cases
it would be really cool to make these cases and try them out


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 17, 2020)

Pretty slow method but ima mention it here anyway

Octagonal Francisco

Solve a 1x1x3 Bar Relative to the centers (Octagon).
Put bar in BD and solve E layer with Keyhole. Since there is more freedom, there is more options to solve E layer.
Insert 1 corner on the bottom.
Do CLS or CSO to solve last corner pair thingy while JUST orienting the corners.
EO.
Solve the remaining bottom edges.
PLL

I got here before ColorfulPockets lol.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 17, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Pretty slow method but ima mention it here anyway
> 
> Octagonal Francisco
> 
> ...


this is just way worse fransisco which is already bad


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 17, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> this is just way worse fransisco which is already bad


i told you it was slow


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 17, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i told you it was slow


why did you post a bad useless method than



Nir1213 said:


> i also have an idea why don't you do zbll while your doing vhls. I mean vhls and zbll are apart, but why not make them into a long alg to just 1LLL the last layer earlier?
> i mean for example a vhls/zbll case:
> 
> View attachment 13641
> ...


that image quality lol


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 17, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> why did you post a bad useless method than


read the thread title


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 17, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i also have an idea why don't you do zbll while your doing vhls. I mean vhls and zbll are apart, but why not make them into a long alg to just 1LLL the last layer earlier?
> i mean for example a vhls/zbll case:
> 
> View attachment 13641
> ...


Let's work out how many algs this will be for fun. 
This would be easier to work out with VLS+PLL: 216 for VLS and for each case there are 72 permutations, so an upper bound would be 15552. That's 5 times greater than 1LLL (for reference). So not viable, but hey.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 17, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Let's work out how many algs this will be for fun.
> This would be easier to work out with VLS+PLL: 216 for VLS and for each case there are 72 permutations, so an upper bound would be 15552. That's 5 times greater than 1LLL (for reference). So not viable, but hey.



what about the magic wondeful corner permutation? I need to know if it's a decent idea


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 17, 2020)

6 times number of MW cases with meh recog.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 19, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Let's work out how many algs this will be for fun.
> This would be easier to work out with VLS+PLL: 216 for VLS and for each case there are 72 permutations, so an upper bound would be 15552. That's 5 times greater than 1LLL (for reference). So not viable, but hey.


well some of the algs are worth learning
also i have another idea
VHLS only talks about one f2l pair but what about two?
as you see there are two f2l pairs and if insert both of them starting from the one at the back i will be able to make a cross.
Just like vhls but there are 2 f2l pairs and all the algs with this one will be around a million.
just dont any of these algs lol

also does anyone still have an alg maker program to make algs
i mean some of the algs can be used to get better results
the MVLL method idea is pretty good if you think about it
we can use some algs that are useful.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 19, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> also does anyone still have an alg maker program to make algs
> i mean some of the algs can be used to get better results
> the MVLL method idea is pretty good if you think about it
> we can use some algs that are useful.



alg.cubing.net is a good place to start.


----------



## Username: Username: (Oct 19, 2020)

LNB Films said:


> alg.cubing.net is a good place to start.


That's for testing algs not making them. 
Use Cube Explorer for that and see Daniel Sheppard's tutorial.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 19, 2020)

Username: Username: said:


> That's for testing algs not making them.
> Use Cube Explorer for that and see Daniel Sheppard's tutorial.



I have an iMac, so that is basically the only “virus-free” option for me.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

new method i propose:
Do cross and f2l minus 1 edge
when you are finished with f2l you insert the edge that was left behind, but in a way so it solves OLL while also inserting the edge back into place. Something like VHLS, but its with a cross piece. I will call this method of kinda-like VHLS, CELS. (Cross-Edge Last Slot)
after that you solve pll and stuff
you can make CELS even like zbll for example: 
if you look at the solver and use the alg and you have the exact case you can solve the whole cube.
The CELS method has billions of algorithms though, so i will only make one part of it.


----------



## Spacey10 (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> new method i propose:
> Do cross and f2l minus 1 edge
> when you are finished with f2l you insert the edge that was left behind, but in a way so it solves OLL while also inserting the edge back into place. Something like VHLS, but its with a cross piece. I will call this method of kinda-like VHLS, CELS. (Cross-Edge Last Slot)
> after that you solve pll and stuff
> ...


??
Bro you can't just solve oll with MU moves


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 20, 2020)

Spacey10 said:


> ??
> Bro you can't just solve oll with MU moves


Technically it is possible...

if you use roux.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Oct 20, 2020)

LNBFilms said:


> Technically it is possible...
> 
> if you use roux.


No it’s not, because MU doesn’t affect the corners. You would have to do CMLL, THEN you could do the rest of LL with MU moves.


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 20, 2020)

The case he posted in the image looked like a roux M U case. Sorry, my bad


BenChristman1 said:


> No it’s not, because MU doesn’t affect the corners. You would have to do CMLL, THEN you could do the rest of LL with MU moves.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

i mean you can do zbll with CELS if the corners are already oriented
but CELS can make the cross since it affects edges


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i mean you can do zbll with CELS if the corners are already oriented
> but CELS can make the cross since it affects edges


I get it now.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 20, 2020)

LNBFilms said:


> Technically it is possible...
> 
> if you use roux.



the corners already need to be solved, though


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 20, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> No it’s not, because MU doesn’t affect the corners. You would have to do CMLL, THEN you could do the rest of LL with MU moves.





TheSlykrCubr said:


> the corners already need to be solved, though


@BenChristman1 already said this, but thank you!


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

i mean you can orient edges in CELS using not M moves.
Something like other moves but with some M moves to orient the edges as well.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 20, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> here it is! Megaminx/tripod LsLL method,
> sorry about my bad explanation
> here are steps
> Orient edges during/before last slot
> ...


This idea has been around for a fair while (I even posted a couple variations on the method back in 2016/17 that I called megatripod and minitripod though the basic idea far predates them most likely). I actually still implement a minor variation of minitripod in my mega solves because I've never been a fan of large algsets. FWIW, I think the method is probably better than the "standard" 4lll and actually offers more "bang for the buck" compared to 2lll as well. However, in terms of raw speed 2lll is likely faster. When adding the fact that someone who invests the time to get really really good at mega likely wouldn't blink an eye at such a monstrous alg set, I don't think we're going to be seeing any sort of tripod on megaminx implemented any time soon.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 20, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> This idea has been around for a fair while (I even posted a couple variations on the method back in 2016/17 that I called megatripod and minitripod though the basic idea far predates them most likely). I actually still implement a minor variation of minitripod in my mega solves because I've never been a fan of large algsets. FWIW, I think the method is probably better than the "standard" 4lll and actually offers more "bang for the buck" compared to 2lll as well. However, in terms of raw speed 2lll is likely faster. When adding the fact that someone who invests the time to get really really good at mega likely wouldn't blink an eye at such a monstrous alg set, I don't think we're going to be seeing any sort of tripod on megaminx implemented any time soon.



how does it compare to 3lll?


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

i have a problem why does cube explorer make cases that are already solved cubes when i generate new algs?
Its annoying


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> i have a problem why does cube explorer make cases that are already solved cubes when i generate new algs?
> Its annoying


I have an iMac. Could you put a picture/video of what you are doing, so I could see what went wrong? I am a programmer, so even though I do not have the program itself, I may be able to find out what went wrong. Also, could you post a step by step of the bug you produced? Thanks!


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

LNBFilms said:


> I have an iMac. Could you put a picture/video of what you are doing, so I could see what went wrong? I am a programmer, so even though I do not have the program itself, I may be able to find out what went wrong. Also, could you post a step by step of the bug you produced? Thanks!


thank i will later

new method:
who knew f2l needed to be right? (WHF2LNTBR method)
first do normal cross as always
for f2l you can make pairs but you don't have to put them in the right order
 
then do EO casually and then fix the f2l pairs in a way so it also solves all oll.
but thats for 2 look oll so you can do the advanced version where you solve full oll then fix the pairs which also solves pll.
its dumb but amazingly if you take out the pairs and put them in the right place the top cross still holds in place only the corners change


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> its dumb but amazingly if you take out the pairs and put them in the right place the top cross still holds in place only the corners change



well, yeah. that the purpose of eo.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> well, yeah. that the purpose of eo.


so is it a good method or not?
f2l will be way easier and faster but when solving oll and doing pll by taking the pairs out and inserting them.
A case for this would be like this:

the generator for this case is L2 F2 L' R2 F L' R' U R F R2 U R U2 R' U
it solves the oll and pll as well as orienting the pairs.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> so is it a good method or not?
> f2l will be way easier and faster but when solving oll and doing pll by taking the pairs out and inserting them.
> A case for this would be like this:
> View attachment 13910
> ...



honestly, no.

this is basically putting everything in, and then taking them out while doing something different

literally doing 8 f2l pairs to solve instead of 4 pairs, oll and pll.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

best method i can create:
cross
do f2l in a way so it orients other corner edge pairs, i need a name for this tho, minus one edge pair since im doing MVLS
then do MVLS
done three steps

Edit: I found out the MVLS idea has already been proposed its called MGLS
soo my idea is not original big oof


----------



## Athefre (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> thank i will later
> 
> new method:
> who knew f2l needed to be right? (WHF2LNTBR method)
> ...



Check out PEG on the wiki.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

Athefre said:


> Check out PEG on the wiki.


so this has been thought before but not used widely?


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> so this has been thought before but not used widely?



and that's how I'm gonna keep it.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

i have another question
you know the method i proposed in f2l, the one where if i insert a f2l pair in a certain way to pair up another f2l pair
is there a way to generate algs for this?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 20, 2020)

Multi slotting? Yes, cube explorer.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

also new idea:
do cross but its oriented so it looks like either a z or h perm
might make cross easier and faster if some of the edges are already oriented to be like that.
next we do f2l but we insert them accordingly with the centers, not accordingly with the edges. After f2l is done it would look something like this:
the cross looks like an h perm and and all we have left is the top layer. Note: Im only using h perm cases for z perm its the same except for a dif alg for solving the z perm at the end.

For top layer we use a alg that orients the edges and corners, while also matching the edge colors with the f2l, like this.
Now it should look like this:

after that you just orient the edges with M and U and we solve the cube.

I would only use this type of method when the cross kinda looks like a h perm or z perm or is close to looking like one.
If it isn't just use normal cfop or any other method.

Example Solve:





Gofile - Free file sharing and storage platform


Gofile is a free file sharing and storage platform. You can store and share your content of any type without any limit.




gofile.io


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 20, 2020)

I have a new (I think) method for 3x3. Here it is. I call it F2LDiags. It is where you start with roux, and then do two diagonal F2L pairs, then solve the other 2 cross pieces with M and U moves, then solve the other two F2L pairs, then OLL and PLL. Here is a link to a example solve. alg.cubing.net example


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Multi slotting? Yes, cube explorer.


also sorry for double posting
but how?

btw ohh thats what multislotting is so my idea has already been used


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

also @LNBFilms i created the video explaining the problem.




__





Gofile - Free file sharing and storage platform


Gofile is a free file sharing and storage platform. You can store and share your content of any type without any limit.




gofile.io


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> also @LNBFilms i created the video explaining the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Care to DM me about this, so we do not clutter the thread? I cannot seem to get the video to play on my phone at the moment. I will try again in a few minutes.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 20, 2020)

LNBFilms said:


> Care to DM me about this, so we do not clutter the thread? I cannot seem to get the video to play on my phone at the moment. I will try again in a few minutes.


ok then.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 20, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> also new idea:
> do cross but its oriented so it looks like either a z or h perm
> might make cross easier and faster if some of the edges are already oriented to be like that.
> next we do f2l but we insert them accordingly with the centers, not accordingly with the edges. After f2l is done it would look something like this:View attachment 13911
> ...


You save maybe 1 move on cross for about 8 extra moves at the end, not worth it. Also, use alg.cubing.net for example solves, works a lot better.



LNBFilms said:


> I have a new (I think) method for 3x3. Here it is. I call it F2LDiags. It is where you start with roux, and then do two diagonal F2L pairs, then solve the other 2 cross pieces with M and U moves, then solve the other two F2L pairs, then OLL and PLL. Here is a link to a example solve. alg.cubing.net example


What do you mean by "start with Roux"? If you mean something like *this,* that's worse than Roux and CFOP (and ZZ I guess) for multiple reasons: 

Movecount is high 50s - low 60s compared to CFOP's high 50s and Roux's high 40s.
Lookahead is bad as you're forcing a back slot and you have DB as a blind spot.
Mix of movegroups. For example, Roux goes from RULDBF to RrUM pretty quickly, then MU after CMLL, wheras this goes from RULDBF ro RrUMFL to RrUMFL to CFOP F2L. Not really that great.
TL;DR: you're better off using normal Roux or CFOP. There's a reason Roux has barely changed since it was first proposed - it's already so good. Any optimisations involving non linear blocks and mixing with CFOP have all been discounted for that reason. But it's not all bad as you can learn from this. 

[This applies to this thread in general atm]
If a method is similar to one that exists, think "why don't they do it like this already?" Chances are, it's already been thought of. If you're still stuck on that and genuinely believe it could be good, come to this thread and we can discuss it properly and go through all the details (like doing a HARCS analysis, genning algs etc.) I know a lot of people are new to speedsolving and want to develop methods and that is great! The only caveat is to think critically instead of splurging out all your ideas onto here. That doesn't mean to stop having lots of ideas. In fact, have many ideas as possible at home but again, think critically about them and understand whether they'd be good or not. You will get better at this the more experience you have. 

If you want to gen algs, there is software that exists (cube explorer, kubesolver, alg explorer, HARCS and KSolve) and the software thread is a great place to go if you need any help. If you have any questions about anything else, there will be a thread that exists (just don't bump 10 year old threads) and ask there and people will be more than happy to help. Also, read the first post in here. Anything such as Roux but you solve DFDB was an old idea back when this thread began and something such as CFOP but you don't solve the bottom properly is similar (remember, there's a reason why that isn't done at top speeds). You might think of something that is good but isn't new - don't get dishartened; it happens to all of us. Instead, keep on thinking. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that to come up with a good, original method, you need to put time into it, be it in the form of lots of ideas until one works or handcrafting it over a long time from theory, but the method you thought of in 2 mins was almost certainly thought of by someone else in 2 mins too. If you need help with alg genning, there's a thread for that and if you have a method with proper potential (or a subset), this is the thread for that, not for unfiltered ideas.

Keep methoding.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> You save maybe 1 move on cross for about 8 extra moves at the end, not worth it. Also, use alg.cubing.net for example solves, works a lot better.


I mean i guess its about the same as cfop but just a few moves easier
it can also make you luckier on your cross, plus color neutral which means almost all your crosses will be almost perfect
people can just learn cfop and my method like they are color neutral and it would be pretty easy for them to learn the other method as they are both pretty similar
overall my method is not worth it but if you want to maximize efficiency then go for it
also what should i call my method?
what about Fefop? (Flip edge f2l, oll pll)
also about the 8 extra moves at the end i think you can shorten that and since its pretty simple just some MU moves people executing it would take no time at all,
and saving one move is not that all its going to save like 3 moves and some time as well.
anyway in all its not really worth it
it saves time but really just dont


----------



## LNBFilms (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> You save maybe 1 move on cross for about 8 extra moves at the end, not worth it. Also, use alg.cubing.net for example solves, works a lot better.
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "start with Roux"? If you mean something like *this,* that's worse than Roux and CFOP (and ZZ I guess) for multiple reasons:
> ...



Problem with using software is my iMac. Thank you!


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> how does it compare to 3lll?


In my estimation, it's probably about the same speed with fewer algs. On the other hand, it does have the disadvantage of not really having anywhere to progress to so if you want to be really fast at mega (pushing world class and stuff), you'd probably be better off learning and using 3lll.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 21, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> In my estimation, it's probably about the same speed with fewer algs. On the other hand, it does have the disadvantage of not really having anywhere to progress to so if you want to be really fast at mega (pushing world class and stuff), you'd probably be better off learning and using 3lll.



theoretically, how many algs would a 1lll have? I'd guess way too many


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> theoretically, how many algs would a 1lll have? I'd guess way too many


About 1.8 million


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 21, 2020)

shadowslice e said:


> About 1.8 million


is there any sort of winter variation/vls for last pair on megaminx?


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 21, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> is there any sort of winter variation/vls for last pair on megaminx?


i mean megaminx is similar to 3x3 so i guess it could have.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 21, 2020)

It probably does, although VLS would be a lot of algs. I wouldn't be surprised if WV exists and it would be possible to use some sort of "pair up pair while doing EO, insert with WV", although this would most likely be slower than insert+OLL at the very top.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> It probably does, although VLS would be a lot of algs. I wouldn't be surprised if WV exists and it would be possible to use some sort of "pair up pair while doing EO, insert with WV", although this would most likely be slower than insert+OLL at the very top.


recognition for WV on mega would be pretty bad


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 21, 2020)

It definitely wouldn't be amazing, but it shouldn't be any different from OCLL recog on mega. Anyway, it's probably not worth pursuing.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 21, 2020)

I am prepared to get criticized. Well this is a 2x2 method so here ya go.

3/4 of a layer
TTLS (23 algs)
TTLL (corners only) (6 algs)

I have not learned all these algs yet but once I do, ima make a doc about this method. I do not have a name of the method yet so... yeah.


----------



## Ashton (Oct 21, 2020)

Hi. The H method uses few algorithms. Two examples:


D' F2 U' B2 F2 D2 U' L2 D2 R2 B' L B2 F2 R B' U' F L R2

z2
F2 U L R' F L R' D
U L' R' U' R2 U2 L U2 R
U2 L U L U L2 U L U' L // LS
R U2 L' U' L U2 R' // HLS
U R' F' R U2 R U2 R' F U' R U' R' // COLL
U2 M2 U' M' U2 M U' M2 U' // EPLL

D' R2 U R2 U2 B2 F2 U F2 L2 U' F' D2 L' B' F2 D' B R2 B R2

z2
L' B' U L' D' F
U2 R2 U2 R U2 L R2 U2 L2 U' L'
U R U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U // LS
U R U2 R' // HLS
R' F' R U2 R U2 R' F U' R U' R' // COLL
U2 M2 U M' U2 M U M2 U // EPLL


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 21, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I am prepared to get criticized. Well this is a 2x2 method so here ya go.
> 
> 3/4 of a layer
> TTLS (23 algs)
> ...


The HD method is this, is pretty good but still doesn't match up to EG because EG is OP.



Ashton said:


> Hi. The H method uses few algorithms. Two examples:
> 
> 
> D' F2 U' B2 F2 D2 U' L2 D2 R2 B' L B2 F2 R B' U' F L R2
> ...


So basically ZZ-blah but purely H? And OCLL/PLL is 100% faster and only has 28 algs.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 21, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I am prepared to get criticized. Well this is a 2x2 method so here ya go.
> 
> 3/4 of a layer
> TTLS (23 algs)
> ...


i mean this is just a bad corners first, because of the algs solving 1 layer-1 edge and than doing CLL,top edges than E slice is better,
or just doing waterman which is better than that.
and btw me and probably others have already thought of this


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 21, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> The HD method is this, is pretty good but still doesn't match up to EG because EG is OP.


This is like the CLL version of HD. HD wants you to create a V shape that doesnt have to be permuted correctly and mine does; limiting the algorithm count from 59 to just 29.I dont know all 29 yet but when I do, ima make a thread about the method and a google docs on the method.



ObscureCuber said:


> i mean this is just a bad corners first, because of the algs solving 1 layer-1 edge and than doing CLL,top edges than E slice is better,
> or just doing waterman which is better than that.
> and btw me and probably others have already thought of this


My point is just to create a good 2x2 method that has NOTHING to do with CF on 3x3.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 21, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> My point is just to create a good 2x2 method that has NOTHING to do with CF on 3x3.


oh than that already exist too and me and others have thought of it multiple times after its creation
its ok but just not as good as 1layer cll or eg
if you are going to create a 2x2 method look at the list of methods first...


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 22, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> oh than that already exist too and me and others have thought of it multiple times after its creation
> its ok but just not as good as 1layer cll or eg
> if you are going to create a 2x2 method look at the list of methods first...


i did. HD requires you to make 3/4 of a side and my method requires you to make 3/4 of a layer. This reduces to the total alg count of the method from 59 to 29. I know this isnt as good ass CLL or EG and possibly Ortega just as well as you do. I am just poining out the differences of this and HD.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Oct 22, 2020)

People just need to understand that sometimes (most times, actually), the methods that you make actually suck, or is just a worse version of another method. (I’m just telling how it is; don’t get mad at me.)


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> i did. HD requires you to make 3/4 of a side and my method requires you to make 3/4 of a layer. This reduces to the total alg count of the method from 59 to 29. I know this isnt as good ass CLL or EG and possibly Ortega just as well as you do. I am just poining out the differences of this and HD.


but it would just be like worse?
so like why?
learning 59 2x2 algs isnt that bad...


----------



## Ashton (Oct 22, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> So basically ZZ-blah but purely H? And OCLL/PLL is 100% faster and only has 28 algs.



Yes, ZZ-blah but purely H. Eight algorithms to solve the last layer. Of course, OCLL/PLL is better and has only 28 algorithms. My interest is to know how many algorithms are needed to build the H pattern if one does not have the ability to do it intuitively. I still have to see that. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 22, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> People just need to understand that sometimes (most times, actually), the methods that you make actually suck, or is just a worse version of another method. (I’m just telling how it is; don’t get mad at me.)


im not mad.



ObscureCuber said:


> but it would just be like worse?
> so like why?
> learning 59 2x2 algs isnt that bad...


learning 29 is better. This can be a varient of HD.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> im not mad.
> 
> 
> learning 29 is better. This can be a varient of HD.


who cares about learning a couple more algs if the method is better?


----------



## Athefre (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> I am prepared to get criticized. Well this is a 2x2 method so here ya go.
> 
> 3/4 of a layer
> TTLS (23 algs)
> ...



Check out VOP on the wiki.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 22, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> who cares about learning a couple more algs if the method is better?


it is just a variant of HD so maybe this is a good place to start.



Athefre said:


> Check out VOP on the wiki.


i did already


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 22, 2020)

CLL is a subset of EG just as this is a subset of HD, although I would say that because full HD is only about 30 more algs, you might as well learn it. To a point, fewer algs doesn't mean better when there is an obvious advantage (such as 2 look PLL vs PLL compared to OLL/PLL vs 1LLL). Anyway, what I's saying is that this can be seen as a stepping stone (and probably one used already) to full HD, so could be an intermediate version. 




Ashton said:


> Yes, ZZ-blah but purely H. Eight algorithms to solve the last layer. Of course, OCLL/PLL is better and has only 28 algorithms. My interest is to know how many algorithms are needed to build the H pattern if one does not have the ability to do it intuitively. I still have to see that. Thanks for your feedback.


For the R U' R' insert you should need something like 15 algs? I'm not sure exactly, but somewhere in that ball park.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 22, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> CLL is a subset of EG just as this is a subset of HD, although I would say that because full HD is only about 30 more algs, you might as well learn it. To a point, fewer algs doesn't mean better when there is an obvious advantage (such as 2 look PLL vs PLL compared to OLL/PLL vs 1LLL). Anyway, what I's saying is that this can be seen as a stepping stone (and probably one used already) to full HD, so could be an intermediate version.


Now we talkin


----------



## Hazel (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Now we talkin


There's still a problem, that your method is identical to the VOP method. You build a V, orient everything, then permute everything, yes? That is identical to VOP.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 22, 2020)

Aerma said:


> There's still a problem, that your method is identical to the VOP method. You build a V, orient everything, then permute everything, yes? That is identical to VOP.


ok new method (2x2)

Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
OLL (7 algs)

from here you have a few options

A: solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg

B: Solve top and bottom sides then PBL

--------------------------------------------------


----------



## BenChristman1 (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> ok new method (2x2)
> 
> Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
> OLL (7 algs)
> ...





BenChristman1 said:


> People just need to understand that sometimes (most times, actually), the methods that you make actually suck, or is just a worse version of another method. (I’m just telling how it is; don’t get mad at me.)


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 22, 2020)

im not mad. I know it sucks. This is just an experimental method for 2x2. NOT recomended for a CF method on 3x3.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> im not mad. I know it sucks. This is just an experimental method for 2x2. NOT recomended for a CF method on 3x3.


CF methods aren't recommended anyway, so imagine one with this


----------



## Athefre (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> My point is just to create a good 2x2 method that has NOTHING to do with CF on 3x3.



I recommend that you spend some time learning about the methods that already exist. This will give you a knowledge base from which to work. If you know what is already there and what is good, then you will be more capable of creating something that is both new and good. Thinking of something new isn't easy. With the creation of internet communities, many ideas have already been thought of and either developed or they have been dismissed as not good enough to be developed. It's fun to try to think of new ideas. But it's also important to thoroughly research and go over the idea to determine if it is new and if it is useful for the community.

2x2 methods especially are already really advanced. So if you are wanting to create a good 2x2 method, it may be difficult. For the methods that are currently being used, EG is still the most advanced. However, there other systems and methods that are even more advanced than EG. You can check out the A2 system, which is a way to take existing 2x2 methods into their various pseudo forms. In this post I also detailed many other advanced 2x2 methods that haven't yet been developed. Those are the sibling methods of EG and many are likely the same speed and movecount as EG. So, look at those methods and what is on the wiki. Then you will have a starting point to think of something new that may be good.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 22, 2020)

been brainstorming some weird methods for 3x3, here's a very funny one

XCross (pair in DBR)

Solve FR and BL edges

Use a VHLS to solve last pair

Solve back pair

Alg to orient corners + place last corner

PLL

Even if bad method, can we use the alg set as an add on to TOLS or TSLE?


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 22, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> ok new method (2x2)
> 
> Solve bottom side in such a way that you have that and the oppisite color in any way. It can be 2 lines, checkered, or even a solved side.
> OLL (7 algs)
> ...


I already do this in good cases+already prob exist
and the best way to do it actually,
is to example
1.create white bar, add any yellow pieces as other two bottom pieces,
2recognize CMLL and solve CMLL
3.use a couple moves to solve pieces


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 22, 2020)

Athefre said:


> I recommend that you spend some time learning about the methods that already exist. This will give you a knowledge base from which to work. If you know what is already there and what is good, then you will be more capable of creating something that is both new and good. Thinking of something new isn't easy. With the creation of internet communities, many ideas have already been thought of and either developed or they have been dismissed as not good enough to be developed. It's fun to try to think of new ideas. But it's also important to thoroughly research and go over the idea to determine if it is new and if it is useful for the community.
> 
> 2x2 methods especially are already really advanced. So if you are wanting to create a good 2x2 method, it may be difficult. For the methods that are currently being used, EG is still the most advanced. However, there other systems and methods that are even more advanced than EG. You can check out the A2 system, which is a way to take existing 2x2 methods into their various pseudo forms. In this post I also detailed many other advanced 2x2 methods that haven't yet been developed. Those are the sibling methods of EG and many are likely the same speed and movecount as EG. So, look at those methods and what is on the wiki. Then you will have a starting point to think of something new that may be good.


can i have a link to that a2 system thing?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 23, 2020)

He gave you one in the post.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 23, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> He gave you one in the post.


oh yeah sorry lol


----------



## Zubin Park (Oct 23, 2020)

I'll be completely honest: learning x amount of algs and countless hours of dedication, practice, and hard work... for a sub-2 2x2 solve? I'm not cut out for this lol


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 23, 2020)

Tripod on a 2x2. LOL feel free to scream at me.

3/4 of a layer
tripod piece
without disrupting the tripod piece, solve the rest of the first layer
solve the last layer with 1 or 32(?) algorithms

this wasnt on any list of 2x2 methods i could find lol. I am calling it Tripod-2


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 23, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> Tripod on a 2x2. LOL feel free to scream at me.
> 
> 3/4 of a layer
> tripod piece
> ...


This is just basically biggeners because you almost always have atleast 1 oriented corner during first layer, which you could make the tripod peice


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 23, 2020)

Just like tripod on a 3x3 except it is on a 2x2. And no it isnt a beginners method. What kind of beginners method on a 2x2 would have 32 algs (dont answer this)?

Edit: Example Solve

Scramble:F2 R U2 F' U2 F' R2 F2 R'

U F L // Tripod 1st Layer
y2 R U2 R' // Tripod Piece
U y L F' L' F L F' L' F L F' L' F // rest of first layer
y R U R' U' R' F R F' // T2LL (Tripod 2 Last Layer)
U2 // AUF









alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net





Not a good solve but it was somethin. 9.33TPS or more would be a sub-3 solve.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 23, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> View attachment 13940View attachment 13939
> Just like tripod on a 3x3 except it is on a 2x2. And no it isnt a beginners method. What kind of beginners method on a 2x2 would have 32 algs (dont answer this)?
> 
> Edit: Example Solve
> ...


Look at my post i said it was bassically the beggeners method/lbl because like i said you normally almost always have one top edge solved and you said you COULD do it with one alg, anyway this is just a worse form of LBL+CLL because it barely has less algs+you have to preserve a corner during first layer


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 23, 2020)

started working on COALL algorithms. Done all the Dot Cases

The B and S moves shouldn't be too bad


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 26, 2020)

ok but why not petrus w with eo at start


----------



## Athefre (Oct 26, 2020)

LukasCubes said:


> View attachment 13940View attachment 13939
> Just like tripod on a 3x3 except it is on a 2x2. And no it isnt a beginners method. What kind of beginners method on a 2x2 would have 32 algs (dont answer this)?
> 
> Edit: Example Solve
> ...



I think this is a pretty common idea too. But I'm not sure if anyone has focused on developing it. It would be a subset of L5C (or 1LLS as it's called on the wiki for some reason).

Notes for improvement:

+ 1-look is definitely the way to go instead of your two-look example. Meaning one alg after the tripod. If you want this to be good for speedsolving.
+ Versus CLL/EG: A good use for this would likely be when the V shape is already formed after the scramble and it would take several moves to get to CLL.
+ The pseudo applications would be pretty interesting. You can use any corner on the U layer. You don't have to only align the matching one at ULB. You could also do an EG kind of thing and have other alg sets for a non-permuted tripod. This could go in any direction, not only the D layer. There are many other pseudo things, but those are just two examples that would be easy to implement.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 26, 2020)

if multislotting is a thing, maybe there is a way to multislot the last two pairs while making EO on top, kinda like VHLS but its two pairs instead, or heck even solving the whole cube like zbll.
What do you guys think of my idea?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 26, 2020)

Think about it practically. Firstly work out how many cases there are for last 2 pairs, then work out that multiplied by the potential EOs.


----------



## MichaelZRC (Oct 26, 2020)

Ashton said:


> Hi. The H method uses few algorithms. Two examples:
> 
> 
> D' F2 U' B2 F2 D2 U' L2 D2 R2 B' L B2 F2 R B' U' F L R2
> ...


ZZ that reduces LL to H? This has been thought of many times before and its better off to use TUL if you want to reduce ZBLL during LS.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 27, 2020)

MichaelZRC said:


> ZZ that reduces LL to H? This has been thought of many times before and its better off to use TUL if you want to reduce ZBLL during LS.



so if you could force a Two corner oriented case, would that be good?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 27, 2020)

It would be alright I guess. It isn't too hard to do for R U' R' cases. You need insert, sexy insert, insert with U2, inverse sexy insert with U2.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 27, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> It would be alright I guess. It isn't too hard to do for R U' R' cases. You need insert, sexy insert, insert with U2, inverse sexy insert with U2.




do you think that idea's worth developing?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 27, 2020)

There’s not a lot to develop, it’s all pretty much in that post.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 28, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> There’s not a lot to develop, it’s all pretty much in that post.



by develop i mean gen algs


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 28, 2020)

If i may











Line

1x2x3 left block

last 3 pairs

hkcll

l5e


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 28, 2020)

Do you mean last 2 pairs? Still, is probably worse than HK.


TheSlykrCubr said:


> by develop i mean gen algs


All the algs to gen are in that post.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 28, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Do you mean last 2 pairs? Still, is probably worse than HK.
> 
> All the algs to gen are in that post.


yea mean 2


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 29, 2020)

Here's a thing-
Heise Belt
1.solve any 223 psuedo but make sure that the pieces are oriented and the bottom pieces are all from that side(white for ex)
2.Petrus EO
3. Finish placing F2L but without it being solved
4.Top layer(might in counter parity) ((just do R2 U2 R2 U2 R2
Solve E slice bottom layer(pll)


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Oct 30, 2020)

ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?

why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl

It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method


----------



## BenChristman1 (Oct 30, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?
> 
> why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl
> 
> It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method


It still wouldn’t be very good, and M2 U2 M2 to fix parity is really fast.


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 30, 2020)

why dont people do cross and f2l together?


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 30, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> why dont people do cross and f2l together?


they do(xcrosses/xxcrosses)


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 30, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> they do(xcrosses/xxcrosses)


oh yea ok


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Oct 30, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> ok so remember when belt method was a thing, but we didn't realise that there would be parity?
> 
> why don't we just gen algs to orient the top layer, then it's just be normal oll on the bottom, and then pbl
> 
> It wouldn't be good, but it'd be a better belt method



makes more sense to just orient corners while doing belt so that you only have edge parity which can be dealt with easily


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 31, 2020)

Or just use domino reduction instead of belt its a better speedsolving method


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Nov 1, 2020)

4x4 method

Same as Yau until edge pairing

add the last cross edge, and pair your edges, but you ignore your top colour, like in pEO. once you've paired them, F2L, and then do CLL and ELL (K4 ending)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 1, 2020)

You could alternatively do pair edges, OLL, PLL if you wanna keep the CFOP vibe going.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Nov 1, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> You could alternatively do pair edges, OLL, PLL if you wanna keep the CFOP vibe going.



no


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Nov 2, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Or just use domino reduction instead of belt its a better speedsolving method


planning a dr in inspection is hard tho


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 2, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> planning a dr in inspection is hard tho


This is why SSC is nice you can plan alot of it in inspect because its simplified


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 5, 2020)

Method Neutrality might be a thing 10-20 years down in the future of cubing. We need to take the best from each method.


----------



## moh_33 (Nov 5, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> Method Neutrality might be a thing 10-20 years down in the future of cubing. We need to take the best from each method.


im kinda method neutral between CFOP Roux and Petrus all of them have an average around 37 - 39 seconds CFOP being the fastest single solve i achieved which is 30.36, Roux being my favourite, and petrus as the go to method if i get bored
(i can use ZZ but the time is slower for me at a flipping 43 seconds avg)


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 5, 2020)

moh_33 said:


> im kinda method neutral between CFOP Roux and Petrus all of them have an average around 37 - 39 seconds CFOP being the fastest single solve i achieved which is 30.36, Roux being my favourite, and petrus as the go to method if i get bored
> (i can use ZZ but the time is slower for me at a flipping 43 seconds avg)


Wow nice good to hear. I am talking here about elite level method neutrality here. Sub-8 with 2 or 3 methods.


----------



## moh_33 (Nov 5, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> Wow nice good to hear. I am talking here about elite level method neutrality here. Sub-8 with 2 or 3 methods.


i may not be sub 8 yet but i will try to reach sub 35 and im pretty confident about it

edit : after that ill get a smaller amount of time


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 5, 2020)

Im method neutral with Petrus,ZZ,Cfop
but I feel that its better to just do 1/2 methods out of time not 3.
Im sub 11 with them and sub 12 with roux.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 7, 2020)

abunickabhi said:


> Wow nice good to hear. I am talking here about elite level method neutrality here. Sub-8 with 2 or 3 methods.


you talkin tao-yu level here
pretty elite.
sub 8 with multiple methods is very hard.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 7, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> you talkin tao-yu level here
> pretty elite.
> sub 8 with multiple methods is very hard.


I don't think Tao would ever claim sub 8 with multiple methods (if one, although maybe CFOP), you'd have to be more elite.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 7, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I don't think Tao would ever claim sub 8 with multiple methods (if one, although maybe CFOP), you'd have to be more elite.


i think he can if he tries,
hes pretty close at sub 10 with his methods tho.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 7, 2020)

I'm Justin is bad. 
He also only really solves with ZB. 

Anyway, method neutrality is possible but not worth it, just like most methods which go for good singles.


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 7, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> View attachment 13987
> I'm Justin is bad.
> He also only really solves with ZB.
> 
> Anyway, method neutrality is possible but not worth it, just like most methods which go for good singles.


I do CFOP sometimes during petrus sessions, but only if its a really lucky scramble.
trying to inspect for two methods and use both at the same consistency doesn't seem worth.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 7, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> View attachment 13987
> I'm Justin is bad.
> He also only really solves with ZB.
> 
> Anyway, method neutrality is possible but not worth it, just like most methods which go for good singles.





ObscureCuber said:


> I do CFOP sometimes during petrus sessions, but only if its a really lucky scramble.
> trying to inspect for two methods and use both at the same consistency doesn't seem worth.


you are right but it could be pretty fun to use method neutrality.


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 11, 2020)

Most of these exist individually but i'm going to list some different domino methods.
SSC(shadowslicesnowcolumns)




-ZZ EO+E slice line(two adjacent E slice edges((usually the left two))
-solve psuedo 1x2x3 under those edges
-solve a psuedo 1x2x2 block on the right(if other block is on left)
-with last pair do Vls, insert oll, or OL5C
Domino reduction
-just how its done normally
Domino roux-




Other Domino roux-
-(oriented)psuedo fb
-(oriented)psuedo sb
-orient top corners
-L6E(only orientation)
Domino petrus/Domino hiese?
-(oriented)psuedo 222
-exstend to(oriented) 223
-EO
-Last side, OLL or last side-1 Vls or last side-1 OL5C
Domino ZZ(line)
-EO(psuedo)line
-psuedo pairs
-oll or Vls
Domino Waterman-
-Psuedo Side-1
-orient top corners
-other side psuedo-1
-orient only LSE(and solve the L U/R U edges)
CFOP
-psuedo cross
-psuedo f2l
-oll
LBL
layer,oriented E slice OLL
CF
corner orientation,edge orientation 
Hollow stairs
Idk look it up on the wiki its hard to explain
psuedo HK/russo
psuedo HK block ,HKOLL
Psuedo russo block ,orient corners, edge orientation


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 11, 2020)

Here's a new method thingy.
1.solve a 222 but one/2 D edges can be any oriented edge(so like a solved 221+1 orientededge)
the oriented random edge will be in your back slot.(lets say this block is on BL for examples sake)
2.expand to create a 223 but the back edge being any oriented edge(on BR for example)
3.Petrus-WV style EO
4.Finish F2l but FD can also be any oriented edge
5.Corner permutation
6.Oriented L6E
Heres an example(got really lucky btw)








alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net




for 1. there is an exception(can't be the edge that is your exstention edge)


----------



## Neuro (Nov 17, 2020)

I've been thinking about an alternative approach to LSE for a little bit, and I wanted to post it here to see if there's any interest in it.

LSE right now does EO+Placing ULUR (or ULUR/UFUB neutrality for some) in D layer and then solving the rest: placing the U edges in D to their proper places and solving L4E.

I have been considering an approach that instead solves DFDB in a similar way to EOLR (no care for centers, only place them in D layer.) My thought process is that once the edges are placed in D, it's only a matter of recognizing L4E on the U layer (which is just EPLL + a few algs with care for centers.) 

Right now, I think the ease of recognizing D layer stickers (2 D layer stickers compared to 4 U layer edge stickers) combined with the ease of recognizing edge permutation only on the U layer could be slightly faster than traditional LSE methods.

Would this be an idea worth pursuing, or are there issues that make this worse than normal LSE?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 17, 2020)

I would say two things: firstly, LSE is already pauseless and near optimal movecount; secondly, all EPLLs (which would be a non insignificant proportion of this alg set) are set ups to 4c cases, so essentially you would be doing LSE the standard way anyway.


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 17, 2020)

thinking of a new belt method. Not sure if this has been proposed before, but here it is.

1: permute 3 cross edges and make a belt around the cube.

2: insert the last cross edge quickly with M moves.

3: insert the f2l corners. You could do a last slot method on one of the last corners but it depends since some cases might not have algs that make the pair, then insert it. For example when you have a case where you have a corner which white is on top, and the f2l edge is solved (this is a white cross solve), you can do it by RURURURUR insert. But to do a last slot method to orient EO, URURURUR would be much more optimal.

4: solve last layer by any method you want.



Pros: you dont have to make a full cross, only 3 cross edges, which means that the first step will be more easy, and more cross tricks might open up, as well as your cross time decreasing.

For belt, there is alot of freedom, which means while inserting edge pieces, it could open up to more belt tricks to make the belt step more efficient and faster.

the corner permutation is pretty simple and fast.

Edit: Another pro is that you can use CLS everytime.

Cons: doing Belt and Corner permutation is slower than doing F2L.

Look-ahead is very hard.

Pieces can be hidden almost anywhere during belt, making it very hard to find pieces without multiple rotations.


This method just isnt as fast as other methods, like ZZ, Petrus, Roux, or CFOP. But it could still be used as a speedsolving method. It is also pretty simple, meaning that it could be used as a method for beginners.

idk what to call this method.


----------



## PetraPine (Nov 19, 2020)

Just solve it method
1.solve cube random piece by random piece by using blockbuilding and commutators.



Nir1213 said:


> thinking of a new belt method. Not sure if this has been proposed before, but here it is.
> 
> 1: permute 3 cross edges and make a belt around the cube.
> 
> ...


Solving cross first is better also this method has been come up with alot before I'm pretty sure(including I thought of this before) also you still have to do full cross just seperately solve the last cross edge less efficiency


----------



## Nir1213 (Nov 19, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> Solving cross first is better also this method has been come up with alot before I'm pretty sure(including I thought of this before) also you still have to do full cross just seperately solve the last cross edge less efficiency


doing the full cross while making belt is really hard, as one cross edge might pop up. It also restricts more tricks.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Nov 28, 2020)

Most people would think that this is dumb but I experimented and this was the result of it
1. Make cross
2. Solve corners leave 1 behind
3. Use the unsolve corner to solve the edges
4. F2L 1% chance of being skipped
5. Oll
6. Pll
and tada! That’s how I created a new version of it.


----------



## ElyasCubing (Nov 29, 2020)

Isn't that just the keyhole f2l into oll and pll?


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 29, 2020)

This is just CFOP but using keyhole for F2L...


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Nov 29, 2020)

correction for 3. Use the unsolve corner slot to solve the edges



ElyasCubing said:


> Isn't that just the keyhole f2l into oll and pll?


kinda but it’s different



hexacuber said:


> This is just CFOP but using keyhole for F2L...


Not really on my perspective


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 29, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> kinda but it’s different


There is nothing different. it's literally just CFOP with keyhole.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Nov 29, 2020)

Just as to make everyone understand what I’m doing I am trying to create a better alg for the belt method.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Nov 29, 2020)

It's not really a "belt method" at all. You are solving 7 pieces before the belt is done


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 29, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Just as to make everyone understand what I’m doing I am trying to create a better alg for the belt method.


An alg? What for? Or do you mean method?


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Nov 29, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> It's not really a "belt method" at all. You are solving 7 pieces before the belt is done


Finally someone get’s it



hexacuber said:


> An alg? What for? Or do you mean method?


I meant the a better alg to solve the whole belt with A solve corner

Ok guys I am keep my opinion to my self now since everyone keeps on saying this is a CFOP method


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Nov 29, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Ok guys I am keep my opinion to my self now since everyone keeps on saying this is a CFOP method


ok then


----------



## Sub1Hour (Nov 29, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Ok guys I am keep my opinion to my self now since everyone keeps on saying this is a CFOP method


Isn't it though?
Step 1 is cross
Step 2-4 is F2L
Step 5 is OLL
Step 6 is PLL
This new "belt" method is textbook keyhole. Belt is supposed to be E, S, or M first.


----------



## qwr (Nov 29, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Ok guys I am keep my opinion to my self now since everyone keeps on saying this is a CFOP method






RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> 1. Make *cross*
> 2. Solve corners leave 1 behind
> 3. Use the unsolve corner to solve the edges
> 4. *F2L* 1% chance of being skipped
> ...


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 29, 2020)

The whole point of a belt method is to form the belt as the first step no? And this certainly is not that. This is just a worse version of CFOP.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Nov 29, 2020)

Keyhole F2L - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com




Compare your method to some of the variations of keyhole stated on the wiki and tell me what exactly makes it belt instead of keyhole

"You start, like in normal LBL from a cross, then you fill in _three_ of the first layer corners. From that point you solve three of the middle layer edges using the empty corner position as the _keyhole_ "
Your steps 1-2
"

First position the mid-layer edge in the U-layer such that it is above the centre matching the edge's up-facing colour.
Using a D-Turn position the bottom layer so that the unsolved corner is directly below the mid-layer edge's position.
Now execute one of R U' R' or F U F' to insert the edge.
"
Your step 3
"After three corners and edges are solved you complete F2L by first solving the last corner and finally the last edge "
Your step 4
And step 5 and 6 are just OLL and PLL

The keyhole method that's closer to an actual belt method is Edge First keyhole, and even then it's hardly a belt method.


----------



## the dnf master (Nov 29, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Ok guys I am keep my opinion to my self now since everyone keeps on saying this is a CFOP method


Well at least you made this thread into a decent argument


----------



## ElyasCubing (Nov 29, 2020)

Exactly its the same thing tbh


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 30, 2020)

A lolmethod originally intended to be a beginner's method:
1) Cross+3c: Solve cross+3 corners - ~10-12 moves (mostly rotationless)
2) F2L-1: solve the 3 edges that belong to the slots whose corners are solved using keyhole: ~20-25 moves (rotationless) <RUUwF> gen
3) F<RU>F' LS + EO: Keeping the last slot on FL, solve it by doing an F and then solving the pair 2 gen(Jayden McNeill has a good video series on it) and cancelling into EO. ~11-12 moves with some Dw move to bring the unsolved slot to the FL position
4) LL: ZBLL (12-14 moves on average) or OCLL/PLL (20-25 moves on average) or COLL/EPLL(~18 moves on average)
Total movecount: 53-54 with ZBLL, 60+ with other variants
(NOTE: All movecounts are calculated guesses and for the keyhole, using Uw moves instead of D moves makes this method entirely rotationless)

Pros:
Entirely rotationless
Doesn't require EO at the start of the solve to achieve the above.
Easier lookahead since one has to look only for edges.
One can use ZBLL everytime
<RUUwF> gen F2L with no rotations therefore superfast F2L

Cons:
Higher movecount. High algcount to lower it.
F<RU>F' LS is hard to learn.
Cross+3c in inspection is hard blockbuilding the same is just harder

This is an idea I came up with as a beginner method to teach my little brother how to solve a 3x3 and I just expanded it with EO and F<RU>F' LS just for fun.

Someone please come up with a good name for it.
This method is not a replacement to CFOP.

Maybe it can be a good OH method???


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 30, 2020)

It’s basically keyhole into ZB. Not a new idea, but one with potential.


----------



## crazykitten499 (Nov 30, 2020)

do coll-like algorithms that orient the edges and orient the corners, as well as permutation of the corners, exist?


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 30, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> It’s basically keyhole into ZB. Not a new idea, but one with potential.


Keyhole into ZB but no rotations without EO at the start.
<RUuF> F2L with no rotations without EO at the start is superfast.
Somehow if anyone can come up with some intuitive EO process for LS with low movecount then overall movecount will go down to high 40s
e.g F<RU>F' LS(that's the only method that can cancel into EO easily as of now) etc.



crazykitten499 said:


> do coll-like algorithms that orient the edges and orient the corners, as well as permutation of the corners, exist?


OLLCP is the only algset that I know of that fits this criterion


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Nov 30, 2020)

crazykitten499 said:


> do coll-like algorithms that orient the edges and orient the corners, as well as permutation of the corners, exist?



ollcp


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 30, 2020)

crazykitten499 said:


> do coll-like algorithms that orient the edges and orient the corners, as well as permutation of the corners, exist?


OLLCP



Cubing Forever said:


> Keyhole into ZB but no rotations without EO at the start.
> <RUuF> F2L with no rotations without EO at the start is superfast.
> Somehow if anyone can come up with some intuitive EO process for LS with low movecount then overall movecount will go down to high 40s
> e.g F<RU>F' LS(that's the only method that can cancel into EO easily as of now) etc.


I definitely think that this style of F2L has potential. I made a post somewhere back in this thread in context of Zipper, but ZB works too.


----------



## Silky (Nov 30, 2020)

So I've been experimenting around with my Souxp method from a while back. This is what I've come up with so far.

(1) First block
(2) Belt + corner separation ( placing DFR + DBR corners in D with no specific orientation or permutation )
(3) DR corner orientation + permutation + U layer corner orientation
(4) U layer corner permutation + EO
(5) L7EP
=> Either through DF DB placement + L5EP or
=> Edge separation with a SSC finish (?)


----------



## kevinlin (Dec 3, 2020)

I have been testing out a last slot method and it sometimes gives quite nice movecounts.

(1) Use a method that does EO before last slot
(2) Make a 2x2 block on U layer like the one in Tripod method
(3) Insert last edge
(4) Solve a corner using commutators
(5) Finish by L3C or L3C+L2E


----------



## Seth1448 (Dec 3, 2020)

The belt method SUCKS. It’s just a way worse version of cfop so stop wasting you’re time.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 3, 2020)

Seth1448 said:


> The belt method SUCKS. It’s just a way worse version of cfop so stop wasting you’re time.


It's true that pure belt is worse than CFOP, but it IS possible that a modified version of belt could turn out to be good. Besides, the whole point of this thread is to experiment and come up with new methods, regardless of whether they are good for speedsolving or not.


----------



## qwr (Dec 4, 2020)

I wish I could unlearn how to solve a 3x3 so I could invent my own method.
Now that I know the basic ideas of CFOP, Roux, and Petrus, I'll never be able to create something truly original.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 4, 2020)

qwr said:


> I wish I could unlearn how to solve a 3x3 so I could invent my own method.
> Now that I know the basic ideas of CFOP, Roux, and Petrus, I'll never be able to create something truly original.



While that is a real psychological effect, the truth is that it has always been difficult to think of something new. Gilles Roux was aware of Corners First, LBL, Edges First, Columns, CFOP, Petrus, and others. Yet he was able to think of something new. The same can be said for Zbigniew Zborowski. It isn't easy and shape options are running out as time goes on and the community grows, but you can do it.


----------



## qwr (Dec 4, 2020)

Athefre said:


> While that is a real psychological effect, the truth is that it has always been difficult to think of something new. Gilles Roux was aware of Corners First, LBL, Edges First, Columns, CFOP, Petrus, and others. Yet he was able to think of something new. The same can be said for Zbigniew Zborowski. It isn't easy and shape options are running out as time goes on and the community grows, but you can do it.


oh I'm not looking to create something new, just something that's entirely my own creation.


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 5, 2020)

Hello guys! I created a guide to my personal alternative method for LL.
Good vision!


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 5, 2020)

Ok so this is just reduction to line/flipped line 1LLL right?


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 5, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> Ok so this is just reduction to line/flipped line 1LLL right?


It's a method based on solve 1LLL.
In this method create a block 1LLL and in the next to solve it.
Two steps.
Creation block 1LLL.
Solve block 1 LLL.


----------



## GAN CUBER (Dec 5, 2020)

Since you are new to the forums welcome I will have a look at it


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 5, 2020)

GAN CUBER said:


> Since you are new to the forums welcome I will have a look at it


Thanks 

Inviato dal mio SM-M205FN utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 6, 2020)

Seth1448 said:


> The belt method SUCKS. It’s just a way worse version of cfop so stop wasting you’re time.


Ok that is just mean. I have found something that nobody has thought of making a better version of this method so you are just unreasonable to tell me this.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Ok that is just mean. I have found something that nobody has thought of making a better version of this method so you are just unreasonable to tell me this.


The belt method isn’t new if that’s what you’re trying to say. As I said earlier in this thread, when you make a method, 99% of the time, it will suck. You just have to keep trying. But I’m not saying post 100 new methods in this thread every time you come up with something “different.” Think about it before posting, and if it’s something decent that nobody has come up with before, then you can post about it and see what people think. But the belt method _does_ suck, no matter what you say.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 6, 2020)

1. Instead of make the belt first the white cross is first so that edge parity doesn’t happen
2. F2l With the belt that is going to make this the belt method
3. Solve the oll any color that is on the U layer.
4.Pll on both side or the color on the U later
5. If there is a corner parity do the V perm then the blindfold Y perm if this doesn’t work just solve the cube normally
6. If you accidentally make an edge parity I suggest that you first do the corner parity because it’s easier to that first. After you solve the corner parity or you didn’t I suggest doing M U x2 or more until you get the parity correct.
edit: this the worst test/ best thing I’ve ever did



BenChristman1 said:


> The belt method isn’t new if that’s what you’re trying to say. As I said earlier in this thread, when you make a method, 99% of the time, it will suck. You just have to keep trying. But I’m not saying post 100 new methods in this thread every time you come up with something “different.” Think about it before posting, and if it’s something decent that nobody has come up with before, then you can post about it and see what people think. But the belt method _does_ suck, no matter what you say.


Ok I understand that but what that person said literally hurt my feelings.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 6, 2020)

Didn’t I explain to you already that this method is bad? Then you had to go and make a new thread for it? You knew that the New Method megathread existed, so why did you make a new thread?


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> 2. F2l With the belt that is going to make this the belt method


Do you mean edges-first keyhole? this is just CFOP again
Proof:


RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> 1. Instead of make the belt first the white *cross* is first so that edge parity doesn’t happen
> 2. *F2l *With the belt that is going to make this the belt method
> 3. Solve the *oll* any color that is on the U layer.
> 4.*Pll* on both side or the color on the U later
> ...


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 6, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Do you mean edges-first keyhole? this is just CFOP again
> Proof:


well yes but except Pll and oll on both side


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> well yes but except Pll and oll on both side


You don't really explain how to do the bottom corners at all.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 6, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Didn’t I explain to you already that this method is bad? Then you had to go and make a new thread for it? You knew that the New Method megathread existed, so why did you make a new thread?


I don’t know how to make a thread there I only know the basics of this forum


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> well yes but except Pll and oll on both side


It’s still just CFOP. Why would you solve the E layer, do LL, then do an x2/z2 before doing LL again?



RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> I don’t know how to make a thread there I only know the basics of this forum


You just made a new thread. This right here is called a thread. It is a place where you talk about one part of cubing. But there is already a thread for new methods, which you have already posted in, so there is no reason to make this thread.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Ok I understand that but what that person said literally hurt my feelings.


Well, if you are trying to make a good method people are going to have to be up front about its potential, and what you are doing is making belt more like CFOP, so you are not making a better version of a bad method, but a worse version of a good one


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 6, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> It’s still just CFOP. Why would you solve the E layer, do LL, then do an x2/z2 before doing LL again?


Ima explain this.
You solve the cross so that edge parity doesn’t happen right.
Then after solving the cross do F2l but the corners does have to be solve as long it is on it’s correct side.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> You solve the cross
> do F2l


Proof that the belt method is just sucky CFOP. Can you please stop? It’s really annoying having to explain that this is a bad method.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 6, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> You just made a new thread. This right here is called a thread. It is a place where you talk about one part of cubing. But there is already a thread for new methods, which you have already posted in, so there is no reason to make this thread.


Ok



BenChristman1 said:


> Proof that the belt method is just sucky CFOP. Can you please stop? It’s really annoying having to explain that this is a bad method.


Ok but I am still going to update on this since I really want to make something that has been a joke for over the years to become a better method for speedcubing

Why are people being mean to a 12 year old


----------



## CodingCuber (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Ok but I am still going to update on this since I really want to make something that has been a joke for over the years to become a better method for speedcubing


You can’t. You just simply can’t. No matter how many adaptations you make, it becomes a bad version of another existing method or it just has way too many moves and way too many rotations. It’s impractical.


RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Why are people being mean to a 12 year old


No one is. They are just telling you the forum rules, that is don’t post an entirely new thread for a method and they are telling you that the method is just a bad version of CFOP (which it is). Being 12 has nothing to do with this. I’m 13 and most other people on this forum are around the same age as you or me so I don’t know why you feel you need to mention your age.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> Why are people being mean to a 12 year old


Most people on this forum are around 10-16 years old, your age doesn't make you innocent


----------



## Neuro (Dec 7, 2020)

I think Belt is in a weird space. I don't see much potential in making it a good method, but it is often dismissed out of hand. I think that it is *possible* to make a good belt method, but almost every proposal is the same as one before it. I would highly recommend anyone making a belt method to actively research old proposals and thoroughly vet their proposal before even putting it on this thread.

The only decent iteration of belt that I've seen is - debatably - SSC. I'll use an OLL/PLL like variant for simplicity. Here's the thread with other variants.

1. EO+BL,FL Edges
2. Domino Reduction
- 2a. Separate BR,FR
- 2b. Form a 1x1x3 "triplet" with the R edge on D
- 2c. Form a 1x1x2 "pair" with the R edge on U
- 2d. ShadowSlice Last Slot
- 2e. Fix E slice (can influence OBL)
3. Separation (Make U/D layers solid colors) *Make sure E slice ends up solved*
4. PBL (Permute Both Layers)

EXAMPLE LINK

I still don't really like it, and it could be argued to be a ZZ variant even. Domino reduction is difficult and is hard to solve quickly. It is still the best belt variant I've seen, though (I define belt as a method that deals with a substantial subset of the E slice in its first step and eventually reduces the puzzle to a state where the U/D layers must be solved.)

As for RPerm's latest method proposal, I am confident in saying it isn't a belt method. From what I understand, this is how it works:

1. Cross
2. F2L (E slice solved, but D layer corners only have to match D sticker to the bottom. Not necessarily solved)
3. U layer OLL
4. PBL subset (?)

This is basically a CFOP variant ending in a PBL subset. It is not a belt method, which by definition solves the E slice (or at least a portion of the E slice) in the first step.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 8, 2020)

2x2 method: Flop there are reasons why I called this the flop method
1. First create the first layer (you can do this with look ahead)
2. Oll you can use the same Oll algs from 3x3 (some) 
3. Pll case 1: standard V Perm alg case 2: T perm
that’s about what I can figure out with this method also this is actually for me the fastest method but nothing can beat the Orteg.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Dec 8, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> 2x2 method: Flop there are reasons why I called this the flop method
> 1. First create the first layer (you can do this with look ahead)
> 2. Oll you can use the same Oll algs from 3x3 (some)
> 3. Pll case 1: standard V Perm alg case 2: T perm
> that’s about what I can figure out with this method also this is actually for me the fastest method but nothing can beat the Orteg.


That’s called Layer by Layer, and CLL+EG is way better than Ortega.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 8, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> 2x2 method: Flop there are reasons why I called this the flop method
> 1. First create the first layer (you can do this with look ahead)
> 2. Oll you can use the same Oll algs from 3x3 (some)
> 3. Pll case 1: standard V Perm alg case 2: T perm
> that’s about what I can figure out with this method also this is actually for me the fastest method but nothing can beat the Orteg.


That is just layer by layer. That is possibly the most hilarious new method proposal ever.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 8, 2020)

Ok


----------



## WoowyBaby (Dec 8, 2020)

Here's a new method that I thought up today that's probably totally useless!!

Here's an example solve first (from 3x3 Example Solve Thread):

Scramble: B2 D' F R U' F2 R' D B2 R2 U2 F2 R2 U R2 B2 R2 B2 F R'
(z2 y)
B F L' D' R F2 U R2 // Step 1
F' U F2 R' F' R // Step 2
U D2 R L U L' U R' // Step 3
U F2 L2 U2 R2 B2 R2 // Step 4
(29)

The First Step is to form a "HTR F2L-1". Since you don't have to worry about the permuation of the corners yet, so you simply make a huge area of pure opposite colors. Calling it a kind of "F2L-1" limits your thinking about what you can even do with this as it's so fundamentally different from an actual F2L-1, although I will say that Petrus blockbuilding is a good framework. This first step can probably be planned in inspection and should take around 8 moves. (If you're ever using more than 11 moves, you're doing something wrong.)

The Second Step is to form an oppsite color square and orient edges, leaving only 4 corners and 3 (oriented) edges that are not in HTR. This can be achieved in a similar fashion to Tripod, but keep in mind that you do not have to preserve the opposite color area- Swapping around any edges or corners in the opposite color area from Step 1 does not mess anything up so there's some extra freedom. This is an intuitive step, doesn't take too many moves, probably one-lookable. Preferrably don't make a psuedo-opposite square/square that isn't in the back left, or else the next step's recognition could be a nightmare. The moveset is alright, but F/F2/F' moves could slow this step down a little bit.

The Third Step is the orient the remaining four corners, as well as double orient the edges and correct the corner permutation (for true HTR). This is an algorithmic step, unknown exactly how many algs but likely around 100. I still need to generate all of the algorithms, but from what I can tell, contains lots of RUD or RUL moves. Probably around 10-11 moves on average, and the example solve's case was only 7 moves long. Recognition isn't exactly great, definitely worse than something like CFOP OLL, but it's probably better than you think.

The Fourth Step is the long awaited magical Half-Turn state. In my example solve I included the one move before you actually enter this stage, because you can either do a clockwise or counterclockwise turn, depending on which one is better. The general way of reaching the finish line from here is either do a few moves to a pattern that you know and finish quickly, blockbuild your way to victory, solve the corners along with a bunch of edges and finish with a 3-cycle, or all of the above. If you have experience with FMC and DR/HTR solutions in FMC, then you will already have a pretty intuitive grasp of how to do this step efficiently and quickly. There are no algorithms in this final step, but some useful cases to be super familiar with are M' U2 M U2 and R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 and U2 R2 F2 R2. If you're taking more than 13 moves (slice turn metric) or more than 4 seconds on this step, you're doing something wrong.

Here is another example solution for more comprehension of this method:
Scramble: B2 U B2 D' L2 U L2 R2 B2 R D' L' D' U' F U L2 R D

This method sucks // no (0/0)

REALIZATION: This sucks lmoa

Maybe would be better if I changed up the 2nd and 3rd steps to perhaps all corners -> all edges, would be two algorithmic steps instead of one which is probably better, and actually would be a pretty low number of algs due to the half-turn state's nature. Regardless, building the initial opposite color area is often bad, and this is just overall terrible for speedsolving even with this improvement.


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 8, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Here's a new method that I thought up today that's probably totally useless!!
> 
> Here's an example solve first (from 3x3 Example Solve Thread):
> 
> ...


I agree that method sucks some how...


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Dec 12, 2020)

do people use half centres for 5x5?

would it just be like solving middle + left bar for 3 centres, then finishing the rest Rw U gen?


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 12, 2020)

This guide contain my invention. I know i Maked mistake in this pdf. The idea is create block 1x1x3 and in the next solve cases Line.
Two steps. 
One step have 25 algo but i supposed exist more algo for solve a block 1x1x3 example block three part red and three part yellow in LL. In the next step two cases of Line. In Wiki doesn't exist this method. I call my method as Platform.

I have never been able to catalog all the possible cases and algo of step one. In addition, the Line for the second step has optimized algorithms. This method I have created is unknown in the world for the moment.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 12, 2020)

Platform_ said:


> This guide contain my invention (method alternative for LL)





Platform_ said:


> This guide contain my invention. I know i Maked mistake in this pdf. The idea is create block 1x1x3 and in the next solve cases Line.
> Two steps.
> One step have 25 algo but i supposed exist more algo for solve a block 1x1x3 example block three part red and three part yellow in LL. In the next step two cases of Line. In Wiki doesn't exist this method. I call my method as Platform.





Platform_ said:


> I have never been able to catalog all the possible cases and algo of step one. In addition, the Line for the second step has optimized algorithms. This method I have created is unknown in the world for the moment.



you can edit your posts into one big post instead by pressing the edit button under your posts, just saying. I understand your new here so welcome!

also i cant wait to see your method!


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 12, 2020)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> do people use half centres for 5x5?


I doubt it would be very good, also since more people use redux than yau for 5x5 so the development would be slow. Interesting idea, but


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 12, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> you can edit your posts into one big post instead by pressing the edit button under your posts, just saying. I understand your new here so welcome!
> 
> also i cant wait to see your method!


In this file my idea.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 12, 2020)

Platform_ said:


> In this file my idea.


it is certainly interest, and you've been working on it for 12 years! wow


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 12, 2020)

Nir1213 said:


> it is certainly interest, and you've been working on it for 12 years! wow


Very difficult. I started for fun. In the past I didn't understand the guides. I didn't think I was going to develop something different.


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Dec 13, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> I was just joking



calling a catholic in nothern ireland british is making you prone to be beat up by a gang like this


----------



## BlueAcidball (Dec 19, 2020)

This clock method is similar to the normal clock method, just with block building incorporated into it. Here's an overview of it:
*Step 1: *Make a 2x2 block on any of the 4 parts on one side, preferably on UL, and move it to the 12 o'clock position, like this:


*Step 2: *Flip to the other side then create your first cross, then restore the corner from the 2x2 block. Your clock should now look something like this:


*Step 3: *Flip again, then expand the 2x2 block to a 2x3 block, then solve the second cross and move it to the 12 o'clock position. It should now look something like this:


*Step 4: *Flip one last time, then solve the corners as you normally would, _completely disregarding the block, _and it should be solved.


Now, since this is my first method I ever thought about, it's obviously not the most optimal method, so feel free to suggest things I could change in this method!


----------



## abunickabhi (Dec 19, 2020)

Interesting concept yo.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 19, 2020)

Nice idea for petrus on clock yo


----------



## Jam88 (Dec 19, 2020)

I get the petrus aspect, not the clock aspect


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 19, 2020)

It’s a cool method in terms of being novel, but there’s way too many flips for speed solving considering some people are starting to use the no-flip method.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 19, 2020)

Jam88 said:


> I get the petrus aspect, not the clock aspect


It's like petrus but with EO(Flip side cross) before 223 but after 222


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 19, 2020)

I'm not the best clock solver my any stretch, but I can solve one with a 'standard' method, and I'll bring up a few things I'm seeing.


It sounds like a cool method, but I'm a little confused as to why the first step is to make a 2x2 block if the corner is going to get 'broken' as soon as we do the next step. It seems like if you don't do the corner, then you won't have to solve it twice.

In addition, I'm unsure as to the reason you need to put the dials to the 12 o'clock position after each step. As I understand it, you don't ever really need to bother putting the dials into the 12 o'clock position until it's solved, and doing anything else just seems like a waste of moves.

And finally, as OreKehStrah pointed out, there are a lot of flips in this method. The normal clock method only has one flip, and it is possible to do no-flip solves (I'm not sure how this is done, but I would assume simply by looking ahead through the cross.)


If you wanna try to develop more methods, you can try posting ideas in the The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Dec 19, 2020)

It would be decent but it requires 3 rotations, a little ridiculous. If you can find a way to reduce it to 1 or 0 then maybe it's worth it. But I'm sure @Owen Morrison would not enjoy doing 3 rotations.


----------



## BlueAcidball (Dec 19, 2020)

Sub1Hour said:


> It would be decent but it requires 3 rotations, a little ridiculous. If you can find a way to reduce it to 1 or 0 then maybe it's worth it. But I'm sure @Owen Morrison would not enjoy doing 3 rotations.


Understandable, but then again it wasn't really meant for speedsolving to begin with


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 19, 2020)

For reference I average around 4-5 seconds on clock, so here is my critique.
Looking at this method there are some clear flaws
The first is 3 flips, for any method you should be flipping at most 1 time, because the flip takes like half a second and in a 4-5 second solve that is pretty significant. 
Another thing to add is that it is more moves then the Pochmann method because you end up breaking up all of your blocks and add moves.
Also just a tip, if after your first flip you move the cross to 12 you can completely avoid the last flip, and if you use the correct pins you can avoid breaking up the 2x2 block on the first side, but even when doing this, Pochmann is still better and simpler.
Lastly blockbuilding in clock is an interesting concept and something that can be used on your second side to force corner skips, but not something that should be used on the first side ever.

With clock methods there isn’t much room for completely new methods, as there is already a lot you can do with Pochmann, the only real thing you can do differently to cross flip cross corners is cross flip block build, but doing Pochmann is more ergonomic that blockbuilding, and they both end up being the same movecount. The real way to improve clock methods is to improve the Pochmann method which is something I have been doing over time. With Pochmann you can already competely avoid DR/DL moves (which are the slowest kind of move), you can do no flip (which is too risky to be worth it), you can force corner skips with blockbuilding and from inspection, and a lot of other influencing and preservation to reduce movecounts.

anyway novel idea, but not something that should be used in speedsolving


----------



## PetraPine (Dec 19, 2020)

TipsterTrickster said:


> For reference I average around 4-5 seconds on clock, so here is my critique.
> Looking at this method there are some clear flaws
> The first is 3 flips, for any method you should be flipping at most 1 time, because the flip takes like half a second and in a 4-5 second solve that is pretty significant.
> Another thing to add is that it is more moves then the Pochmann method because you end up breaking up all of your blocks and add moves.
> ...


it would be interesting to see clock FMC and how low you could take the events ""move count""


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 19, 2020)

ObscureCuber said:


> it would be interesting to see clock FMC and how low you could take the events ""move count""


It would be weird to see how the moves would be counted. Would pin moves count? would 1-3 hours be one move, and more be 2?


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 20, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> It would be weird to see how the moves would be counted. Would pin moves count? would 1-3 hours be one move, and more be 2?


I've done clock FMC and average ~10.5 ish moves, basically just count every time you do a gear turn which is how you generally count moves in clock, so UR1+ is 1 move, UR5- ALL5+ is 2 moves etc...


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 25, 2020)

This is the guide of my method to I invented for the LL. Do not move to another thread because otherwise hardly anyone reads it.
Here there is file pdf.
Thank you for vision.


----------



## Lilas ma (Dec 25, 2020)

Nice one!


----------



## Ben Whitmore (Dec 25, 2020)

This is called line (step 2) and me and Jabari Nuruddin already learnt all the algs for it in 2014


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 25, 2020)

Ben Whitmore said:


> This is called line (step 2) and me and Jabari Nuruddin already learnt all the algs for it in 2014


Step two is line I know, but before in the past i discover that cases and since 2008 I solve LL with two steps. In 2014 my method was imperfect when i cant created my guide.



Ben Whitmore said:


> This is called line (step 2) and me and Jabari Nuruddin already learnt all the algs for it in 2014


I created my algo with my mind nothing computer.
My algo aren' t perfect when is a good work Line cases with algo.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 25, 2020)

I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 25, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.


but the step one is my work.



PapaSmurf said:


> I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.


They didnt invented a method, they have classificated cases.



PapaSmurf said:


> I mean it's exactly line. I know it's annoying when you put hard work into something that already exists, but that's life.


I create a method with two step. Step One is mine. Step two is Line.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 25, 2020)

What others are referring to is just the Line LL subset. That isn't an LL method. What is presented in this topic is a complete LL method. On the wiki, there is already a way for achieving this Line state and it's called 1LLLL. However, your method is the first to do it using only the LL and algs.

If you wanted to further increase your options and reduce the number of cases for step 1, you could look into the union system in my signature.


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 25, 2020)

Athefre said:


> What others are referring to is just the Line LL subset. That isn't an LL method. What is presented in this topic is a complete LL method. On the wiki, there is already a way for achieving this Line state and it's called 1LLLL. However, your method is the first to do it using only the LL and algs.
> 
> If you wanted to further increase your options and reduce the number of cases for step 1, you could look into the union system in my signature.


When My work is useless. I'm not an inventor of anything. I'm depressed.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 25, 2020)

Platform_ said:


> When My work is useless. I'm not an inventor of anything. I'm depressed.



No. You are the first to create this as an actual LL method. That is great. 1LLLL on the wiki requires creating a couple of pairs using the last slot and LL. Yours is a true LL method and is likely better.


----------



## Platform_ (Dec 25, 2020)

Athefre said:


> No. You are the first to create this as an actual LL method. That is great. 1LLLL on the wiki requires creating a couple of pairs using the last slot and LL. Yours is a true LL method and is likely better.


Ah ok is a good news I understand. But improve this is very hard, very hard.


----------



## qwr (Dec 25, 2020)

1LLLL? Have acronyms gone too far?


----------



## zimlit (Dec 26, 2020)

big cube method:
the first two steps are like hoya
but for the third step you solve two cross edges and two random edges
then after you solve the last two centers you orient the edges and while preserving t he line made in step three the solve it as zz + parity


----------



## The Pocket Cuber (Dec 27, 2020)

Alright I have a cool (may not be good), Pyraminx method I came up with when solving. It might be used to build up to intuitive top first solving. Hope you like 

Step 1: Create a backbone whilst orienting the RD and LD edges. (2 corners around one edge Piece) in the back of the Pyraminx To form a backbone. More detail on this is on the speedsolving wiki backbone method. Except what is different is that whilst we do the backbone in this method, you orient the RD and LD edge pieces simultaneously. To orient an edge piece on a Pyraminx, it should be able to be solved with only L and R moves. The recognition for this is difficult at first, but becomes better as you practise. To orient an unoriented edge piece, you can do a U or B move.

Both creating the backbone and orienting the RD and LD edge pieces are very easy to do together and can be seen in inspection. Normally, I’m fairly certain (though this is approximate and not recorded) that it takes on average 2-3 moves to do this step. Not many moves, just a lot of thinking.

Step 2: Solve the RD and LD edge pieces and the centres. At this point, only the R and L layers are unsolved. Because we oriented the two edges needing to be solved in the previous step, this step can be done with only R and L moves!!! This makes this step quick and intuitive. Example solves will provide more insight. But this step only takes around 5-7 moves (not sure though)

Step 3: L3E! Very quick and very easy. All the centres are solved so there is very easy recognition and no need for AUF’s.

Example solves:

1. U B' U B' R B' U B r b' u
inspection: y z’ y
Backbone and LD and RD: L’ U R U (u’ b’)
Reduction to L3E (solve RD and LD and centres): L R L R L
Step 3: U’ R U R’ L R’ L’ R (l’)

Moves: 17 (if only not a bad L3E) excluding tips

2. U' R' U B' L R U' B' l' r' b
inspection: z’
Step 1: R’ U’ B’ U (u b’)
Step 2: L R L R’ L’
Step 3: U R U’ R’ (r)

Moves: 13

3. B' U' L' B' U R' B' L R' b'
inspection: z’ y’
Step 1 (this solution helps step 2 a little so a few more moves): U R U’ L U’
Step 2: R L R (cancel into L3E)
Step 3: U L U’ (l)

11 moves


Notice how this method has no Pyraminx rotations....and..... is very very fingertrickable due to an only L and R phase in stel 2 and very rare b moves only in step 1. The movecount is generally what was shown in the example solves, however, usually a little less for step 1, and a little more for step 2. I’d say the average movecount is around 13-14. This method could be one-lookable maybe..... but definitely can be two looked. Hope you like it and open to feedback and constructive criticism!!!!

edit: This may look really complicated and difficult...but please open you eyes to it and try it if you are a fellow Pyraminx Solver. Even if you don’t wanna switch methods (I don’t want to switch to this either ahaha) it gives deeper insight to the technical aspects of the cube.


----------



## crazykitten499 (Dec 27, 2020)

2x2 method:

make side skipping 1 piece

valk slot the final corner

pbl


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 27, 2020)

The Pocket Cuber said:


> Alright I have a cool (may not be good), Pyraminx method I came up with when solving. It might be used to build up to intuitive top first solving. Hope you like
> 
> Step 1: Create a backbone whilst orienting the RD and LD edges. (2 corners around one edge Piece) in the back of the Pyraminx To form a backbone. More detail on this is on the speedsolving wiki backbone method. Except what is different is that whilst we do the backbone in this method, you orient the RD and LD edge pieces simultaneously. To orient an edge piece on a Pyraminx, it should be able to be solved with only L and R moves. The recognition for this is difficult at first, but becomes better as you practise. To orient an unoriented edge piece, you can do a U or B move.
> 
> ...



You could alternatively do backbone but EO of everything, L5E, but either way I think that this style of method is a lot more fun than the current ones, even if it's probably slower, which is kinda sucky.



crazykitten499 said:


> 2x2 method:
> 
> make side skipping 1 piece
> 
> ...



See: HD method.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 27, 2020)

Not sure if this is already proposed.
Cross with one LL edge
F2L
OLL
HKPLL
(Basically CFOP but cross is shorter because you can insert a random LL edge instead of the final cross edge.)

A ZZ variant:
EOCross with one LL edge.
F2L
COLL
L5EP


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 27, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> Not sure if this is already proposed.


it is , and it is called:


Cubing Forever said:


> HK


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 27, 2020)

For ZZ, that's called Portico (more accurately EODB, F2L, COLL, L5EP). For CFOP, it probably has been proposed too, but it's very similar to HK.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 27, 2020)

DNF_Cuber said:


> it is , and it is called:


It isn't HK. It's similar to it


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 27, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> It isn't HK. It's similar to it


So it is the same except you make sure an F2L edge isn't in DF?


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Dec 27, 2020)

Cubing Forever said:


> It isn't HK. It's similar to it


https://sites.google.com/view/hkmethod/3x3/variants/hkx
It uses HKOLLs instead of OLLs because algs are the same or better


----------



## crazykitten499 (Dec 27, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> See: HD method.


not quite the same because mine uses wv and pbl rather than lols and nll.

so less algs but ~20 moves.

i guess a HD/varasano hybrid


----------



## Ohmzitalibun (Dec 28, 2020)

I was looking around at the belt method, looking if there was a way it would be possible to make it faster. I realized most of the belt method is intuitive, so maybe if we develop an algorithm set that will skip piece placement, and both parities

*Here is how a imagine a solve would be:*
1. Create the belt
2. Preform algorithm that will place the pieces in the right place, and solve any parities.
3. OLL/PLL top
4. OLL/PLL bottom


I don't think there would be many algorithms, maybe around 60 because the edges can be in any place.

Please share your ideas and maybe I could develop an algorithm set for this. I feel like if this will be done it would be a very efficient method.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Dec 28, 2020)

What if we treat it like after cubeshape on square one?

Sent from my Samsung microwave.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 28, 2020)

Ohmzitalibun said:


> I was looking around at the belt method, looking if there was a way it would be possible to make it faster. I realized most of the belt method is intuitive, so maybe if we develop an algorithm set that will skip piece placement, and both parities
> 
> *Here is how a imagine a solve would be:*
> 1. Create the belt
> ...


This is still completely inferior to any fast method. The problem with belt like this is that 2 LLs suck. The other problem is that you remove a lot of quarter turns (which are faster as you travel less distance). For example, CFOP's movecount isn't anything to shout home about, yet is very fast from having a lot of quarter turns. You don't get that with belt.


----------



## Nir1213 (Dec 28, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is still completely inferior to any fast method. The problem with belt like this is that 2 LLs suck. The other problem is that you remove a lot of quarter turns (which are faster as you travel less distance). For example, CFOP's movecount isn't anything to shout home about, yet is very fast from having a lot of quarter turns. You don't get that with belt.


true. Half turns might be a small time loss against Quarter turns, but they add up really fast.


----------



## qwr (Dec 29, 2020)

I'm a bit sad I never had the wits to come up with my own cubing method and just looked up the pogobat tutorial like everyone else.
So I vowed to create my own method that wasn't CFOP or Roux. The goal was to use minimal algorithms and only easy algorithms I came up with myself, but the method ends up kind of long-winded and I was too lazy to finish it. It's really just a mashup of all the basic cubing stuff I already know. Disclaimer: I came up with it last night after not being able to sleep and playing with the cube on my dresser next to my bed.

1. F2L slots
Solve four F2L pairs on white bottom but without the cross. This is done intuitively although basic knowledge of F2L would make it easy.

2. Orient top corners
Beginner's method: move over each corner over the front right slot and repeat R' D' R D until its solved. Yeah not very original. But at least I can vaguely justify why it works: the corners have orientation invariant that is always preserved no matter what moves are made.

3. Permute top corners
This follows my cuboid method. (R2 D' R2 D)2 R2 does a adjacent corner swap on top and diagonal corner swap on bottom. Thus to swap the two front top corners, use the algorithm twice with U moves in between: (R2 D' R2 D)2 R2 U (R2 D' R2 D)2 R2 U'. Now "columns" are solved.


4. Edge Orientation
Here's where it gets a little complicated. Of the unsolved white or yellow edges, an even number of them are "bad edges": edges where white or yellow is not facing up or down but to the side. If there's two or six bad edges, I believe either a M or S slice move can convert it to a zero, four, or eight bad edges case, but I'm not sure.
Then line up three bad edges on top and one on bottom: left top, front top, right top, and front bottom, and do M' U M U' do flip the four bad edges into good edges. This might require some setup moves, including U, D, R, and then undoing them.

5. Top/bottom faces
Now we solve yellow edges on top and white edges on bottom. There are two algorithms: (R2 F2)3 swaps front and right edges of top/bottom, and (M2 U2)3 swaps front and back edges of top/bottom. Again solved intuitively: swap top and bottom edges until there's a similar pattern on top and bottom and then do one of the algs one more time.

6. ???
At this point I realized I might as well just do first two blocks in the beginning and do roux. I've come to the conclusion that I haven't had an original 3x3 thought in my life. Everything is just what I already know.



bonus: horrendous H perm
(R2 F2)3 U (R2 F2)3 U2 (R2 F2)3 U2 (R2 F2)3 U (R2 F2)3 U2


----------



## RadicalMacaroni (Dec 29, 2020)

this has been invented many times


----------



## qwr (Dec 29, 2020)

RadicalMacaroni said:


> this has been invented many times



wow I totally didn't realize that... /s


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Dec 29, 2020)

i invented something pretty similar in the past lol


----------



## qwr (Dec 29, 2020)

Alex Davison said:


> i invented something pretty similar in the past lol



i am convinced this is my life
i have never done anything original in my life! makes me sad. i think i peaked in creativity in middle school. as i get older, i try to relive something vaguely better from the past. my hobbies nowadays are the same as they were 10 years ago.
i should take my meds. i forgot to in the past few days


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 29, 2020)

qwr said:


> i am convinced this is my life
> i have never done anything original in my life! makes me sad. i think i peaked in creativity in middle school. as i get older, i try to relive something vaguely better from the past. my hobbies nowadays are the same as they were 10 years ago.
> i should take my meds. i forgot to in the past few days


don't get into a rut. 
Unless it is about how my solving skills are far superior to those of yours!


----------



## EngiNerdBrian (Dec 29, 2020)

qwr said:


> i am convinced this is my life
> i have never done anything original in my life! makes me sad.


Don't stress it. True originality is merely a myth anymore. All the ideas and concepts we dream up these days are merely modifications or constructions of ideas created by standing on the pillars of knowledge shared by all the humans before us. Mark Twain wrote this pretty cool letter to Hellen Keller once on the subject. The terms "plagiarism" and "originality" are synonymous in terms of "take aways" for this particular writing.

IMO we often get discouraged because we "Invent" something only to find out it's been done before. But no! This conclusion is accepted with fault. The truth is that although you didn't *"INVENT" *a method you did *DISCOVER *it through your own conscious reasoning...That my friend is an accomplishment! In this digital age we often forget to ask why? We forget to wonder. We forget to think for ourselves. We research instead of create. You pondered and conceptualized a method by means of your own thinking! That's cool. 

I hold this perspective mainly from my engineering background. Everything I do will have already been done before. All of the structures I will design in my lifetime will rely on principles already used and documented by others. I will design a bridge girder feel accomplished and then find out my boss already did the same thing in half the time. BUT I DID INDEED DO IT MYSELF! To truly understand something and be able to apply and organize those thoughts in to methods/ideas/concepts/calculations/writings/or actions I think it one of life's greatest joys. 

Don't beat yourself up too much. To actually sit and try and create a cube method is something the vast majority of cubers will never do. Tons of kids with amazing finger dexterity and brains like sponges (i.e. very young) will be quick to tell you it's been done before though. It sort of a downfall of this community; we all act like we're hot sh!t because of our times but in reality most of us are just regurgitating moves we learned on YouTube instead of truly indulging in the puzzling essence of solving like you've done in your method exploration here. Below is the Mark Twain thing I referenced. 

"Oh, dear me, how unspeakably funny and owlishly idiotic and grotesque was that “plagiarism” farce! As if there was much of anything in any human utterance, oral or written, except plagiarism! The kernel, the soul—let us go further and say the substance, the bulk, the actual and valuable material of all human utterances—is plagiarism. For substantially all ideas are secondhand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral caliber and his temperament, and which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. When a great orator makes a great speech, you are listening to ten centuries and ten thousand men—but we call it _his_ speech, and really some exceedingly small portion of it _is_ his. But not enough to signify. It is merely a Waterloo. It is Wellington’s battle, in some degree, and we call it his; but there are others that contributed. It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone, or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit, and we forget the others. He added his little mite—that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that."


----------



## qwr (Dec 29, 2020)

@EngiNerdBrian thank you for your perspective. I think I was a little carried away in my own evaluation - part of my frustration is that since I learned to solve the cube when I was much younger, I didn't give myself the chance to discover anything on my own. I re-thought about it from a mathematics or CS research point of view and I'm always reminded of the Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Even the people who do cutting-edge research are usually doing it in the margins, in the grand scheme of things extending humanity's knowledge a little bit into the unknown. People who truly contribute something fresh are rare and I have to be realistic in acknowledging that.

For now I think I'll move on from 3x3 and think about my 2x3x3 cuboid, mixup cube, or my FTO, both of which have received a lot less attention. The ideas I made up with my 3x3 can probably carry onto my 2x3x3 because my method was cuboid (2x2x3) / square-1 inspired with mainly R2 moves.


----------



## EngiNerdBrian (Dec 29, 2020)

qwr said:


> @EngiNerdBrian thank you for your perspective. I think I was a little carried away in my own evaluation - part of my frustration is that since I learned to solve the cube when I was much younger, I didn't give myself the chance to discover anything on my own. I re-thought about it from a mathematics or CS research point of view and I'm always reminded of the Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Even the people who do cutting-edge research are usually doing it in the margins, in the grand scheme of things extending humanity's knowledge a little bit into the unknown. People who truly contribute something fresh are rare and I have to be realistic in acknowledging that.
> 
> For now I think I'll move on from 3x3 and think about my 2x3x3 cuboid, mixup cube, or my FTO, both of which have received a lot less attention. The ideas I made up with my 3x3 can probably carry onto my 2x3x3 because my method was cuboid (2x2x3) / square-1 inspired with mainly R2 moves.


I totally know where you’re coming from. This same frustration is why I enjoy non wca puzzling so much. I try and solve all my non-wca puzzles intuitively. While my solution is often just applying commutators, 3-cycling edges, orienting corners with beginners method, it is still highly rewarding to connect the dots and apply the knowledge to something other than 3x3...especially because I like you didn’t do the discovery phase of 3x3 but just learned algs/methods/solutions from pamphlets/books/internet.


----------



## Abendregen (Jan 1, 2021)

I had an idea for a method for 2x2, partly inspired by Ortega, but i don't know if it is feasible or efficient.
I have no idea whether this already exists, but i haven't found any method yet that works like this.

So, there are 2 steps:
OBL (Orient Both Layers): Orients the top and bottom face using only one algorithm.
PBL (Permute Both Layers): Similar, to Ortega, permutes both layers into a solved state with one Algorithm.

Pros:
- All algorithms, no intuition. Leaving things to muscle memory is often faster and more reliable than intuition
- Recognition. OBL Recognition can be done in Inspection, while PBL recognition should be fast and can be done mid-solve.
- Speed. Uses only 2 algorithms to solve the cube.

Cons:
- Potentially big OBL algorithm set. I have no idea how many algorithms for OBL exist.



Do you think that such method could exist? If yes, would it be good for speedsolving?
(Name idea: O-PBL)


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Jan 1, 2021)

Sounds like a lot of unergonomic hard to recognize cases.


----------



## Abendregen (Jan 1, 2021)

DNF_Cuber said:


> Sounds like a lot of unergonomic hard to recognize cases.


OBL or PBL?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 1, 2021)

Abendregen said:


> OBL or PBL?


OBL, probably. There would be hundreds, if not thousands of cases, I think.


----------



## Mo_A2244 (Jan 1, 2021)

Abendregen said:


> I had an idea for a method for 2x2, partly inspired by Ortega, but i don't know if it is feasible or efficient.
> I have no idea whether this already exists, but i haven't found any method yet that works like this.
> 
> So, there are 2 steps:
> ...


It sounds pretty good, but in terms of learning the algs, that'll be painful learning AND recognising them. But some people are dedicated I guess...


----------



## Abendregen (Jan 1, 2021)

Mo_A2244 said:


> It sounds pretty good, but in terms of learning the algs, that'll be painful learning AND recognising them. But some people are dedicated I guess...


OBL recognition generally wouldn't be a problem since there's inspection and PBL should be easy (i think?)


----------



## Mo_A2244 (Jan 1, 2021)

Abendregen said:


> OBL recognition generally wouldn't be a problem since there's inspection and PBL should be easy (i think?)


Maybe, but considering the thousand of algs you have to learn, it'll take maybe years to get the recognition on point for every solve. Good idea overall, but not sure its for the majority of people.


----------



## Abendregen (Jan 1, 2021)

Mo_A2244 said:


> Maybe, but considering the thousand of algs you have to learn, it'll take maybe years to get the recognition on point for every solve. Good idea overall, but not sure its for the majority of people.


yeah, i guess most people prefer intuition over hundreds of algorithms


----------



## Abendregen (Jan 1, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> OBL, probably. There would be hundreds, if not thousands of cases, I think.


I could try to run something like a 2x2 version of cube explorer, but i dont think that something like that exists


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 1, 2021)

"OBL" as in orienting all the pieces: This has around 50 cases, mostly 4-5 moves. The "PBL" step then includes cases where pieces are in the wrong layers, which has many more cases than the normal PBL and is also harder to recognise on the fly.

"OBL" as in separating first-layer and last-layer pieces, and also orienting all of them: _Lots_ of cases if you want to approach this algorithmically. Probably thousands.

You may also want to look into the Guimond method.


----------



## Abendregen (Jan 1, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> "OBL" as in orienting all the pieces: This has around 50 cases, mostly 4-5 moves. The "PBL" step then includes cases where pieces are in the wrong layers, which has many more cases than the normal PBL and is also harder to recognise on the fly.
> 
> "OBL" as in separating first-layer and last-layer pieces, and also orienting all of them: _Lots_ of cases if you want to approach this algorithmically. Probably thousands.
> 
> You may also want to look into the Guimond method.


thousands? i didn't expect it to be this huge. OBL on square-1 is about 80 cases, so i thought that OBL on 2x2 wouldn't be larger than 150 algs.


----------



## ender9994 (Jan 1, 2021)

Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt. 

OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.


----------



## Abendregen (Jan 1, 2021)

ender9994 said:


> Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.
> 
> OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.


What i proposed was orienting pieces in their correct faces. And idk if predicting OLL with ortega is the same thing, since that is 2 algs, not 1.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 1, 2021)

ender9994 said:


> Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.
> 
> OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.


After a bit of work, predicting OLL after first face becomes really easy, you can even get to the point where you try to cancel moves from your first face into the OLL, then after that, there are only 5 simple PBL algs (probably more like 20 if you want to do it rotationless). I’m to the point with Ortega where I can predict the OLL when the first side is 4 moves or less. This method would just be counting the first side and OLL as one step. Putting each piece oriented on its correct face would be a lot of algs, you would just be better off using Ortega.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Jan 1, 2021)

You could just to a bar and then do mehta 6CO and 6CP


----------



## Silky (Jan 1, 2021)

DNF_Cuber said:


> You could just to a bar and then do mehta 6CO and 6CP


That's pretty much just the SOAP Method.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Jan 1, 2021)

EG is pretty much perfect already, especially if you know things like LEG-1


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Jan 1, 2021)

Alex Davison said:


> EG is pretty much perfect already, especially if you know things like LEG-1


yeah, and there's a few other viable A2 subsets.


----------



## Zarxrax (Jan 1, 2021)

This method has already been thought of and is called G-FASSST. Well over 500 orientation algorithms.

It's the first 2 steps of Guimond combined, which is pretty pointless because with normal Guimond you can see that much in the inspection anyway.


----------



## qwr (Jan 2, 2021)

my gut feeling is that for many puzzles you start with intuitive moves (cross or first face or first layer or blocks) to greatly reduce the complexity the positioning of the pieces since at the start you have lots of freedom to not worry about messing up solved pieces. So for 3x3 you could work out algs for every possible cross but it's just easier to do it intuitively


----------



## efattah (Jan 2, 2021)

If you set up the orientation step so that it does not affect permutation, then you would be able to 1-look the permutation phase and this would unquestionably result in the easiest 1-look 2x2 method, even if it wasn't the most efficient or fewest algorithms.
Unfortunately, the permutation step will have the same problem as ortega permutation, which is a lot of U2/R2/D2/F2/L2 moves which aren't great.


----------



## qwr (Jan 2, 2021)

ender9994 said:


> Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.
> 
> OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.


Yeah most of the time in ortega you only need 4 moves so you can (with practice) easily predict OLL. In fact 3 or 2 moves are pretty common too since you only need to make one face and not one whole layer.


----------



## Jam88 (Jan 2, 2021)

efattah said:


> If you set up the orientation step so that it does not affect permutation, then you would be able to 1-look the permutation phase and this would unquestionably result in the easiest 1-look 2x2 method, even if it wasn't the most efficient or fewest algorithms.
> Unfortunately, the permutation step will have the same problem as ortega permutation, which is a lot of U2/R2/D2/F2/L2 moves which aren't great.


Are you trying to say that R2 F2 R2 or R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 are bad algs?
IMO they are some of the best 2x2 ones.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Jan 2, 2021)

Jam88 said:


> Are you trying to say that R2 F2 R2 or R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 are bad algs?
> IMO they are some of the best 2x2 ones.


R2 F2 R2 (or R2 B2 R2, they're basically the same) are good algs.
R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 is awful imo


----------



## Jam88 (Jan 2, 2021)

Alex Davison said:


> R2 F2 R2 (or R2 B2 R2, they're basically the same) are good algs.
> R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 is awful imo


I can sub 0.4 it


----------



## ABCubeTutor (Jan 2, 2021)

since this is the thread for new methods, i'm going to again mention the ABCube Method:
https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ABCube_Method

which i just posted little over a week ago. 

it is a direct solve for all complexity cubes, uses two patterns instead of memorizing algorithms, undoes parity instead of solving it, and is designed for beginners and non-cubers instead of speedcubers, but can be solved in any order of operations, so it can solve your last step, regardless of what your last step is.

thanks for your time and attention.


----------



## carcass (Jan 2, 2021)

I just found a new, probably not as good alg for an oll case, should that go on this thread or a "new alg thread"? I couldn't find a thread about new algs specifically.

EDIT: maybe an experimental alg thread would be better, like a know alg that might have an unknown purpose, or maybe someone just wanted to know if an alg was good or not


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Jan 2, 2021)

carcass said:


> I just found a new, probably not as good alg for an oll case, should that go on this thread or a "new alg thread"? I couldn't find a thread about new algs specifically.
> 
> EDIT: maybe an experimental alg thread would be better, like a know alg that might have an unknown purpose, or maybe someone just wanted to know if an alg was good or not











A Collection of Algorithms


Here you can find algorithms to solve many different situations on the cube. If you have an algorithm you want to add, simply click on the link, and click on "Edit" at the top of the page, find the according case, and add it. Be sure to follow the syntax of the page before adding an algorithm...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## LukasCubes (Jan 4, 2021)

@efattah you are gonna love this

5x5 CORNERS FIRST!

The method is called 5CF Method and it is of 7 steps.

1. Corners (duh)
2. White and Yellow Centers (Dont mess up the corners)
3. 1 Layer minus an edge pair
4. 3 but on other side
5. Edge Pairing
6. Roux LSE
7. Last 4 Centers (L4C)

Yeah I know it is bad now and is not a god method but I think it has the potential to BECOME a god method. Below is a list of the steps and pictures for this method.

Step 1: Corners

Well it is a corners first method after all isn't it?

Step 2: White and Yellow centers

You need both of these solved without scrambling the corners. I would mainly use slice moves for this step. Some outer layer turns and wide moves are allowed as well.

Step 3: Waterman 1st Layer

So this is where you pair 3 edge pairs from one of the sides with an already solved center then you solve them.

Step 4: Step 3 but on other layer and you dont mess up 1st layer

Uh yeah so this is Waterman but on a 5x5 now. In all seriousness, just pair up the exact same edges you did for the other side and its easier to do Roux LSE (Which is step 6)

Step 5: Edge Pairing

This is the step that makes me think this has more potential than the other cubes will with this method. anyway, parity is a thing here but you can figure that out yourself. This works intuitively (other than parity).

Step 6: Roux LSE

This means just solve all the rest of the edges and the center-centers. Now all you have left (If you bothered to try) is the Last 4 Centers.

Step 7: L4C

Yeah the picture is much smaller than the others. L4C stands for Last 4 Centers. Just solve the centers with commutators and some algs and you are done. That is the method.

LINKS:
Wiki: reworking since renamed to BCCF

Discord: https://discord.gg/96wSZXQxqn

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/5CFmethod/


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 4, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> @efattah you are gonna love this
> 
> 5x5 CORNERS FIRST!
> 
> ...


Please don’t make a new thread. Nothing is going to beat Yau and Redux, so you can just post it here, and if anybody (for some weird reason) wants to switch to it, they can go back and find it.


----------



## MJS Cubing (Jan 4, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> It's like petrus but with EO(Flip side cross) before 223 but after 222


It's easier to just make a cross on each side and solve the corners. I would guess most people would have an easier time making a cross and lining it up with the corners, unless the solve with petrus, then maybe you have a point.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jan 4, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Please don’t make a new thread. Nothing is going to beat Yau and Redux, so you can just post it here, and if anybody (for some weird reason) wants to switch to it, they can go back and find it.


Alright, I am still making a new thread about it since other methods that arent the best (with the exception ZB) have their own discussion thread thing as well so I figured I might be able to do it too to make the method more well known. Right now the only 3 people that aint me have heard of the method dont know how to use it. My 9 year old cousin, Derpy Cuber, and Blobinati Central are the only other people to have heard of the method I think. They said they will learn it on a few conditions. Blobinati Central wants me to make a google docs which wont happen, Derpy Cuber wants me to get a sub-2 minute solve (2:41.481 is my 5CF PB), and My cousin dont know how to solve a 5x5.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 4, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> Alright, I am still making a new thread about it since other methods that arent the best (with the exception ZB) have their own discussion thread thing as well so I figured I might be able to do it too to make the method more well known. Right now the only 3 people that aint me have heard of the method dont know how to use it. My 9 year old cousin, Derpy Cuber, and Blobinati Central are the only other people to have heard of the method I think. They said they will learn it on a few conditions. Blobinati Central wants me to make a google docs which wont happen, Derpy Cuber wants me to get a sub-2 minute solve (2:41.481 is my 5CF PB), and My cousin dont know how to solve a 5x5.


Did you pressure Derpy on his stream to learn it, then he “gave in” just to get you to stop bugging him? And this method is bad. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, sometimes you just have to give up and try again. Also, do a couple hundred solves with a new method, and at least gen one or two sets of algs for it before you actually say something, just to see if it’s good or not.


----------



## Jam88 (Jan 4, 2021)

This didnt need a new threda. This is essentially a worse version of the abcube method




__





ABCube Method - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com




All links at bottom of that


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 4, 2021)

Firstly, there’s so many times where you will be messing up stuff that you’ve already solved (steps 3-6). You’ll then just have to solve it again later, which essentially turns it into a Redux-like method. Secondly, do you know how long the center comms at the end take? Forever. Anytime you use comms, the method is going to be really slow.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jan 4, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Firstly, there’s so many times where you will be messing up stuff that you’ve already solved (steps 3-6). You’ll then just have to solve it again later, which essentially turns it into a Redux-like method. Secondly, do you know how long the center comms at the end take? Forever. Anytime you use comms, the method is going to be really slow.


well yeah thats how commutators and algorithms work, you mess up what you have for like 3 moves then you resolve them easily


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 4, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> well yeah thats how commutators and algorithms work, you mess up what you have for like 3 moves then you resolve them easily


I’m pretty sure any PLL isn’t 5 moves long, and you still didn’t address that comms take forever, especially big cube center comms.


----------



## Scollier (Jan 4, 2021)

I like any new idea and the creativity to create a whole new way of solving. It does not matter if the method is way worse than other methods, it is still interesting. You all are just shattering creativity.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 4, 2021)

Scollier said:


> I like any new idea the the creativity to create a whole new way of solving. It does not matter if the method is way worse than other methods, it is still interesting. You all are just shattering creativity.


Why does the Wiki say that it’s meant for speedsolving, then? You can’t speedsolve with this method.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jan 4, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> I’m pretty sure any PLL isn’t 5 moves long, and you still didn’t address that comms take forever, especially big cube center comms.


yeah maybe but i can find better algs/commutators later



Scollier said:


> I like any new idea and the creativity to create a whole new way of solving. It does not matter if the method is way worse than other methods, it is still interesting. You all are just shattering creativity.


Yay thanks



BenChristman1 said:


> Why does the Wiki say that it’s meant for speedsolving, then? You can’t speedsolve with this method.


If I can break 3 minutes twice per day with this method, I consider that speedsolving.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 5, 2021)

Do you think it has potential because it genuinely could or because you made it? It's very similar to all the Roux big cube methods, and all of them aren't great for speedsolving (apart from Meyer) and none of them are good, not because the creators did a bad job, but because Redux/Yau are better. I do think direct solving has potential (see: K4, my direct solving method from late September), but even though one of those methods is mine, I'm pretty sure Yau is still better. The reason they're bad is because either cage is bad (which is what your method falls under) or M slice block building is bad, or there's no good way to do edge pairing for LSE. There might be, and that's where the search should be IMO, so I'd encourage you to search there, but with F2B->CMLL instead of corners->finish blocks.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jan 5, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> Do you think it has potential because it genuinely could or because you made it? It's very similar to all the Roux big cube methods, and all of them aren't great for speedsolving (apart from Meyer) and none of them are good, not because the creators did a bad job, but because Redux/Yau are better. I do think direct solving has potential (see: K4, my direct solving method from late September), but even though one of those methods is mine, I'm pretty sure Yau is still better. The reason they're bad is because either cage is bad (which is what your method falls under) or M slice block building is bad, or there's no good way to do edge pairing for LSE. There might be, and that's where the search should be IMO, so I'd encourage you to search there, but with F2B->CMLL instead of corners->finish blocks.


I think it genuinely has potential. Yes this is similar to Roux big cube methods and has alot of slice moves. You can get the first step done in under 3 seconds consistently if high order cubers like Feliks and Max tries this (They wont try it lol). You can find efficient ways to solve it this method. My PB is 2:34.49 and I average sub-20 on 3x3.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 8, 2021)

I found l2l4 algs in the waybackmachine if anyone is interested





__





stachu | L2L4






web.archive.org




cubertscubicle


----------



## Athefre (Jan 8, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I found l2l4 algs in the waybackmachine if anyone is interested
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These links are already on the wiki. It's good to see that there's still some interest in this series of methods. But this reminds me. I should update the L5EP wiki page to have Duncan Dicks as the proposer of the four on LL + one on middle layer L5EP and me as the four on LL + one on bottom layer L5EP.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 8, 2021)

Athefre said:


> These links are already on the wiki. It's good to see that there's still some interest in this series of methods. But this reminds me. I should update the L5EP wiki page to have Duncan Dicks as the proposer of the four on LL + one on middle layer L5EP and me as the four on LL + one on bottom layer L5EP.


if you'll update the wiki please update the links because the link to stachu site is broken, that's how I got the wayback machine link


----------



## Athefre (Jan 8, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> if you'll update the wiki please update the links because the link to stachu site is broken, that's how I got the wayback machine link



Oh yeah. I'll add the archive.org version. Thanks for pointing that out. There are so many broken links on the wiki because people left the community and their sites were deleted.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 8, 2021)

L2L methods are so interesting, but there's no good way to do it easily or well from what I've looked at so far.


----------



## Athefre (Jan 8, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> L2L methods are so interesting, but there's no good way to do it easily or well from what I've looked at so far.



Very interesting for sure. I think it was the first method that contained the concept of finishing as much of the puzzle as possible using only algorithms. Duncan even talks a little about this on his site. This concept has gained some popularity recently, so it may be worth revisiting again. Years ago Stachu and Kirjava put a lot of effort into making it a competitive method. Their work didn't manage to catch on. However, with some modern techniques, maybe the perfect set of steps can be found.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 9, 2021)

I hope so. It's such a cool idea that it would be a shame for it to be ignored/forgotten.


----------



## Platform_ (Jan 19, 2021)

I don't use CFOP I use CFP cross+F2L+Platform(step one building a lateral face example blue with two angle and one edge oriented, step two oriented and permutation last 5 pieces)
my average 22.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 19, 2021)

Platform_ said:


> I don't use CFOP I use CFP cross+F2L+Platform(step one building a lateral face example blue with two angle and one edge oriented, step two oriented and permutation last 5 pieces)
> my average 22.


I’m not sure what you mean but it sounds a lot like tripod


----------



## TheSlykrCubr (Jan 19, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> I’m not sure what you mean but it sounds a lot like tripod



It's basically solve 1x3x3, then line subset of 1lll


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 19, 2021)

TheSlykrCubr said:


> It's basically solve 1x3x3, then line subset of 1lll


Oh the P shape OLLs. Yeah that makes sense now. From my experience going through Tripod, it’s 100% not worth it for speed. The extra step of building something on the LL is so much slower. I think the alg sets have potential for CFOP though since recognition is easy.


----------



## Athefre (Jan 19, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> Oh the P shape OLLs. Yeah that makes sense now. From my experience going through Tripod, it’s 100% not worth it for speed. The extra step of building something on the LL is so much slower. I think the alg sets have potential for CFOP though since recognition is easy.



If this is the same method that Platform_ posted a month or two ago, it is an LL method. The 1x1x3 isn't intuitively built. Instead, it is a two step LL method. So it shouldn't be much different from OLL+PLL for speedsolving.

I might add your LL method to the wiki when I find time. It's just a matter of figuring out how to handle it. There are already two pages on the wiki with ways to achieve the 1x1x3 on LL state. So we should decide the best name to call this. The common name is Line LL. Your method name is Platform.


----------



## abunickabhi (Jan 19, 2021)

CFP sounds like a nice CFOP variant.


----------



## Rookieboy (Jan 19, 2021)

Here's the overview of the subset I came up with yesterday:
This is a last slot subset that I'm proposing for Roux. This is based on the Pinky Pie variant that Alex Lau termed as the future of Roux. And honestly, I agree. Even without Pinky Pie, Roux rivals CFOP in every way in speedsolving but to really unlock even more of its potential, Roux needs to rejuvenate itself with even more great subsets and algorithms that can further shorten solutions without hurting lookahead. This subset, which I call the SLS (Sharma Last Slot/Sexy Last Slot) is my attempt to do that. This won't be that much of use to beginner solvers but for advanced solvers who are willing to learn OLLCP, using this subset can easily break many records as it leads to 2-8 move LSE solutions very consistently, helping Roux finally surpass CFOP in the near future.

Here's an overview of Pinky Pie + SLS :
1. First Block
2. Second Block minus FR pair
3. SLS (Place and orient LR edges on the D layer while inserting the last pair with an alg)
4. OLLCP
5. LSE 4c

As you can see, this will always give you a 4a and 4b skip.

The number of algs for the R U' R' insert is 60.
There are 60 more algs for the R U R' insert but I haven't generated them yet. If anyone wants to generate them, they can do so and name them as they wish.

*The R U' R' algs can be found in this spreadsheet*: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NDMwBZESHmc9Y2sBmd7y9go45YbN3hQx-6z0D00mIyE/edit?usp=sharing

Any constructive feedback is appreciated


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 19, 2021)

Athefre said:


> If this is the same method that Platform_ posted a month or two ago, it is an LL method. The 1x1x3 isn't intuitively built. Instead, it is a two step LL method. So it shouldn't be much different from OLL+PLL for speedsolving.


Ah okay cool. I don’t think I saw/read the post so that’s cool to hear.


----------



## Platform_ (Jan 19, 2021)

Athefre said:


> I might add your LL method to the wiki when I find time. It's just a matter of figuring out how to handle it. There are already two pages on the wiki with ways to achieve the 1x1x3 on LL state. So we should decide the best name to call this. The common name is Line LL. Your method name is Platform.


ok you can add better call platform.



Athefre said:


> I might add your LL method to the wiki when I find time. It's just a matter of figuring out how to handle it. There are already two pages on the wiki with ways to achieve the 1x1x3 on LL state. So we should decide the best name to call this. The common name is Line LL. Your method name is Platform.


My guide I invented this method. I'm Riccardo Munaro.



Platform_ said:


> My guide I invented this method. I'm Riccardo Munaro.


some errors in the guide.


----------



## Nir1213 (Jan 19, 2021)

Platform_ said:


> some errors in the guide.


you can edit the post next time which is on the bottom left of your original post, its better than posting multiple times


----------



## Platform_ (Jan 19, 2021)

The perfect layer method is CFL Cross+F2L+Last(resolution all cases Last Layer) I know the existence: Line,ZBLL,ELL,PLL.
I use only Line, something case Line is a PLL.
I use 96 algo, 25 for create case Line and 71 for solving cases Line.
CFOP is no good for this because if you make OLL you dont complete Last Layer in one algo.
How many cases exist for LL?
CFP(Cross+F2L+Platform) and CFOP (Cross+F2L+OLL+PLL) are emplifications to the perfect method CFL.
In CFL no utility building case Line or building case PLL because I want solve all case LL with one algo.
Exist a project to create CFL?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jan 19, 2021)

Platform_ said:


> The perfect layer method is CFL Cross+F2L+Last(resolution all cases Last Layer) I know the existence: Line,ZBLL,ELL,PLL.
> I use only Line, something case Line is a PLL.
> I use 96 algo, 25 for create case Line and 71 for solving cases Line.
> CFOP is no good for this because if you make OLL you dont complete Last Layer in one algo.
> ...


Already done








1LLL.pdf







drive.google.com


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 19, 2021)

Please stop posting pointless threads. Your platform one (CFP) should've been a profile post and this is a very old idea. Do research before just thinking of something. Also, for actually new ideas, there's the new method/substep/concept thread.


----------



## Delta Phi (Jan 19, 2021)

For a while I've been interested in pursuing Pinkie Pie, but have been prohibited by not knowing full OLLCP yet. However, today I bit the bullet and started using it in speedsolves with a multi-look substitute which I think may be useful to others interested who do not know OLLCP. Here are some different ways of doing it that can be tried:

OELL/OCLL/PCLL. By far the least number of algs at 12, with 3 to orient edges (OELL), 7 to orient the corners (OCLL), and 2 to permute the corners (PCLL). Any current Roux user should be able to pick this way up in no time, and is always a reliable backup option when you forget/are in the process of learning an alg.
OELL/COLL: At 45 algs, this is also a rather economical option, especially if you already know many COLLs. About half the time I use this way, and the other half of the time i use the 3-look way for COLLs I don't know from CMLL.
CLL/OELL: Also 45 algs, and the same as OELL/COLL except the order is reversed. This would be good if you dont wish to learn COLLs, and already know a lot of CLLs from learning CMLL for Roux, and your CLL recog is good, but I personally feel faster doing EO before without worrying about which of my CMLLs mess with the DF edge.
OLL/PCLL: 59 algs, but great if you happen to already know OLL from CFOP.
PCLL/2GOLL: 59 algs, might not be a terrible idea. Basically you have to solve OLL RrUM gen or using SuneOLLs to preserve CP. I can't imagine anybody would find this the easiest way to get started though.
OEPCLL/OCLL: idk how many algs this would be, or how to recog it. There's really no good excuse to try this. 
Once you know one of the 2-look ways, you can learn the OLLCPs at your own pace without worrying about not being able to do real pinkie pie solves. Hope this helps someone out there just champing at the bit to switch to pinkie pie!


----------



## MuaazCubes (Jan 20, 2021)

I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux, 

1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.

2. Make 2 edges on the bottom layer (ex. white green edge and white blue edge)

3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.

4. Now solve the last layer with standard OLL and PLL algorithms.

I just thought of this up, have to use it some more to see if it's good or not. and I hope I explained it well.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Jan 20, 2021)

MuaazCubes said:


> 3. You've now reduced the cube to 2 gen, so you can make the last cross piece and 2 F2L pairs.


The cube won't necessarily be 2-gen because the edges are most likely not oriented. If you add a step where you orient all edges then you basically have a Petrus variant. However it still will be worse than Petrus because building a 1x2x3 block then inserting remaining 2 edges is much less efficient than making a 2x2x2 block then extending it to 2x2x3


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Jan 20, 2021)

MuaazCubes said:


> I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux,
> 
> 1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.
> 
> ...


That is just LEOR without EO.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 20, 2021)

MuaazCubes said:


> I don't know if someone has already done this, but the method is a hybrid between cfop and roux,
> 
> 1. Make a 1x2x3 block (like a roux first block) You can know only use R, Rw, M, and U moves.
> 
> ...



You can't do Step 3 2-gen unless EO has been finished, and can only do Steps 3 & 4 2-gen if you do EO and CP


----------



## Vitaliy Sokolov (Jan 21, 2021)

Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
I named it *Fork Last Layer (FLL)*, and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.

*Standard 3LLL *(2-look OLL+full PLL)

Cons:
- 21 complex algs for full PLL;
- 21 cases for PLL recognition.

*Fork last layer *(full version)


*Fork Last Layer* (PLL reduction version)


Edge Fork - is double state - 50% solving Edge and 50% solving with 2 opposite Edge Permutation.
EFLL - Edge Fork of the Last Layer
OCLL-EFP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Fork Permutation
OCLL-EPP - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Edge Permutation Preserved
OCLL- OES - Orient Corners of the Last Layer - Opposite Edge Swap

FLL pro:

Simple finger tricks (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs consist fast «sexy» and Sune variations);
Simple recognition for all 3 steps;
In 2/3 cases CPLL has short (9 moves) algorithms (A-perms);
1/12 probability CPLL skip.
FLL cons:

Cannot be extended to 2-look method;
For Cross with adjacent color cases not have 2-look solving, only 3-look solving (but you can pre-look OCLL-EPP)



Spoiler: Step 1 EFLL



*Step 1EFLL *






Spoiler: Step 2 OCLL-EFP (sexy/sune algs)



*Step 2 OCLL-EFP
*





Spoiler: Step 2 OCLL-EFP (many algs)









Spoiler: Step 3 CPLL



*Step 3 CPLL
*


----------



## Scollier (Jan 21, 2021)

Vitaliy Sokolov said:


> Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
> I named it *Fork Last Layer (FLL)*, and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
> Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
> I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.
> ...



Wow this is really interesting! It looks like you put a lot of work into it! Also, welcome to the forums!


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 21, 2021)

Vitaliy Sokolov said:


> Hello all! After all 4LLL method and all 3LLL methods (2look OLL+PLL, LLEF/OCLL-EPP/CPLL (BLL), EOLL/СOLL/CPLL) i compile own simple 3-look layer (3LLL) method with fast recognition and simple algs (only 8 original algs, other 20 algs with sexy, Sune variation).
> I named it *Fork Last Layer (FLL)*, and develop full description (see attach). There is block-scheme.
> Key technology this method - is EFLL substep - enhanced EOLL method for Dot, L-shape and Line (much easier, than LLEF) and i found many algs for OCLL with swapping 2 edges (i named is OCLL-OES ).
> I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.
> ...


Why not 2 look OLL+PLL? It's 31 algs and faster than any of these. I like the idea of phasing during EO though for reducing alg count. It reminds me of ZZ-R.


----------



## Vitaliy Sokolov (Jan 22, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> Why not 2 look OLL+PLL? It's 31 algs and faster than any of these. I like the idea of phasing during EO though for reducing alg count. It reminds me of ZZ-R.


Yes, if you know full PLL then can use ver 2 with PLL reduction. Then you must use any alg from OCLL-EPP and OCLL-EOS.
For me full version better (me with cube 2 month), sune and sexy algs faster for fingers and this method like pre look PLL (in 2/3 case is short 9 HTM AA or Ab perm and 1/12 is skip). Other PLL algs to 16-20 HTM.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 22, 2021)

True, but FELL and OCLL-EPP are both longer than their 2L-OLL counterparts. And PLL algs aren't that complex, unless you're scared of algs (not a good thing to be). They're also all fast, so forcing a specific subset (that would include more N-Perms) isn't a great idea.


----------



## Vitaliy Sokolov (Jan 22, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> True, but FELL and OCLL-EPP are both longer than their 2L-OLL counterparts. And PLL algs aren't that complex, unless you're scared of algs (not a good thing to be). They're also all fast, so forcing a specific subset (that would include more N-Perms) isn't a great idea.


Yes, i scared algs (any complex algs too slow for my fingers). And i also develop my method f2l, but I was told it was Keyhole Edge First  (my intuitive fridrich f2l without algs too slow, need learn algs, and only then training look ahead), And is also good method for intermediate, i make look ahead now and without pauses. Some people make sub(20) with keyhole (keyhole edge first make easy look ahead and simple 3-4-moves algs). But i like F2L and want work with them.
Anyway, FLL it's not "pro" method, but simple for memorize algs and small moves (from 23, average 30) is simple alternative for 4LLL methods.


----------



## Jam88 (Jan 22, 2021)

Vitaliy Sokolov said:


> I can make new topic for this alg with full description? I want it not to get lost here and be seen by many.


I would say that you can make a new thread for it. @abunickabhi and the other mods might not think so though. f you want it to be seen, making a wiki page for it might be a good idea.


----------



## Athefre (Jan 22, 2021)

A series of method variants that I've been working on the past few months and have been calling MI3. I first talked here about one variant during the last method competition. These variants can be seen as a combination of MI1, Joseph Briggs' M-CELL, and something new. The basic concept is FB -> blockbuild -> LL / LSLL+DF or DB. Then EO can be added in at various stages if desired.



Spoiler: LL Variant



Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build three squares, forming F2L. Two squares form a 2x2x2. Three squares form a 2x2x3. The squares can be normal or pseudo.
Step 3: LL

This is the most basic variant of the method. A fun way to achieve the LL state with a low movecount and good look-ahead.





Spoiler: CLL + L5E Variant



Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares plus a right side pair. Can be viewed as right block plus the DB or DF edge.
Step 3: CLL
Step 4: L5E

This is likely the variant with the lowest move-count. L5E (MU) is currently an unexplored alg set with around 200 cases. I'm currently generating the set. With EO performed at some point, the last step would be L5EP. EO can be completed before or after FB, after the first two squares, before or while inserting the final pair, or other places.





Spoiler: Transformed L5C + L5E



Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares
Step 3: Build any pair from anywhere on the cube, attach it to the right side and perform an R/R' move to make a pseudo right block. Then perform an M/M' to place any oriented edge on the D layer
Step 4: CLL
Step 5: ELL
Step 6: Undo transformation

This variant allows the user to take advantage of any free or easy to build pair and solve the remaining corners using the same number of algs as CLL. The same goes for the edges. Inserting any oriented edge reduces L5E to ELL.



Spoiler: Example Solve



Scramble: F D' B2 L2 U2 R2 U2 R2 B D2 F' R F' D' R' D' U B
FB: y2 x' M2 F' R' D U2 M F
Two squares: M U' M2 U2 R' U' R'
Place any pair: U2 M U2 M' U' R'
Place any edge: U' M
TL5C: U' r U' r' F U2' r2' F r U' r
TL5E: M' U2 M U2 M' U M U2 M' U2 M
Undo L5E transformation: U M'
Undo L5C transformation: U R U








Spoiler: 2GLL+1



Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares + EO
Step 3: Insert right side pair + CP
Step 4: 2GLL+1 (LL + D edge)

The idea of 2GLL+1 has been talked about on the ZZ Discord server a few times for use in Portico. It fits in well as a variant here. CP can also be solved before FB Briggs style or at some other point.





Spoiler: CLL+2 / COLL+2



Step 1: FB
Step 2: Build two squares plus a right side pair.
Step 3: Solve CLL plus any two edges. Or COLL+2 if in EO state.
Step 4: L3E

This variant provides a pretty high skip chance for the last step. The movecount for this may compete with the CLL + L5E variant. An interesting thing for COLL+2 is that, when generating the set, it could be specified to always solve two opposite edges (likely with the requirement of learning more algs). This would make for an easy U2M'U2 3-cycle finish with cancellations possible during the COLL+2 alg.



I think this is a simple method concept with many possibilities, several alg sets to choose from, and is easy to learn. There are likely several other great variant candidates. One of the great advantages is that extremely low movecounts can be achieved with some of the variants. There is a lot of freedom for pseudo techniques. The passive blockbuilding aspect of A3 is a natural fit - blockbuild with the pairs/pieces in any position then correct them during one of the algorithm steps.


----------



## abunickabhi (Jan 23, 2021)

Wow nice all variants sound interesting, F E' R E R' E2 R' E R E F'.

It is good to know that so many Roux variants can be devised.


----------



## efattah (Jan 26, 2021)

During my attempts to improve the ergonomics of LMCF, it seems clear that several edges piece must be solved at the same time as the corners. Years ago when WaterRoux was proposed, the idea was to solve Roux first block, and all the corners, in one look. Most considered that unrealistic. That would require solving 3 edges plus all the corners in one look, during inspection. An alternative, even more difficult, is to fully solve all four 3x1 columns in one look (all corners plus FR+FL+BL+BR edges). Again, most considered this nearly impossible. However, not long ago I was having a DM chat with WACWCA, who is a top 2x2 solver. He told me that he frequently can inspect three or even FOUR possible 2x2 solutions during the 15-second inspection time, and then, choose the solution that is the fastest of all of them. This implies, almost without question, that indeed it would be possible to solve many edges and the corners in one look. Instead of inspecting 3-4 corner-solving solutions in the inspection, the solver chooses only the first one, even if it might not be the fastest. That leaves most of the inspection time to figure out how to either solve the 3 edges needed for Roux first block, or, for all 4 columns. Make no mistake; if any solver can solve either roux first block plus all the corners, or all the columns, in the inspection, I believe this almost certainly would result in the fastest method ever designed. Consider that Roux solvers solve 5-7 pieces during inspection, CFOP solvers that can do XCross solve 6 pieces; LMCF solves 8 pieces in the inspection, yet now it seems that solving 11-12 pieces in the inspection is possible. If it takes 1.5 seconds on average to solve the corners (top 2x2 average), the extra time to solve 3 edges would be quite low as move freedom is extremely high, and slice moves at the start of the solve do not affect the corner solution. Not unrealistic to say that in 1.9 seconds the solver could finish Roux first block and all the corners. All that is left now is an LMCF triplet (1.1 seconds) (for waterroux), followed by LSE, or LMCF pair (0.8 seconds) + LSE for columns. In the case of columns, LSE is the same as Roux (1.5 seconds), whereas if you choose the WaterRoux style, LSE is slower because the 2-edges on one side case, allowing 1.9 seconds. This predicts an average for WaterRoux of 1.9+1.1+1.9 = 4.9 seconds, and for columns, 1.9+0.8+1.5 = 4.2 seconds. The basis of this is the claim by WACWCA that top 2x2 solvers can see 3-4 solutions in the inspection. How they 'got' to that point is beyond me, but if true, opens a great deal of possibilities to solve 11-12 pieces in the inspection. Even if I am being over-optimistic in the splits, and even if you add 1 full second, it still predicts 5.9 and 5.2 second averages.


----------



## Silky (Jan 27, 2021)

efattah said:


> During my attempts to improve the ergonomics of LMCF, it seems clear that several edges piece must be solved at the same time as the corners. Years ago when WaterRoux was proposed, the idea was to solve Roux first block, and all the corners, in one look. Most considered that unrealistic. That would require solving 3 edges plus all the corners in one look, during inspection. An alternative, even more difficult, is to fully solve all four 3x1 columns in one look (all corners plus FR+FL+BL+BR edges). Again, most considered this nearly impossible. However, not long ago I was having a DM chat with WACWCA, who is a top 2x2 solver. He told me that he frequently can inspect three or even FOUR possible 2x2 solutions during the 15-second inspection time, and then, choose the solution that is the fastest of all of them. This implies, almost without question, that indeed it would be possible to solve many edges and the corners in one look. Instead of inspecting 3-4 corner-solving solutions in the inspection, the solver chooses only the first one, even if it might not be the fastest. That leaves most of the inspection time to figure out how to either solve the 3 edges needed for Roux first block, or, for all 4 columns. Make no mistake; if any solver can solve either roux first block plus all the corners, or all the columns, in the inspection, I believe this almost certainly would result in the fastest method ever designed. Consider that Roux solvers solve 5-7 pieces during inspection, CFOP solvers that can do XCross solve 6 pieces; LMCF solves 8 pieces in the inspection, yet now it seems that solving 11-12 pieces in the inspection is possible. If it takes 1.5 seconds on average to solve the corners (top 2x2 average), the extra time to solve 3 edges would be quite low as move freedom is extremely high, and slice moves at the start of the solve do not affect the corner solution. Not unrealistic to say that in 1.9 seconds the solver could finish Roux first block and all the corners. All that is left now is an LMCF triplet (1.1 seconds) (for waterroux), followed by LSE, or LMCF pair (0.8 seconds) + LSE for columns. In the case of columns, LSE is the same as Roux (1.5 seconds), whereas if you choose the WaterRoux style, LSE is slower because the 2-edges on one side case, allowing 1.9 seconds. This predicts an average for WaterRoux of 1.9+1.1+1.9 = 4.9 seconds, and for columns, 1.9+0.8+1.5 = 4.2 seconds. The basis of this is the claim by WACWCA that top 2x2 solvers can see 3-4 solutions in the inspection. How they 'got' to that point is beyond me, but if true, opens a great deal of possibilities to solve 11-12 pieces in the inspection. Even if I am being over-optimistic in the splits, and even if you add 1 full second, it still predicts 5.9 and 5.2 second averages.


So, on a similar note, I've been thinking about ECE. Based on your analysis, if it is possible to plan columns in inspection, planning psuedo-columns could be very feasible. Following this I believe that generating NLL algs from HD-G would be an excellent idea. NLL would mean that you would combine separation and permutation of corners into one step with the caveat that you need to force L cases on top and bottom. You could generate all NLL cases but that would increase the alg count significantly. Based on the move count from HD-G, NLL would save around 3 moves. Then you can choose any L8E variant to finish the solve. This could lower the average movecount to 40 with EZD. This would also make it into a 3.5-4 look method. Pseudo-columns => NLL => EO/Separation => EZD. In HD-G you can predict the subset of NLL in inspection and then you just need to recognize the case which accounts for the 'half' look. This would also be done in only around 100 algs !!


----------



## PetraPine (Jan 27, 2021)

alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net




if anyone here is good at metha try this?
basically, you do ZZ EO
FB, 3/4 belt (do on oriented side)rotate to have block on left
from here, you want to reorient the E slice edges by doing a E/u move
to make the edges reoriented to the new side.
than just do whatever mehta variant you want-having to orient edges.


----------



## Jam88 (Jan 27, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> alg.cubing.net
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks pretty inefficient no offence. Compared to CFOP, good movecount, but I think that pure Mehta 6CO/TDR is better.


----------



## PetraPine (Jan 27, 2021)

Jam88 said:


> Looks pretty inefficient no offence. Compared to CFOP, good movecount, but I think that pure Mehta 6CO/TDR is better.


idk it prob a bit less efficient than normal mehta,
the only reason this solve was so inneficient is because I don't know what im doing lol.
the R U L belt is kinda nice, aswell as doing EO at the begging of the solve since doing eo midsolve is considered pretty sucky from what i've heard.
not as good as normal mehta I think (efficiency,1 rotation) but has some potential
update:
you can do block on left and don't have to rotate


----------



## Devagio (Jan 27, 2021)

EO+FB is quite difficult to plan in inspection; one idea being explored is EO+Square in inspection followed by extension to FB, and belt using only u2 (or u R2 u type stuff). Not sure where it'll go, it's a work in progress.
I'm not a huge proponent of the idea, because EO midsolve isn't always bad (it's done in both CFOP and Roux); but it could have potential we don't see yet.


----------



## EdHer (Jan 28, 2021)

WoowyBaby said:


> I have a 3x3 method idea, that to me, just sounds really nice.
> 
> 1. Left 1x2x3
> 2. EO + DFDB
> ...



Hi! 

I know this comment is old .... But what happened to the method? I saw it a long time ago, I found it very interesting and I have discussed it with friends .... I don't know what happened but I would like to develop or help develop this method

Sorry if I express myself badly, English is not my native language


----------



## PetraPine (Jan 28, 2021)

EdHer said:


> Hi!
> 
> I know this comment is old .... But what happened to the method? I saw it a long time ago, I found it very interesting and I have discussed it with friends .... I don't know what happened but I would like to develop or help develop this method
> 
> Sorry if I express myself badly, English is not my native language


this is LEOR I didn't see it said that lol
its a popular method probably like the 5th most popular behind petrus and is bassically just a slightly diffrent eo223 method


----------



## Silky (Jan 28, 2021)

efattah said:


> During my attempts to improve the ergonomics of LMCF, it seems clear that several edges piece must be solved at the same time as the corners. Years ago when WaterRoux was proposed, the idea was to solve Roux first block, and all the corners, in one look. Most considered that unrealistic. That would require solving 3 edges plus all the corners in one look, during inspection. An alternative, even more difficult, is to fully solve all four 3x1 columns in one look (all corners plus FR+FL+BL+BR edges). Again, most considered this nearly impossible. However, not long ago I was having a DM chat with WACWCA, who is a top 2x2 solver. He told me that he frequently can inspect three or even FOUR possible 2x2 solutions during the 15-second inspection time, and then, choose the solution that is the fastest of all of them. This implies, almost without question, that indeed it would be possible to solve many edges and the corners in one look. Instead of inspecting 3-4 corner-solving solutions in the inspection, the solver chooses only the first one, even if it might not be the fastest. That leaves most of the inspection time to figure out how to either solve the 3 edges needed for Roux first block, or, for all 4 columns. Make no mistake; if any solver can solve either roux first block plus all the corners, or all the columns, in the inspection, I believe this almost certainly would result in the fastest method ever designed. Consider that Roux solvers solve 5-7 pieces during inspection, CFOP solvers that can do XCross solve 6 pieces; LMCF solves 8 pieces in the inspection, yet now it seems that solving 11-12 pieces in the inspection is possible. If it takes 1.5 seconds on average to solve the corners (top 2x2 average), the extra time to solve 3 edges would be quite low as move freedom is extremely high, and slice moves at the start of the solve do not affect the corner solution. Not unrealistic to say that in 1.9 seconds the solver could finish Roux first block and all the corners. All that is left now is an LMCF triplet (1.1 seconds) (for waterroux), followed by LSE, or LMCF pair (0.8 seconds) + LSE for columns. In the case of columns, LSE is the same as Roux (1.5 seconds), whereas if you choose the WaterRoux style, LSE is slower because the 2-edges on one side case, allowing 1.9 seconds. This predicts an average for WaterRoux of 1.9+1.1+1.9 = 4.9 seconds, and for columns, 1.9+0.8+1.5 = 4.2 seconds. The basis of this is the claim by WACWCA that top 2x2 solvers can see 3-4 solutions in the inspection. How they 'got' to that point is beyond me, but if true, opens a great deal of possibilities to solve 11-12 pieces in the inspection. Even if I am being over-optimistic in the splits, and even if you add 1 full second, it still predicts 5.9 and 5.2 second averages.


Also, for WaterRoux, would it be better to do 2x2 and then plan the rest of the corners? Then solve FL + any edge on R. Than any two edges on R + EO and then L6E? 1x2x2 + Corners seems easier than planing 1x2x3 + corners. Optimally you solve all 8 corners + BL + DL or more realistically do so in 1.5 looks; predicting a corner case partial case and then recognizing the rest afterwords. All-in-all solving 10-12 pieces in inspection seems not extremely likely but solving 8 + orientation of 2-3 pieces or maybe just tracking the 2-3 pieces? I think the limit for solving pieces in inspection is probably 8 or in what I'm suggesting 8.5 - 9 pieces ( the .5 - 1 pieces being partial solved ). This style or solving is what is suggested in HD-G as far as just partial prediction to narrow the cases.


----------



## efattah (Jan 29, 2021)

Based on my conversations with WACWCA, solving corners + 2 edges (i.e. 2x2x1 + corners) should be easy. More is still possible. But, if you could solve the left back 2x2x1 every solve (+ corners), and perhaps on some solves, solve the entire Roux-FB + Corners. If you do solve Roux-FB + corners, obviously you have much greater freedom than with Roux because you can use LEG-1 algorithms (or even L5C) instead of just CMLL.


----------



## Silky (Jan 29, 2021)

efattah said:


> Based on my conversations with WACWCA, solving corners + 2 edges (i.e. 2x2x1 + corners) should be easy.


This is definitely easier said than done. I'm not sure that this idea will necessarily transfer over from 2x2. I think theoretically you may be able to plan all of this but especially for consistency I think that doing a 1.5 look would be the best bet. I also don't think that this would be much shorter than planning all 10 pieces.. I think that lookahead goes much farther than people estimate. This is something that was pointed out when discussing whether or not 3-style would be the fastest method given that it can be one-looked. Efficiency aside I think that optimizing lookahead is probably, long run, better due to much be consistency.


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jan 30, 2021)

I thought you could make the first 2 blocks like Roux then finnish F2L like you would with Roux then go into CFOP and do OLL and PLL. Let me know what you think the potential of the Combo method is!


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Jan 30, 2021)

Porcupine01 said:


> I thought you could make the first 2 blocks like Roux then finnish F2L like you would with Roux then go into CFOP and do OLL and PLL. Let me know what you think the potential of the Combo method is!


not new at all, and you should post in a megathread


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 30, 2021)

You are not the first to have thought about it but nobody does it because it's very bad.
In 20 years many have tried to improve Roux. Everybody has failed. This method is born perfect.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 30, 2021)

Porcupine01 said:


> I thought you could make the first 2 blocks like Roux then finnish F2L like you would with Roux then go into CFOP and do OLL and PLL. Let me know what you think the potential of the Combo method is!


This is a very commonly thought of concept, and the reality is that if you’re doing the F2B anyway, it’s faster to do CMLL then L6E then it is to fill in two edges and do OLL and PLL.

Also, whenever you have an idea, try posting in the megathread for it


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 30, 2021)

PetrusQuber said:


> This is a very commonly thought of concept, and the reality is that if you’re doing the F2B anyway, it’s faster to do CMLL then L6E then it is to fill in two edges and do OLL and PLL.
> 
> Also, whenever you have an idea, try posting in the megathread for it


or you could do f2b, cmll/coll, EO, DF/DB, epll.
that's how I solve roux because I can't figure out l6e and that's closer to roux than finishing with OLL PLL
I need to practice more


----------



## abunickabhi (Jan 30, 2021)

Interesting method variant. The most common one known is the FreeFOP method.


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jan 30, 2021)

DNF_Cuber said:


> not new at all, and you should post in a megathread


Ok, didn’t know that it existed. Sorry.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 30, 2021)

Porcupine01 said:


> Ok, didn’t know that it existed. Sorry.


you are forgiven


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jan 30, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> you are forgiven


Thanks, I suck at cross and F2L and I feel like I could get faster with this combo.


----------



## Nir1213 (Jan 30, 2021)

Porcupine01 said:


> Thanks, I suck at cross and F2L and I feel like I could get faster with this combo.


then improve your cross and f2l, practice and tips from other youcubers help, j perm specifically has these.


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jan 30, 2021)

Nir1213 said:


> then improve your cross and f2l, practice and tips from other youcubers help, j perm specifically has these.


Ok!


----------



## efattah (Jan 31, 2021)

For the first time in a while I did 50 LMCF solves with a 3-phase timer, timing corners/E2L/L6E.
Based on the 50 solves, with no rejected solves:
Corners: 4.88sec
E2L: 6.91sec
L6E: 3.72sec

Now I am not a top solver, and have slow TPS and not very good lookahead.
The point is that looking at my corners time (4.88) and comparing to a top 2x2 solver (1.50), I am 3.25 times slower.
Looking at my L6E (3.72) and comparing to a top roux solver (1.3), I am 2.86 times slower.

It takes me (15.52/4.88) = 3.18 times longer to solve the 3x3 cube than it takes me to solve just the corners.
If you apply that to a 2x2 solver (1.50sec 2x2 average), it predicts their 3x3 time is 3.18 x 1.50 = 4.77 seconds Ao50.
Even if you use the more skeptical 2.86 ratio (my L6E vs. top Roux LSE), you get 15.52/2.86 = 5.42 Ao50.

I am still making adjustments to the method to improve ergonomics. Another year or two and ergonomics should be close to Roux, but I don't think ergonomics can ever match Roux. I might end up migrating the method more towards WaterRoux given recent insights on the possibility to solve 1st block & corners in 1 look.


----------



## carcass (Feb 9, 2021)

I don't know if this belongs in this thread, but I found an epic OH y perm.

R U R2 U L' U2 R U' R' U2 L R U' R U' R'


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 9, 2021)

No, it would belong in this one: 








A Collection of Algorithms


Here you can find algorithms to solve many different situations on the cube. If you have an algorithm you want to add, simply click on the link, and click on "Edit" at the top of the page, find the according case, and add it. Be sure to follow the syntax of the page before adding an algorithm...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## carcass (Feb 20, 2021)

I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken  
I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.


----------



## PetraPine (Feb 20, 2021)

carcass said:


> I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken
> I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
> First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
> Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
> PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.


this like already exist maybe isnt named but ive among others have deff done CO,EO,PLL or CO,CP,EO+EP ect.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Feb 20, 2021)

Devagio said:


> EO midsolve isn't always bad (it's done in both CFOP and Roux)





ObscureCuber said:


> doing eo midsolve is considered pretty sucky from what i've heard


Intuitive EO midsolve sucks(as in LEOR or Petrus).
Mehta EO(or EOLE) solves a piece along with orienting the edges and is algorithmic which is generally considered good(as in EOLR or ZBLS(I doubt if this is the most optimal example lol) which solve the UL and UR edges and the last F2L pair respectively)

TLDR: doing EO intuitively mid solve sucks but algorithmic EO midsolve is generally considered as good.



carcass said:


> I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken
> I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
> First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
> Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
> PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.


CFCE with some influencing.
Hmm..interesting


ObscureCuber said:


> this like already exist maybe isnt named but ive among others have deff done CO,EO,PLL or CO,CP,EO+EP ect.


Actually, carcass is proposing a LSLL method while you're talking about an LL method.


----------



## PetraPine (Feb 20, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Intuitive EO midsolve sucks(as in LEOR or Petrus).
> Mehta EO(or EOLE) solves a piece along with orienting the edges and is algorithmic which is generally considered good(as in EOLR or ZBLS(I doubt if this is the most optimal example lol) which solve the UL and UR edges and the last F2L pair respectively)
> 
> TLDR: doing EO intuitively mid solve sucks but algorithmic EO midsolve is generally considered as good.
> ...


Petrus has algorithimic eo lol


----------



## Cubing Forever (Feb 20, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> Petrus has algorithimic eo lol


Ok, but petrus EO has 1 more disadvantage. It involves 4 colours whereas mehta, roux or CFOP EO involves only 1 or 2 colours to recognize which is better. Therefore, MehtaZZ or whatever you proposed is not really an advantage compared to normal Mehta. 

I just wanted to prove that getting rid of mid solve EO isn't much of an advantage in some situations lol.


----------



## PetraPine (Feb 20, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Ok, but petrus EO has 1 more disadvantage. It involves 4 colours whereas mehta, roux or CFOP EO involves only 1 or 2 colours to recognize which is better. Therefore, MehtaZZ or whatever you proposed is not really an advantage compared to normal Mehta.
> 
> I just wanted to prove that getting rid of mid solve EO isn't much of an advantage in some situations lol.


That's not a "disatantage" solving eo earlier/for more pieces makes you get more of an advantage as the solve goes on equaling it out.
There are other reasons but what you pointed out makes no since as a point
ASWELL as eo bieng at the BEGINNING of the solve so there is no pause. And normal mehta involves three colors just as petrus does so that doesn't make since either


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 20, 2021)

carcass said:


> I had this idea of LLCO, as the name COLL was taken
> I realized as a wee little lad that oriented corners would have far fewer cases than oriented edges, although the algs wouldn't be as fast.
> First, you do a winter variation regardless of whether or not the edges are oriented(27 algs)
> Next, you do a PLL, anti PLL, H case 1LLL, or the case with 2 adjacent misoriented edges.
> PLL has 22 cases(with solved case), so does anti PLL, H has twice as many and the other has 4 times as many. This would have 176 algs. If you include winter variation, that is only 203 algs for a 1 look last layer.


This is COALL and some of the last layer algs are kinda gross… although that's also true for ZBLL and maybe if someone wants to put in the effort to optimise the algs it might be viable.


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 20, 2021)

"Cubeur Manchot" is very fond of COALL, it's main method.
https://cubeur-manchot.github.io/Les-Algos-d-un-Manchot/coall.html


----------



## carcass (Feb 20, 2021)

did you guys know this off the top of your head, and if not, how do you find out if a method has already been discovered?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Feb 20, 2021)

carcass said:


> did you guys know this off the top of your head, and if not, how do you find out if a method has already been discovered?


Once you cube for longer and longer, you start to get much more familiar with certain methods and alg sets, but if you don’t know about a method, you can look on the SS Wiki.






SpeedSolving the Rubik's Cube - Speedsolving.com Wiki


Learn about speedsolving the Rubik's Cube and other twisty puzzles on this wiki. Built to compliment our community of 35,000+ solvers, this wiki has tutorials, methods, records, and articles on puzzle solving.




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## PetraPine (Feb 28, 2021)

alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net




made this method a while ago, here is the most recent version of it.
pinetrus, a petrus method for 4x4.
don't know how to do slice moves in alg.cubing lol so this is the best I could do.
steps:
1.solve opposite centers(yau)
2.solve three cross edges(yau)
3.solve other centers (yau)
4.solve the two back pairs (one f2l one f3l) and a random edge in the FD slot.
5.pinetrus style edgepairing using back edge as keyhole.
6.3x3 stage


----------



## carcass (Feb 28, 2021)

Can you guys explain M CELL to me? Perhaps an example solve? I really don't get the method.


----------



## Athefre (Feb 28, 2021)

carcass said:


> Can you guys explain M CELL to me? Perhaps an example solve? I really don't get the method.



The wiki page seems to be incorrect. I think it is missing the part where you solve the FR edge. Overall, in the main variants, the goal is to get to F2L-2. In this case, F2L-2 means to have the DF edge and DFR corner unsolved. Then finish the solve with something like L5C and L5E. Below is an example solve, using what he called SS style for F2L-2 and the advanced variant with a lot of algs. Actually, the style he describes in the post appears to be building the 1x2x3 on D and the 2x2x2 on top. I'm going to modify that to be 1x2x3 on left and 2x2x2 on the right.

Scramble: L2 D2 L D2 L F2 D' B L' U' R2 U2 F2 U F2 L2 D L2 U F2 D2

1x2x3: z' U F' B l U2 F'
2x2x2: R' U r U r R U' r' U2 R' U' R2 U r
FR edge: R U R' F R' F' R (very unlucky case here and I think a goal is to have the DFR corner also placed but misoriented)
L5C: U' R U2 R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R'
L5E: M' U M U2 M' U' M U' M' U' M

I don't think much development was put into this method. It would be a lot of algs to generate.


----------



## carcass (Feb 28, 2021)

Is it really like a 1LLL system or is it more of a ZZ-CT type thing when they say one look last layer? Also, how many algs would be in L5E?


----------



## Athefre (Feb 28, 2021)

carcass said:


> Is it really like a 1LLL system or is it more of a ZZ-CT type thing when they say one look last layer? Also, how many algs would be in L5E?



I was confused about that also. I'm not sure why the wiki says that it is a 1-look 2-alg LL system. I've been meaning to ask shadowslice about that. L5E is a little over 200 algs. Before the method development competition I was actually developing that alg set for my MI3 method. MI3 and M-CELL are similar. The difference being that MI3 is 1x2x3 -> 2x2x2 -> Choose from among several variants. It isn't F2L-2.


----------



## carcass (Feb 28, 2021)

Let me be sure I have the right idea: Roux style FB, BRD 2x2x2, FR edge solved and DFR corner permuted but not always oriented. Then, BBLS or CDRLL, L5E. It doesn't seem so bad, however i don't know of any fast BBLS algs. I think if the algorithms were developed more this could be very fast.
Honestly I had never heard of BBLS before looking into this lol.


----------



## Silky (Feb 28, 2021)

carcass said:


> Let me be sure I have the right idea: Roux style FB, BRD 2x2x2, FR edge solved and DFR corner permuted but not always oriented. Then, BBLS or CDRLL, L5E. It doesn't seem so bad, however i don't know of any fast BBLS algs. I think if the algorithms were developed more this could be very fast.
> Honestly I had never heard of BBLS before looking into this lol.


I believe technically it can be any corner in DFR position but it's generally easier to place the the correct corner. If you haven't checked out MI3 heres a link https://sites.google.com/site/athefre/mi3. For whatever reason M-CELL wasn't really developed even though there seemed to be good potential. MI3 seems to be a similar but with a far more developed LL.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 1, 2021)

The max potential for M-CELL would be to do L5C->L5E, but I would also say that (from what I've seen) DF+U edges L5E isn't as good as FR+U edges, so maybe instead do FB->2x2x2->DF->L5C->L5E. To save on the 614 L5C algs, as mentioned, permuting DFR would give 128 algs instead, which is definitely easily manageable and has good recog.


----------



## carcass (Mar 1, 2021)

And if we permute the last corner, the algs have already been generated. But the bbls algs are 10 years outdated


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 3, 2021)

That has been invented many times. Read the first post in the whole thread.


----------



## U_Turn_Cuber (Mar 3, 2021)

Meyer with Hoya
So I have used Meyer for some time and because I don't like Yau so i tried it with Hoya and it worked. So you have to build your first block on the opposite side of your L2C and you have to build it with S moves wich is wierd but you get used to it. Than you build the first edge of the second block and store it with a F2 and a U2 and then you put the sides with the blocks on the bottom and do edge pairing. If you don't understand me than watch Kians tutorial.


----------



## abunickabhi (Mar 3, 2021)

So are you proposing a method, which is a variant or hybrid of both Hoya and Meyer?

I am confused. And I have been watching Kian's videos since 2015.


----------



## GenTheThief (Mar 3, 2021)

carcass said:


> Is it really like a 1LLL system or is it more of a ZZ-CT type thing when they say one look last layer? Also, how many algs would be in L5E?


ZZ-CT is touted as an LL skip method, since you solve different parts of last layer as you insert the last F2L pair.



Athefre said:


> I was confused about that also. I'm not sure why the wiki says that it is a 1-look 2-alg LL system. I've been meaning to ask shadowslice about that.


M CELL is 1LLL because you can recognize L5C and L5E at the same time and if you use comms, will be able to execute the algs back to back without having to take a second look.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 4, 2021)

GenTheThief said:


> M CELL is 1LLL because you can recognize L5C and L5E at the same time and if you use comms, will be able to execute the algs back to back without having to take a second look.



For me the confusing part is calling it 1LLL. LL + two more pieces is no longer a layer. If the method was to recognize CLL and ELL then execute both algs, that would make sense. But in this case M-CELL almost always has a layer and two additional pieces. Maybe the term 1LLL is being stretched in this case to mean "1 Look Finish". If that's the case, maybe a different term should be used.


----------



## U_Turn_Cuber (Mar 4, 2021)

Yep. Kians tutorial is good but you have to ignore the edges part because he makes it more difficult than it has to be. So just understand the concept


----------



## carcass (Mar 7, 2021)

After Roux F2B for a purely algorithmic approach:
L2E+CO 664 algs COALL 155 algs = 819 algs. 
704 L2E+EO ---> ZBLL 493 algs = 1197. 
42 CMLL + 27 L2E + 25 ELL = 94 Algorithms. 3 Look
sorry if my math is wrong
*what is the fewest algorithms needed for 2 algorithms after F2B?*
what I could find is L2E(the last f2l edges) and CO into COALL with 819 algs


----------



## Athefre (Mar 8, 2021)

carcass said:


> After Roux F2B for a purely algorithmic approach:
> L2E+CO 664 algs COALL 155 algs = 819 algs.
> 704 L2E+EO ---> ZBLL 493 algs = 1197.
> 42 CMLL + 27 L2E + 25 ELL = 94 Algorithms. 3 Look
> ...



An idea of mine that I often think about: It likely wouldn't be very difficult to place an edge at DBM while building SB. Probably a little EO influencing also. And or EO influence during CMLL. Or the other way around - some EO influence during SB and place an edge during CMLL. This combination leads to CMLL then L5E. With analysis on the best ways to influence EO, the solve would end with either good L5E cases or L5EP. What this creates is a 2 look finish with an overall shorter move-count, few algs, and not much effort.

Actually, one MI3 variant ends with CLL and MU L5E. So if the techniques above are applied to Roux, it turns into the same method.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 8, 2021)

carcass said:


> After Roux F2B for a purely algorithmic approach:
> L2E+CO 664 algs COALL 155 algs = 819 algs.
> 704 L2E+EO ---> ZBLL 493 algs = 1197.
> 42 CMLL + 27 L2E + 25 ELL = 94 Algorithms. 3 Look
> ...


How about CMLL+DB into algorithmic L5E for a semi 2 alg L10P?(my guess is somewhere around 200-240 algs since solving the DB edge can be intuitive)
CMLLEO into algorithmic L6EP which I think is a total of >500 algs(CMLLEO is a lot of algs)
CMLL->EOLR->L4E is what top solvers use and it has only 42(±10)algs(It can be considered semi 2 alg since L4E is intuitive)
EODFDB(46 algs) into ZBLL(493 algs) = ZBRoux(539 algs)
(also on a sidenote, what we could do for a 3 alg/semi 4 alg L10P is CMLL+DB->EO->MU L5EP)


----------



## trangium (Mar 9, 2021)

Here's the best method I could come up with that has mid-solve CP:

1. Roux FB
2. Roux SB missing a corner
3. EODFDB (intuitive) while recognizing the CP case
4. CPLC (26 algs + 26 D offsets, there should be no pause for recog since you can recog during the previous step)
5. 2GLL (84 algs)

Example: R' L2 D2 L' B' U L U2 L2 F R2 B' D2 R2 B' R2 L2 U2 L' F 
y2 // inspection
U2 L F' L2 U R r2 F // FB (8/8)
U' r2 R' U R r U' r' // SB-C (8/16)
M U' M U2 M U2 M // EODFDB (7/23)
U2 D' R' D R U R' D' R D // CPLC (10/33)
R U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R' U R U2 R' U2 // 2GLL (16/49)

The EODFDB step gets rid of the long pause necessary for recognizing CP mid-solve.
That being said, Roux is better than this for speedsolving. This is just an interesting novelty method.


----------



## carcass (Mar 10, 2021)

I have an idea for 2 Look post F2B
OLLCP(331 algs) ---> Solve edge in BR ---> L5E, although I am unsure of how many algs that has.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 10, 2021)

carcass said:


> I have an idea for 2 Look post F2B
> OLLCP(331 algs) ---> Solve edge in DB ---> L5E, although I am unsure of how many algs that has.


That sorta sounded like pinkie pie but it's not.
OLLCP(331)->DB edge(intuitive)->L5EP(16)
Total=347(lol)


----------



## zed zed (Mar 10, 2021)

carcass said:


> I have an idea for 2 Look post F2B
> OLLCP(331 algs) ---> Solve edge in BR ---> L5E, although I am unsure of how many algs that has.



After F2B, you can have 0, 2, 4, or 6 bad edges,
When edges need to be rearranged to the top, it gives time for recog
When there are 6 bad edges, OLLCP can flip 4 and leaves 2 always on the bottom
No matter which EO case, its always one look

BD is fast and intuitive with 2~3 move solutions, quickly solving a blind edge

L5E can be done with very few algs using either
1. 1 look 2 alg, inserting the DF edge allows EPLL recog (4 cases)
2. LR EP, LR has only 20 cases and ep has a 33% chance of skip

this method can be 331+ 4 = 335 algs or 331+20 = 351 algs

FB SB OLLCP 6BAD DF AUF EPLL AUF
8 +16 +11 +2 +3 +0.7 +8 +0.75 = around 49 moves
Seems quite efficient, especially when there's good lookahead


----------



## carcass (Mar 12, 2021)

Wait, this may work. Not, two look, but few moves... probably
FB
dbL square (2x2x1)
Get into a winter variation situation with the pair solved but not inserted
solve last pair and CMLL with 172 algs(I think that would be the right number)
Solve BD and FD with one of 119 algs
solve ELL with one of 25 algs
Overall this would have 316 algs, less than OLLCP. I think 'yall should look into this one.

EDIT: I meant dbR square, thanks @PapaSmurf


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 12, 2021)

carcass said:


> Wait, this may work. Not, two look, but few moves... probably
> FB
> dbL square (2x2x1)
> Get into a winter variation situation with the pair solved but not inserted
> ...


Just do Roux, which is the unfortunate truth for a lot of methods. I also think you mean dbR square.


----------



## CUBER1265 (Mar 12, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> That sorta sounded like pinkie pie but it's not.
> OLLCP(331)->DB edge(intuitive)->L5EP(16)
> Total=347(lol)


heh? as a cfop solver i at totally lost except for ollcp lmao


----------



## zed zed (Mar 14, 2021)

CUBER1265 said:


> heh? as a cfop solver i at totally lost except for ollcp lmao



The first two blocks are solved, so F2L minus M is completed
OLLCP orients the edges and solves all corners
DB solves the back cross edge
L5EP permutes the remaining 5 edges


----------



## CUBER1265 (Mar 15, 2021)

xsac said:


> The first two blocks are solved, so F2L minus M is completed
> OLLCP orients the edges and solves all corners
> DB solves the back cross edge
> L5EP permutes the remaining 5 edges


Thanks


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 16, 2021)

alg.cubing.net






alg.cubing.net




4x4 roux method
1.Opposite centers
2.FB and SB
3.last 4 centers
4.Edge pairing(using commutators to pair edges or you can also just use algs)
5.3x3 stage


----------



## pyrapyravince (Mar 18, 2021)

Lets say you dont want to learn all of the plls. You probably already know the u perms, h perm, and z perm, from beginner method. Then you need to learn the l perm and the j perm, and both a perms. Ok, lets start reducing!

T perm: J perm + Reverse U perm
F perm: U perm + L perm
Y perm: U + J perm + U + L perm
All 4 g perms: Figure it out with a perms and u perms  Do 2 look. Its faster than what i had thought of.

I'll keep this updated.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Mar 18, 2021)

I tried making one for the GA perm, but 2 look would be faster

I think this would be the case with alot of plls


----------



## qwr (Mar 18, 2021)

just do 2 look PLL


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Mar 18, 2021)

just do 2 look pll or 1 look pll (it's not that hard: only 21 algs)


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Mar 18, 2021)

Alex Davison said:


> just do 2 look pll or 1 look pll (it's not that hard: only 21 algs)


way less if you use mirrors


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 18, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> way less if you use mirrors


But mirrors are bad. You try doing a lefty G perm. It’s possible, but it sucks.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Mar 19, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> But mirrors are bad. You try doing a lefty G perm. It’s possible, but it sucks.


with the exception of lefty ga but yes (and even still lefty ga is only good as alt angle for gc)


----------



## tx789 (Mar 19, 2021)

Just learn full PLL.

Also T perm is a cyclic shift of J perm. Move the last four moves of the jb perm to the front.


If you really don't want to learn pll. Just learn 2 algs. One A perm and one U perm. PLL is really easy to learn. Algs get easier the more you learn too.

Also the current standard F perm is R' U' F' into a t perm anyway.


----------



## Nir1213 (Mar 19, 2021)

i didn't learn all my plls yet but isn't just easier to do them all imo and stop making alternatives for you lazy cuberz


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 19, 2021)

A new 2 look LSLL Method:

(Considering that the LS corner is solved)
step 1: CLL(42 algs, half of which can be transferred from/to 2x2)
step 2: L5E cycling FR(technically 162 but most of them can be solved by using 1 or 2 3 style comms or 1 5 style comm and the rest of them are either flips or 2e2e so it comes down to 40-50)
Total algcount: 82-92(if you use 2 3 style comms for the 5 cycles) to 208.

Pros:
Low algcount for 2 look LSLL
Easy recog

Cons:
Risky algs
Corner needs to be solved in LS for this to work.

Another variant:
L5C>L5E (basically M-CELL from the the side)

Is this already proposed? If so pls update.


----------



## RedstoneTim (Mar 19, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> A new 2 look LSLL Method:
> 
> (Considering that the LS corner is solved)
> step 1: CLL(42 algs, half of which can be transferred from/to 2x2)
> ...


As far as I know, this already exists. It's called Zipper-b and actually has a couple users.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 19, 2021)

Oops!! I reinvented the wheel lol


----------



## zed zed (Mar 19, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> alg.cubing.net
> 
> 
> 
> ...



won't it be better to pair edges using a free slot instead of commutators? you can use the fr slot to pair edges, and then simply put it back as paired edges aren't disturbed during edge pairing.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 19, 2021)

xsac said:


> won't it be better to pair edges using a free slot instead of commutators? you can use the fr slot to pair edges, and then simply put it back as paired edges aren't disturbed during edge pairing.


yah


----------



## carcass (Mar 20, 2021)

With all of you talking about a new 2 look LSLL method, I tried to make one myself. I apologize if this has already been done, but it is rather obscure so it should be original. I am also pretty confident about the algorithm count.
Orient All: 323 algorithms
Permute All: 453 algorithms
Total: 776 algorithms(less than ZB)
For OA, many of the algs have already been generated.173 of the OLLs + TOLS, 16 non OCLL 5CO cases, 54 OLS FE, and surely a few VLS algorithms may be of usage. This leaves a mere 80 OA algs to be generated.
For PA, there is TTLL and PLL. Unless there are some algorithms I am unaware of, this leaves a total of 360 algorithms.
In total, that is 440 algorithms to be generated.
The average CFOP user already know the 78 OLLs and PLLs, so that 698 algs to be learnt. Not a lot less, but a formidable head start.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 20, 2021)

The main problem with that is that the permute all algs wiill be bad, especially the diag ones. For example, TTLL algs aren't really all that super good, same with edge+PLL (WLL). I thought of doinig a similar thing for ZZ, but decided to stop developing it pretty early for this exact reason.


----------



## Cuber Mao (Mar 21, 2021)

hey guys,I have known a method called EOM.It proposed by a chinese cuber in 2019.
this method mixed ROUX and ZZ.
1 EO,and put the UR UL(or UF UB)eages into DF DB.
2 zzf2l
3 coll
4 solve last 6 eages just like ROUX
in the first step you have 2 choices.or you can do eoline and use ZZ to solve .so you have 3 choices.
ps：
I am only an 8th grade student in China, so there may be grammar and spelling errors.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 21, 2021)

This is already a thing called ZZ-4c and was proposed before 2019. Good to see Chinese cubers coming across to here though, more international links.


----------



## Petrus_EW (Mar 22, 2021)

Hola amigos de Speedolving !!!
He ido resolviendo el 3 × 3 × 3 con Petrus, y creo que encontré una variante de reducciones en este método (también se puede aplicar a ZZ o Heise).
Consiste en realizar los mismos pasos de Petrus a EO, a partir de aquí se debe insertar el par BR, antes de insertar el último par F2L, debemos colocar dos bordes opuestos en línea (por ejemplo verde / azul), realizando este movimiento, reduzco los algoritmos LPEPLL a 2 casos, uno de ellos con tres aristas bien permutadas y el otro con dos aristas bien permutadas, para estos casos existen dos algoritmos que sirven para insertar el F2L y permutar todas las aristas. Luego utilizo algoritmos OLC para mantener los bordes bien permutados y finalmente tengo PLL reducido a 4 casos (Aa / b, E, H).
Creo que es la variante 2LLL con menos algoritmos (2 casos LPEPLL, 7 algoritmos OLC y 4 algoritmos PLL = 13 algoritmos)
No sé si alguien ya ha pensado en esta variante, no la vi por ningún lado.
Si es así, me gustaría tener sugerencias para el nombre de esta variante, por ahora digo Petrus - EW.
Déjame saber en tus comentarios si esta variante ya existe, creo que no.
PD: Perdón por mi inglés


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 22, 2021)

Traducción: ‘Hello friends of Speedolving !!!
I have been solving the 3 × 3 × 3 with Petrus, and I think I found a variant of reductions in this method (it can also be applied to ZZ or Heise).
It consists of performing the same steps from Petrus to EO, from here the BR pair must be inserted, before inserting the last F2L pair, we must place two opposite edges in line (for example green / blue), making this movement, I reduce the LPEPLL algorithms to 2 cases, one of them with three well-permuted edges and the other with two well-permuted edges, for these cases there are two algorithms that serve to insert the F2L and permute all the edges. Then I use OLC algorithms to keep the edges well permuted and finally I have PLL reduced to 4 cases (Aa / b, E, H).
I think it is the 2LLL variant with less algorithms (2 LPEPLL cases, 7 OLC algorithms and 4 PLL algorithms = 13 algorithms)
I do not know if anyone has already thought about this variant, I did not see it anywhere.
If so, I would like to have suggestions for the name of this variant, for now I say Petrus - EW.
Let me know in your comments if this variant already exists, I think not.
PS: Sorry for my English’

Not quite sure what you mean, been a long time since I’ve been doing cubing lingo. Hopefully someone else can help out.
No estoy muy seguro de lo que quieres decir, ha pasado mucho tiempo desde la última vez que he estado usando jerga de cubos. Ojalá alguien más pueda ayudar.


----------



## Petrus_EW (Mar 22, 2021)

PetrusQuber said:


> Traducción: ‘Hello friends of Speedolving !!!
> I have been solving the 3 × 3 × 3 with Petrus, and I think I found a variant of reductions in this method (it can also be applied to ZZ or Heise).
> It consists of performing the same steps from Petrus to EO, from here the BR pair must be inserted, before inserting the last F2L pair, we must place two opposite edges in line (for example green / blue), making this movement, I reduce the LPEPLL algorithms to 2 cases, one of them with three well-permuted edges and the other with two well-permuted edges, for these cases there are two algorithms that serve to insert the F2L and permute all the edges. Then I use OLC algorithms to keep the edges well permuted and finally I have PLL reduced to 4 cases (Aa / b, E, H).
> I think it is the 2LLL variant with less algorithms (2 LPEPLL cases, 7 OLC algorithms and 4 PLL algorithms = 13 algorithms)
> ...


When using Petrus or ZZ you already have all the edges oriented (EO), in the case of Petrus you must finish the F2L using only 2 gen movements, you can start arming and inserting for example the BR pair, which leaves you in a situation of F2L -1, at this time before inserting the last pair, you must get two opposite edges to be in line and parallel to the last pair, this causes a reduction of cases of LPEPLL (it is a subset of LPELL), reducing the 6 cases of LPEPLL to only two. You only have to learn two algorithms, to insert the last pair and that all the edges are permuted.
What follows is to make an OLC algorithm that is a subset of OLL that maintains the permutation of the edges, there are 7 algorithms. Finally, it only remains to recognize the cases of PLL reduced to 4 (Aa, Ab, E, H).


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 22, 2021)

Petrus_EW said:


> When using Petrus or ZZ you already have all the edges oriented (EO), in the case of Petrus you must finish the F2L using only 2 gen movements, you can start arming and inserting for example the BR pair, which leaves you in a situation of F2L -1, at this time before inserting the last pair, you must get two opposite edges to be in line and parallel to the last pair, this causes a reduction of cases of LPEPLL (it is a subset of LPELL), reducing the 6 cases of LPEPLL to only two. You only have to learn two algorithms, to insert the last pair and that all the edges are permuted.
> What follows is to make an OLC algorithm that is a subset of OLL that maintains the permutation of the edges, there are 7 algorithms. Finally, it only remains to recognize the cases of PLL reduced to 4 (Aa, Ab, E, H).


Don’t think anyone else has done this before, but then again Petrus is a rare method. It’s basically for last slot.


----------



## Petrus_EW (Mar 22, 2021)

PetrusQuber said:


> No creo que nadie más haya hecho esto antes, pero Petrus es un método poco común. Básicamente es para el último espacio.


Es cierto que Petrus es un método poco utilizado, pero esta variante de reducción no solo se limita al método Petrus, también se puede utilizar en ZZ. Al igual que Phasing, que es de ZZ, se puede usar en Petrus.
Es una variante de reducción, creo que es el método 2LLL con menos algoritmos. Alguna sugerencia para su nombre.
Lo descubrí usando Petrus.


----------



## AlgoCuber (Mar 23, 2021)

8355 Method for Speedsolving?

If you don't know what the 8355 method is, I recommend you watch this video:





My idea to make this suitable for speedsolving is this:

Do the cross as normal
Solve 3 F2L pairs, there are different ways to do this
Using keyhole slotting/psuedoslotting, as shown in the video
Using CFOP F2L, but since there is always one slot left open the move count is greatly reduced

Solve the remaining 5 edges, there are different ways to do this
Using one algorithm
On the first 3 yellow edges, make sure 2 are "correct" and 1 is not. Then, do the rest using 3 moves

Solve the remaining 5 corners, there are different ways to do this
Using one algorithm
2-look it (My idea is to use commutators, may require some intuition)

This should be a great speedcubing method because

First 3 pairs do not use a lot of moves
The rest can be solved using algorithms
But a downside is that there will probably be a lot of algorithms to learn. The algorithms shouldn't be too different from CFOP, although they may require some changes. All points I listed above may not be optimized and the move count probably can be made smaller. I don't really know how to make algorithms though, so I guess you guys can help develop this method and make algorithms for it! Reply with any suggestions for the method you would like


----------



## Petrus_EW (Mar 23, 2021)

Hello Speedsolving community!​I want to tell you about this 2-look reduction variant, which I think is the unofficial variant with the lowest algorithm count in Speedsolving. Perfect for methods like Petrus or ZZ. I will explain it to you.​​When using Petrus or ZZ you already have all the edges oriented (EO), in the case of Petrus you must finish the F2L using only 2 generation movements, you can start to assemble and insert for example the BR pair, which leaves you in a situation of F2L -1, at this moment before inserting the last pair, you must get two opposite edges to be in line and parallel to the last pair, this causes a reduction of cases of LPEPLL (it is a subset of LPELL), reducing 6 cases of LPEPLL to only 2. It is only necessary to learn 2 algorithms, insert the last pair and that all edges are permuted.​What follows is to make an OLC algorithm (it is a subset of OLL) that maintains the permutation of the edges, there are 7 algorithms that do this. Finally, it only remains to recognize the reduced PLL cases that are 4 (Aa, Ab, E, H).​Please comment your thoughts on this reduction variant.​


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Mar 23, 2021)

Petrus_EW said:


> Hello Speedsolving community!​I want to tell you about this 2-look reduction variant, which I think is the unofficial variant with the lowest algorithm count in Speedsolving. Perfect for methods like Petrus or ZZ. I will explain it to you.​
> When using Petrus or ZZ you already have all the edges oriented (EO), in the case of Petrus you must finish the F2L using only 2 generation movements, you can start to assemble and insert for example the BR pair, which leaves you in a situation of F2L -1, at this moment before inserting the last pair, you must get two opposite edges to be in line and parallel to the last pair, this causes a reduction of cases of LPEPLL (it is a subset of LPELL), reducing 6 cases of LPEPLL to only 2. It is only necessary to learn 2 algorithms, insert the last pair and that all edges are permuted.​What follows is to make an OLC algorithm (it is a subset of OLL) that maintains the permutation of the edges, there are 7 algorithms that do this. Finally, it only remains to recognize the reduced PLL cases that are 4 (Aa, Ab, E, H).​Please comment your thoughts on this reduction variant.​



that gets you worse cases for PLL, and I would count lpepll as a look in itself


----------



## Petrus_EW (Mar 23, 2021)

DNF_Cuber said:


> that gets you worse cases for PLL, and I would count lpepll as a look in itself


So is it a 3-look variant?


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Mar 23, 2021)

This variant isn't worth using. Just work your way up to OCLL/PLL by starting with OCLL/CP/EPLL


----------



## Petrus_EW (Mar 23, 2021)

Alex Davison said:


> This variant isn't worth using. Just work your way up to OCLL/PLL by starting with OCLL/CP/EPLL


Thank you very much for your suggestion, I know those variants both, OCLL / PLL and OCLL / CP / EPLL. I was just looking for a different variant.​


----------



## Petrus_EW (Mar 23, 2021)

Alex Davison said:


> This variant isn't worth using. Just work your way up to OCLL/PLL by starting with OCLL/CP/EPLL


Thank you very much for your suggestion, I know those variants both, OCLL / PLL and OCLL / CP / EPLL. I was just looking for a different variant.


----------



## Rouxster (Mar 28, 2021)

*EG 1 ON 3 by 3*
on the wiki, it says that EG 1 is particularly useful for LMCF and and some other method but I think it could be REALLY useful for roux.
keeping the front two pairs swapped can save many moves during blockbuilding, especially if there are many free pairs. Then we can solve the pairs and top layer corners using an EG 1. With usage of wide r moves most of the EG 1s from Jperm.net don't mess up the pairs.
The only problem with this is that predicting EO after EG 1 is quite hard.
PS- If someone has thought about this before, Can you provide me good algs for these cases? the information about these varients is scattered all over the forums so I posted this here just to be sure.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 28, 2021)

Rouxster said:


> *EG 1 ON 3 by 3*
> on the wiki, it says that EG 1 is particularly useful for LMCF and and some other method but I think it could be REALLY useful for roux.
> keeping the front two pairs swapped can save many moves during blockbuilding, especially if there are many free pairs. Then we can solve the pairs and top layer corners using an EG 1. With usage of wide r moves most of the EG 1s from Jperm.net don't mess up the pairs.
> The only problem with this is that predicting EO after EG 1 is quite hard.
> PS- If someone has thought about this before, Can you provide me good algs for these cases? the information about these varients is scattered all over the forums so I posted this here just to be sure.


There's ACMLL. Btw 2x2 EG1 algs can be used with wide moves.


----------



## PetraPine (Mar 28, 2021)

Rouxster said:


> *EG 1 ON 3 by 3*
> on the wiki, it says that EG 1 is particularly useful for LMCF and and some other method but I think it could be REALLY useful for roux.
> keeping the front two pairs swapped can save many moves during blockbuilding, especially if there are many free pairs. Then we can solve the pairs and top layer corners using an EG 1. With usage of wide r moves most of the EG 1s from Jperm.net don't mess up the pairs.
> The only problem with this is that predicting EO after EG 1 is quite hard.
> PS- If someone has thought about this before, Can you provide me good algs for these cases? the information about these varients is scattered all over the forums so I posted this here just to be sure.


this is pretty close to waterroux, but seemingly just a more advanced version of it?


----------



## Rouxster (Mar 29, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> this is pretty close to waterroux, but seemingly just a more advanced version of it?


Yeah it is sort of like that, but it is an easier version cause the algorithm count is less and recognition is exactly like cmll.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 29, 2021)

Yeah, it would be ACMLL. I haven't gotten to generating that set yet though. There are so many possibilities. If you're interested in generating this set and similar ones, you can do that. I can then add that to the ACMLL document and give you credit for finding the algs.


----------



## Rouxster (Mar 31, 2021)

Athefre said:


> Yeah, it would be ACMLL. I haven't gotten to generating that set yet though. There are so many possibilities. If you're interested in generating this set and similar ones, you can do that. I can then add that to the ACMLL document and give you credit for finding the algs.


That would be nice!
Here are the algs for the most basic subset- where the front two "f2l" pairs are in swapped positions.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 31, 2021)

Rouxster said:


> That would be nice!
> Here are the algs for the most basic subset- where the front two "f2l" pairs are in swapped positions.



Wow. A lot of those algs are amazing. Some others will need some development over time. I'll get these added to the ACMLL document, give you credit, and let you know. Thank you! This is awesome.

How do you want to be credited? A real name or username?


----------



## Rouxster (Mar 31, 2021)

Athefre said:


> Wow. A lot of those algs are amazing. Some others will need some development over time. I'll get these added to the ACMLL document, give you credit, and let you know. Thank you! This is awesome.
> 
> How do you want to be credited? A real name or username?


Real name -it's Aditya Pathak


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 31, 2021)

Rouxster said:


> That would be nice!
> Here are the algs for the most basic subset- where the front two "f2l" pairs are in swapped positions.



Better alg for Pi left bar is R U' r2 F R2 U' R'


----------



## Rouxster (Mar 31, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Better alg for Pi left bar is R U' r2 F R2 U' R'


I think that's the one I've written.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 31, 2021)

Rouxster said:


> I think that's the one I've written.


Oops... I was looking at right bar and thought it was left bar. Sorry lol.

Btw @Athefre, for the cases where both the pairs are built and flipped in their own spots, why not use F2 setups to @Rouxster's algs?


----------



## Athefre (Mar 31, 2021)

Rouxster said:


> Real name -it's Aditya Pathak



Thanks. I'll have everything added soon.



Cubing Forever said:


> Btw @Athefre, for the cases where both the pairs are built and flipped in their own spots, why not use F2 setups to @Rouxster's algs?



Do you have an example?


----------



## zed zed (Apr 1, 2021)

AlgoCuber said:


> 8355 Method for Speedsolving?
> 
> If you don't know what the 8355 method is, I recommend you watch this video:
> 
> ...


Seems cool, I'll give it a try


----------



## Cubing Forever (Apr 1, 2021)

Athefre said:


> Do you have an example?


I was talking about these cases

you can do F2 setups to EG 1


----------



## Athefre (Apr 1, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> I was talking about these cases
> View attachment 15288
> you can do F2 setups to EG 1



Would the pairs be built like that during FB and SB? Such that one pair is at uFL and the other at uFR? Or is there something else not conveyed by the image?


----------



## Cubing Forever (Apr 1, 2021)

Athefre said:


> Would the pairs be built like that during FB and SB? Such that one pair is at uFL and the other at uFR? Or is there something else not conveyed by the image?


It's a rare case. You can build them but it's a waste of movecount.

btw here's a method based on CFOP and belt that I thought of last night:

Scramble: R2 U B2 F2 U' F2 D B2 F2 D' B' D B L U L' B L' D2 U'
z2 U F2 U2 L U' L' U L F' L' F L' U L //xxxcross of oriented pieces
U R' U2 R U' R f' U' f //LS+EO
R' U' R U' R' U2 R //DR
U2 R2 U R2 U S U2 S' //separation
U' R2 D R2 D' R2 D R2 D' R2//permute corners
U M' U2 M U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 //permute a few edges
U2 S M U M' U2 S' U' //adj/adj

You'll understand it if you watch the example solve. Maybe useful for FMC if your continuations after DR are pretty good.


----------



## AlgoCuber (Apr 1, 2021)

New effecient and rotationless F2L method

1. Solve 1-3 edges of a cross (I prefer 3)
2. Solve 3 second-layer edges
3. Insert 3 out of 4 first-layer corners using the unsolved second layer edge slot (D moves are recommended for rotationless)
4. Solve the fourth psuedo pair
5. Insert the final white edge

Possible optimizations
1. Do step 1 with some of step 2
2. You can do step 2 and 3 at the same time
3. Combine steps 4 and 5

Example here (Not very efficient because I haven't really developed it yet)


----------



## Athefre (Apr 1, 2021)

Rouxster said:


> Real name -it's Aditya Pathak



I added your algs to the ACMLL document and a credit section to the Info tab to show how others have contributed. I also went through each case for this alg set and generated additional ones for some. The tab can be found after the Spiral sets and is called L/R Flip Swap Front. Thanks so much for making this set!









ACMLL


Info ACMLL content has moved to a website with block types separated into their own sheets. Better algorithms have also been generated for sets. This document is no longer being maintained. View the ACMLL website below. <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/athefre/acmll?authuser=0">https://sit...




docs.google.com


----------



## tsmosher (Apr 4, 2021)

I wholeheartedly welcome any criticisms.



Spoiler: Inspiration



Since it is very hard to find resources and tutorials for the 42 Method, this is a variant of that method which I have created for myself.

It is, in most ways, a blatant copy of that method with attempts to improve EO/EP and to utilize existing alg sets (much in the spirit of the original 42 Method IMHO). With these improvements came changes that make this method far different in many ways from Roux or 42. I'm cool with that. (Personally, I believe it retains many of the innovative aspects from each of these methods.)

All credit to Shadowslice (and others like Athefre who have proposed the same idea) for the BT-redux recognition system.





Spoiler: Heinz Method



Although it can be implemented with ~20 algs (using 2L OLL for orientation during step 3), the intermediate versions of this method require ~57 algs***.

As such, I hereby reserve the name *"Heinz method"* for this method if anyone uses it. (Heinz is a registered trademark of H.J. Heinz Company. All rights reserved.)

***Actually 61 and 62 algs respectively, but I couldn't think of any cool names involving these numbers, so we'll consider both of these numbers to be ~57.




For step 1 (below), I personally recommend LEOR style, but any method you can use to build a 2x2x3 will work.

I personally do not solve EO at this stage, but there is no reason that it couldn't be. (The remainder of the solve could easily be kept <RUM>.)



Spoiler: Step 1: 2x2x3



Options include:

*LEOR-style*

Block-build FB (in DL)
Solve DF/DB

*Petrus-style*

Block-build 2x2x2
Extend with 2x2x1

*Squall-style*

Block-build 2x2x1
Extend with pair
Solve DF/DB

*X-style*

Build X-Line/Arrow/Cross
Extend with square/pair

*Nautilus-style*

Block-build FB (in DL)
Block-build 2x2x2 (in DBR)

*Mehta-style*

Block-build FB (in D layer)
Extend by solving 2-3QB

*Etc...*






Spoiler: Step 2. Pseudo-2x2x1




*Second Square (2x2x1 Block)*
1. Find oriented corner.

Using the free R slice, find or create an oriented U-layer corner. As you complete this step, keep this oriented corner out of the way (e.g., above the left block) on the U layer; we will need it later.
2. Solve DR edge.

3. Form BR F2L pair.

Connect the DBR corner and the BR edge to form an F2L pair.
4. Insert F2L pair into the BR slot.

Any second-to-last-slot methods for orientation could be incorporated during insertion of this F2L pair. (Being inserted into BR, this is not ideal for most of these methods though.)


*Pre-L5C*
1. Find oriented edge.

Due to the state of the cube at this point, there will be (at least) one good edge that is NOT in a position that we have already solved (i.e., one that is not part of either of our blocks that we’ve constructed thus far).
2. Pair oriented corner with oriented edge.

I told you we would need this later. Well, the time has come.
As you pair these pieces, it is important that these pieces both remain correctly oriented!
3. Position oriented corner in UBR and oriented edge in UR (directly above the solved dBR square of your cube).

4. Perform an R move to prepare for the "last layer."



Finally, we arrive at the "last layer." (We are really solving last slot + last layer at once.)

This is where I feel that I have implemented some true improvements over the original method which allow you to:

solve EO during the beginning of this step (only looking at the U-layer edges)
use alg sets you already know (e.g., OLL, COLL), and
end the solve with L5EP-FR (instead of the dreaded L7E).
I have unabashedly used algs from WaterZZ L6EP for this final step. (Since algs for L5EP with the FR edge unsolved are few and far between.)
A *huge* thank you to whoever created these algs (efattah?) as there a lot of them. (I only needed 12 though.)



Spoiler: Step 3. LL (option #1) - COLL users



This option is for the solver who knows basic EOLL and full COLL.
(Obviously, CxLL-EO would work as well.)

*1. Solve EO.

2. Position the bottom corner in UBL.

3. L5C*

Solve the remaining 5 corners using the BT-redux recognition system and the 42 algs from the CxLL subset(s) of your choice.
*4. It is now necessary to AUF to the correct position and then “un-offset” the right square block using an R’ move.*

The easiest way to recognize the desired AUF position is by lining up the misoriented U-layer corner (i.e., the bottom corner) with the corner that is currently in the DFR position.
After R’ from this position, all corners on the cube will be solved.
*5. L5EP-FR*

Solve the remaining 5 edges (UF, UR, UL, UB, FR) using one of 16 algorithms. (Includes 4 EPLL algs.)






Spoiler: Step 3. LL (option #2) - OLL users



This option is for the solver who knows full OLL and is willing to learn 6 COLL algs (to be used situationally).

*1. Orient the current “last layer.”*

This can be done in 1 step (e.g., full OLL) or 2 steps (e.g., EOLL + OCLL, etc.) or in any number of steps really...
*2. Position the bottom corner in UBL. 

3. Beginner’s L5C*

Solve the remaining 5 corners using the BT-redux recognition system (only oriented cases) and the 6 algs from the CxLL subset(s) of your choice.
*4. It is now necessary to AUF to the correct position and then “un-offset” the right square block using an R’ move.*

The easiest way to recognize the desired AUF position is by lining up the misoriented U-layer corner (i.e., the bottom corner) with the corner that is currently in the DFR position.
After R’ from this position, all corners on the cube will be solved.
*5. L5EP-FR*

Solve the remaining 5 edges (UF, UR, UL, UB, FR) using one of 16 algorithms. (Includes 4 EPLL algs.)




I have a personal alg sheet that I use. If there is any interest, I will post it here.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 4, 2021)

I'm sorry to say, but this has already been proposed multiple times (to clarify, the F2L bit is basically a form of FreeFOP and the LSLL bit has been proposed as a "42 for not Roux" at least a couple of times). It's definitely cool as a method, and I'm happy the WaterZZ L6EP algs are being put to use (I genned most of them, although not that set actually). 

In terms of speedsolving, you're better off either using normal ZZ or CFOP (whatever takes your fancy), but for style points, this wins.


----------



## tsmosher (Apr 4, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> I'm sorry to say, but this has already been proposed multiple times (to clarify, the F2L bit is basically a form of FreeFOP and the LSLL bit has been proposed as a "42 for not Roux" at least a couple of times). It's definitely cool as a method, and I'm happy the WaterZZ L6EP algs are being put to use (I genned most of them, although not that set actually).
> 
> In terms of speedsolving, you're better off either using normal ZZ or CFOP (whatever takes your fancy), but for style points, this wins.



Not surprising. I was confused as to the ergonomics/mechanics of 42 after watching and rewatching the tutorials dozens of times. When it finally clicked, I ran with it and developed the above. It is essentially Roux/42 except that you solve DF/DB in order to make EO/EP easier during the LL. (Nothing groundbreaking here.)

I will say that I think I prefer the above to either ZZ or CFOP.

ZZ- orienting edges at the beginning and then not screwing them up during F2L is an incredible challenge that limits the ways in which I can solve- Limits the algs I can use, the rotations I can perform- I've just never gotten past that. (Not even for the holy grail of a 1LLL- which I would never achieve since I am not willing to memorize a fraction of those algs.)

And CFOP- The cross is very restrictive to your allowed movements, and the whole solve ends up feeling very robotic. Having said that, I solve CFOP when I am going for speed, but I feel like that is more a matter of familiarity and comfort.

With the above method, my goal here was to have a block-building start, followed by easy/intuitive steps in the middle to gradually solve the cube (e.g., DF/DB, BR pair, etc.) in preparation for L5CP/L6CP. Keeping the alg counts "manageable" (less than CFOP proper) and keeping EO dead simple were both goals here that I think I achieved. (Originally started this method with the last step as LSE/L7E, and I like it much better this way. I can do LSE just fine, but add a 7th edge... and I tend to unsolve the cube pretty often.)

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 5, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> I wholeheartedly welcome any criticisms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As PapaSmurf said, not completely new. You can see this used in the Transformation variant of Nautilus that is on the website. A pair and also an additional edge can be used for the transformation. I think this is the most natural use of transformation in any method. It perfectly fits the blockbuilding and takes care of L5C and L5E at the same time. 42 is great, but L7E is awkward in several ways. I'm holding out hope that some magical solution is found for that. I've said a few times that I think 42 would be easier to manage if a pair is used for the transformation instead of just an oriented corner. This way there is no L7E.

As for just using a pair in F2L-1, as you have, I'm sure this has been proposed many times. But I'm not sure if a method has actually had this developed in that specific way. At least not in a way where the proposer was confident enough in the idea to put it on a site or the wiki with documents.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 5, 2021)

I've always thought that for 42, you could do EO+any U edge then conjugated L6EP. Iirc, the movecount isn't negatively affected and you get a 2 look L7E.


----------



## tsmosher (Apr 5, 2021)

Looking through your original proposal around Transformation-based methods (which even at that time was not a new concept) is blowing my mind right now. For example, it seems obvious that I can proceed with any 1 of 4 possible F2L pairs from a 2x2x3 block; but even just extending that to any 1 of 8 possible squares (while it is something I've tried a couple times) is far more powerful...

Honestly, most of your methods soar right over my head and seem like some sort of black magic. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me as you have opened me up to a new (to me, at least) collection of concepts and methods. I will be looking into this earnestly but-- alas-- with my limited understanding, I'm not sure I'll innovate too much in this space. I'll probably spend the next week trying to understand the Nautilus Transformation method alone. 

More to the point, why _can't_ you use a U-layer pair (or something similar) for the transformation in 42? So that we don't get stuck with more edges to solve at the end?

Also, re: L7E, I think that Shadowslice's proposal of FR+EO (essentially L7EOP --> oriented L6E) sounded brilliant. But it seems that he dropped off the face of the planet with regards to this method and never created algs/tutorials/etc. for that step. With that step in place and fleshed out for the ignorant masses like myself, I would use 42 as is and be done with it.

Although 2opp EO would probably be more efficient, my head hurts just thinking about orienting/permuting 7 edges (whilst keeping track of corners so that I can reassemble them as well). By contrast, L7EOP seems more approachable and seems like a problem set that could be solved somewhat intuitively (much like L5EOP). Do you not agree here?


----------



## Athefre (Apr 5, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> I've always thought that for 42, you could do EO+any U edge then conjugated L6EP. Iirc, the movecount isn't negatively affected and you get a 2 look L7E.



That could work. There is a big issue though. EO recognition is more difficult than in Roux. One solution to that is to track the FR edge during SB or the corner solving alg.



tsmosher said:


> Looking through your original proposal around Transformation-based methods (which even at that time was not a new concept) is blowing my mind right now. For example, it seems obvious that I can proceed with any 1 of 4 possible F2L pairs from a 2x2x3 block; but even just extending that to any 1 of 8 possible squares (while it is something I've tried a couple times) is far more powerful...
> 
> Honestly, most of your methods soar right over my head and seem like some sort of black magic. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me as you have opened me up to a new (to me, at least) collection of concepts and methods. I will be looking into this earnestly but-- alas-- with my limited understanding, I'm not sure I'll innovate too much in this space. I'll probably spend the next week trying to understand the Nautilus Transformation method alone.



Transformation as a concept originated in NMLL and A2 from 2010-2012. Those were the first transformation-based methods. Even back then I was using the term "transformation". But it was only last year that I added the term to the wiki. I was the first to discover the concept. But Joseph Briggs definitely deserves a lot of credit for popularizing it with 42.



tsmosher said:


> More to the point, why _can't_ you use a U-layer pair (or something similar) for the transformation in 42? So that we don't get stuck with more edges to solve at the end?
> 
> Also, re: L7E, I think that Shadowslice's proposal of FR+EO (essentially L7EOP --> oriented L6E) sounded brilliant. But it seems that he dropped off the face of the planet with regards to this method and never created algs/tutorials/etc. for that step. With that step in place and fleshed out for the ignorant masses like myself, I would use 42 as is and be done with it.
> 
> Although 2opp EO would probably be more efficient, my head hurts just thinking about orienting/permuting 7 edges (whilst keeping track of corners so that I can reassemble them as well). By contrast, L7EOP seems more approachable and seems like a problem set that could be solved somewhat intuitively (much like L5EOP). Do you not agree here?



I think Jason Wong developed an FR+EO kind of thing for 42. 2opp EO definitely is difficult because EO is very difficult to recognize. It would be nice if there was a solution that doesn't involve EO of all seven edges. Using a pair for transformation kind of helps that, but still isn't perfect unless edge tracking is done.


----------



## AlgoCuber (Apr 13, 2021)

Shiv3r said:


> 1 Look Line Last layer! (nicknamed *1L*OL *L*OL *L*OL This is awesome)
> This CFOP/ZZ/Petrus variant was inspired by brainstorming ways of restricting the last layer during F2L so that the amount of cases for a 1-look last layer dropped. This is the result of me and JTWong71's brainstorming.
> The Idea is to have a solved 1x2x3 Line, with edges already oriented as in WV.
> Some of the benefits is that 1/3 of the time you get a really easy PLL(U-perms, F-perm, J perms), and recognition is actually really good. There is also a 1/18 chance of skipping the last layer altogether, and 8 out of 18 times you get a really fast 2-gen case.
> ...


Can anyone show me an example solve of this method? I can't seem to understand it very well


----------



## Platform_ (Apr 17, 2021)

I correct my guide by methodd of LL Platform.
I writed this in Italian my language.


----------



## Akira80kv (Apr 21, 2021)

I call it like that, because it's a mixture of the roux method and the cfop method. Basically you make the first two blocks, like in roux, for example, the blue and green blocks. Then you make all the edges white or yellow for this example, like in roux, then putting the white red and orange white edge on their right positions. That will make f2l. Then you will basically always have a yellow cross, so oll cross skip thing. You do a 2 look oll alg, (itll be like 1 look oll, as cross is already done), then pll. Is it a good method? I'm kinda new so I need your help


----------



## patricKING (Apr 21, 2021)

Do an example solve, or two. That'll show many of the problems that could come with the method, and help other understand it better. Nice idea!


----------



## Akira80kv (Apr 21, 2021)

Ok! I'll try! Thanks!

Btw, are there any digitl cube things , like to make a digital example solve so it's faster?


----------



## patricKING (Apr 21, 2021)

Try alg.cubing.net
But you have to enter the moves manually.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Apr 21, 2021)

Akira80kv said:


> I call it like that, because it's a mixture of the roux method and the cfop method. Basically you make the first two blocks, like in roux, for example, the blue and green blocks. Then you make all the edges white or yellow for this example, like in roux, then putting the white red and orange white edge on their right positions. That will make f2l. Then you will basically always have a yellow cross, so oll cross skip thing. You do a 2 look oll alg, (itll be like 1 look oll, as cross is already done), then pll. Is it a good method? I'm kinda new so I need your help


That is bad. Lots of new people come up with it. Don’t do that.


----------



## patricKING (Apr 21, 2021)

The first question here: Wouldn't it be faster to just do normal cross and F2L? It feels like it is slower doing two 1x2x3 blocks than normal F2L. But really nice that you have these ideas, keep it going!
Edit: Also, try to do a solve with your method and then the CFOP method and you'll see what is the fastest for you.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Apr 21, 2021)

An advanced version of this method, called ZBRoux exists. Here's what it looks like(inefficiently):
z' F2 U' S U2 S' U2 R2 U' R' U' R U L U' L' F' U F2 R' F' R U' L' U2 L2 U L2 U L //first 2 blocks
U M' U M //all red and orange on top and bottom
U' M' U2 M' U2 M2 // Down edges
U R2 D' R U2 R' D R U2 R U2 //ZBLL (which solves both OLL and PLL at once)
(click on that link to see the whole solve at alg.cubing.net)


----------



## Akira80kv (Apr 21, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> That is bad. Lots of new people come up with it. Don’t do that.


Ok! Thanks! Do you have any tips on how I could achieve a consistent sub 20 w/ roux? My pb is 16 secs but that was very lucky, I sometimes do 18 scs, and I average 20-23 secs.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Apr 21, 2021)

Akira80kv said:


> Ok! Thanks! Do you have any tips on how I could achieve a consistent sub 20 w/ roux? My pb is 16 secs but that was very lucky, I sometimes do 18 scs, and I average 20-23 secs.


Just do lots of untimed solves to focus on finding efficient solutions, and watch example solves to learn new ways to solving blocks.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Apr 21, 2021)

I came up with something similar back in january


----------



## Existential Shrimp (Apr 21, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> I came up with something similar back in january


was it for the method competition? (just curious)


----------



## trangium (May 1, 2021)

Here's an idea for a beginner's blindfolded method. This probably won't be good for everyone, but could be okay for those who have trouble remembering their setup moves.
It works similarly to Old Pochmann, except with different swap algs. In particular, the edges swap alg swaps 2 edges and 4 centers, which allows for more freedom in setups, leading to shorter setups. The different corner alg allows parity to be handled in a simple way.

Speffz lettering is used here.

Edges Buffer: S
Edges Target: C
Allowed setups: <U, R, F, L>
Edge swap alg: M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U' or U2 M’ U’ S R’ F’ R S’ R’ F R U’
Parity: Add R to the end of edge memo
Special case: if there are an odd number of edge letter pairs, add E2 M’ E2 M to the start of execution

Corner buffer: H
Corner Target: C
Allowed setups: <U, R, F>
Corner swap alg: R B R’ U2 r U’ r B r2 U2



Spoiler: Example solve



U' D B R' B U' D2 F' L2 D B2 L2 U' F2 L2 U D2 L2 F2 R

Edges: GU IV QP DF HN EB MR (Add R because there is parity)
Corners: BI UJ EW V

E2 M' E2 M // Odd number of edge letter pairs (7 is odd)
L' F (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F' L // G
F2 (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F2 // U
F R U (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') U' R' F' // I
R2 U (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') U' R2 // V
U R' F' (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F R U' // Q
F' (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F // P
U' (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') U // D
F (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F' // F
L2 F (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F' L2 // H
R2 F' (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F R2 // N
L F (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F' L' // E
U (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') U' // B
R' F' (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') F R // M
L U' (M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U') U L' // R

U (R B R' U2 r U' r B r2 U2) U' // B
F2 R (R B R' U2 r U' r B r2 U2) R' F2 // I
F2 (R B R' U2 r U' r B r2 U2) F2 // U
F R (R B R' U2 r U' r B r2 U2) R' F' // J
U R' (R B R' U2 r U' r B r2 U2) R U' // E
R2 (R B R' U2 r U' r B r2 U2) R2 // W
R2 U (R B R' U2 r U' r B r2 U2) U' R2 // V

View at alg.cubing.net


----------



## PapaSmurf (May 1, 2021)

That's pretty cool, (although potentially kinda hard to visualise for beginners). The first edge alg needs a bit of reworking, but otherwise I actually really like it. The main disadvantage is that M2/M are both better and are also suitable for beginners, which is kinda annoying, but hey.


----------



## MethodNeutral (May 1, 2021)

Just had this thought this morning and wanted to see if this has been thought of before, I tried looking on the speedsolving wiki but I couldn't find anything for it.

Essentially my idea is EJLS (link) but for full OLL. The idea is when solving F2L in CFOP, if a pair happens to be in the correct slot and the edge is flipped correctly (but the corner is twisted), then simply continue solving F2L. Then execute one of ~116 (?) algs which untwists the corner and orients the last layer.

The 116 number looks a bit daunting, but half of them would be mirrors since the corner can be twisted one of two ways. So it'd really be about 58 algs, but that's just my own guess for the number of cases.

Another interesting idea could be to learn the algs which solve OLL while correcting an F2L pair with a flipped edge.

I should clarify, both of these should be considered as alg sets which are not meant to be used in every solve. Like COLL in the context of CFOP, this isn't something a solver should go out of their way to use, but if the opportunity presents itself (e.g. a pre-made pseudo-pair), then it would come in handy to have these algorithms.


----------



## AlgoCuber (May 2, 2021)

Theses have most likely been proposed before but here are my ideas for skewb:

Intermediate:
First face
EG + A center
L5C

Intermediate-Advanced:
First face
EG
L6C

Advanced:
3 face corners
Last 5 corners
L6C


----------



## Z1hc (May 7, 2021)

I have some 2x2 methods that may be new. Here they are:
2x2 method 1:
Step1: create a layer except don’t solve the last piece (Down Front Right corner.).
Step 2: solve the front right up corner.
Step 3: permute the last 4 corners so they look like 4 corner twists (or less).
Step 4: solve the 4 twisted (or less) corners with one algorithm.

2x2 method 2: 
First solve down left front and down left back corner.
Step 2: solve up right front and up right back corner.
Step 3: permute the last 4 corners.
step 4: orient the last 4 corners.
/\ the last 2 steps can be rearranged and might be easier that way.


----------



## Jamal_69 (May 25, 2021)

hey! so I've had this idea for a while now so here goes! I essentially wanted to create an actually viable way of doing roux on megaminx and I think I've found it... sorta. this may have been proposed before Idk. this method is sort of a variant of balínt I guess and also I'm kinda stuck on how to do step 5 so some help would be appreciated 
step 1: F2L. just like with most megaminx methods you start off with the first two layers. you can do this however you want but I do it by blockbuilding since I'm a roux user. 
step 2: first block. the first block is made up of a balínt block and the two pairs adjacent to it. nothing much more to say here. 
step 3: second block. same thing as first block. make sure there's a balínt block slot in the front between the first and second block and two balínt block slots and a pair slot in the back in between them. 
step 4: solve the two balínt blocks in the back. very straight forward. by the end of this step there will be one s2l slot and one balínt block slot left of the s2l. 
step 5: roux style EO. this is the step I'm having trouble on so I would love some help on it. it's basically doing roux style EO with R' L F' L' R I know what the move does but can't figure out recognition for it. ZZ-Spike recognition doesn't work for this method as far as I know. 
step 6: finish s2l. last balínt block slot and s2l slot 
step 7: last layer. just like ZZ-Spike since all edges are oriented. so that's the method. I hope somebody can find a way to do EO.


----------



## Waffles (May 29, 2021)

I don’t know if anyone has ever thought of this idea before (they probably have) and I’m not here to think about optimisation. I know it’s unlikely anyone will use it, and even if they do, they will notice some flaws in the method.

Anyway, it’s a substep of CFOP (my main method) where you do 3 piece cross, then leave the final piece unsolved. Then you do F2L having the final piece of the cross unsolved so you can do M moves to make F2L slightly easier. Then you can do some kind of edge orientation/solving the last cross piece as 1st look OLL, then COLL and the final edges.

Now, this is assuming you know COLL and would have to learn a few algorithms (which I can’t be bothered to make them).

Potential Problems: if you use a lot of ZB or WV or other last-slot related things. Obviously this would rely on having good M’/M fingertricks and being good at turning in general. It might be hard to recognise LCEO algorithms depending on the case. I assume there won’t be many algorithms for it.

As you can tell, this was quite rushed and I haven’t tested out or anything and no-one is going to use it but I just thought I’d put it out there anyway.


Steps:
3Cross
MF2L
LCEO
COLL
PLL

I hope this inspired you in some way


----------



## ruffleduck (May 29, 2021)

Waffles said:


> I don’t know if anyone has ever thought of this idea before (they probably have) and I’m not here to think about optimisation. I know it’s unlikely anyone will use it, and even if they do, they will notice some flaws in the method.
> 
> Anyway, it’s a substep of CFOP (my main method) where you do 3 piece cross, then leave the final piece unsolved. Then you do F2L having the final piece of the cross unsolved so you can do M moves to make F2L slightly easier. Then you can do some kind of edge orientation/solving the last cross piece as 1st look OLL, then COLL and the final edges.
> 
> ...


This is just a worse version of Hawaiian Kociemba. It's worse because in Hawaiian Kociemba you orient F2L edges to make the rest of the solve more efficient and easier.


----------



## the dnf master (Jun 5, 2021)

idk if this has been came up with before but for the case solved with R U2 R' U' R U R'(or its mirror), if the edge is misoriented, you can just do the big cube flipping alg, or sledghammer followed by R U' R', or mirrored, and it pairs it up and also flips the edge, which saves a rotation.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jun 5, 2021)

For a long time I've been interested in a CP reduction which can be solved by <L,U> followed by <R,U> moves.

To explain it in a different way, take a solved cube and scramble it with <R,U>. Then scramble it with <L,U>. This cube is now in the reduction state I'm interested in. This is nice because the solution is simply to solve the left F2L block (cross + 2 pairs) using LU, then solve the right F2L block in a similar fashion and then 2GLL.

However, reaching a state like this is far from easy to do in inspection, so I came up with a different method idea which uses the same concept. I am referring to this method as LURoux, a pun on the fact that this uses LU->RU reduction.

1. Reduce *only the corners of the cube* to the above-described LU->RU state (solvable by LU followed by RU).
2. Solve left F2L block in the style of Roux second block.
3. Solve the right F2L block in the style of Roux second block.
4. Solve edge orientation and place DF/DB edges (EODFDB).
5. 2GLL

Essentially, this is ZBRoux but with just 2-gen cases thanks to the initial reduction step.

Step 1 is much easier when we don't have to worry about edge orientation, and for now the method I am using is the same as the first step in the YruRU method. In the future, I am hoping this can be streamlined even further since it is technically even less restrictive than reducing the cube to 2-gen (the DL corners won't necessarily have to be solved at the end of this step, although having them solved makes recognition much easier).

Pros:

Ergonomic turning throughout the solve
Repeated steps (Two steps are similar to Roux SB, which means the solver gets more practice executing these steps)
Reduced algorithm count compared to ZBRoux (84 for 2GLL)
While solving EODFDB, lookahead to 2GLL is very easy as the corners case is visible throughout this part of the solve

Cons:

Pieces for the first block can become stuck in the second block after solving CP (solvable with R2 S R2 S' or a similar commutator)
CP recognition will take practice
Higher movecount than ZBRoux (I'm not quite sure how to calculate movecount exactly)

I can post an example solve, although it will not be indicative of how an actual solve would look as the first step is still very undeveloped (as I mentioned earlier, I am just copying the first step of YruRU).

Comparing this method to Roux:

Worse first block due to restricted moveset of <L,l,U>
Identical second block
EODFDB is comparable to EOLR

LURoux has an extra initial step, and then we are comparing 2GLL with Roux's CMLL and step 4c. As a result, I think Roux is objectively better than this method for speedsolving, so I wouldn't recommend using if you're interested in speed. Otherwise, it's a very fun method.

Let me know what you think, and if you have any advice for the LURoux reduction step!

_Edit:_
Rather than doing LURU reduction via the first step of YruRU, in inspection you can simply find two corners which are permuted correctly since orientation will not matter. I don't know how to calculate the likelihood of this happening, but anecdotally it is very high. It seems like at most, a scramble will require one move to place two adjacent corners next to each other.

Once two adjacent corners are next to each other, they can be treated as the DL corners for YruRU-style reduction. Once the key flip is determined between the other corners, it can be solved via a simple trigger like F R F' / F R' F' / F' U F / F' U' F. From there, the LURU reduction is solved.

In my post, I forgot to mention the solving of the L center in the method. This is done after CP (LURU reduction), as the <L,l,U,u> moveset is available. S slices are also available, but I don't find them as ergonomic. In either case, this is yet another con of the method in the context of speedsolving.


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jun 7, 2021)

A bit of an update on LURoux: I've developed a better way of performing the reduction step, so here is an outline. I will be using this scramble from cstimer: D2 R2 U B2 R2 D R2 D2 U L2 U F U F2 R' D' B F D

I scrambled with white top green front, and I solve with white on D. So perform the scramble with your D-layer face on U in order to follow along.

0. Find two adjacent D-layer corners which are already adjacent to each other. They do not need to be oriented, nor do they need to be solved relative to each other. For example, on the scramble perform an x rotation and the two corners in DL belong adjacent to each other, but they are not solved relative to each other (this will take familiarity with the color scheme to recognize, although in this case it is obvious as they happen to be oriented).

0.a. If there are no adjacent D-layer corners which can be found next to each other, perform CP as done in the YruRU method. (note: Orientation of DL corners doesn't matter in LURoux, so we are slightly less restricted than we would be in YruRU).

Note that now, assuming we didn't branch into 0.a, the DL corners are either solved or swapped. This will be important later.

1. Determine CP using whatever method you are familiar with. I like to use a modified version of what is taught in the YruRU tutorial (link above).

Now, there is either a key swap of pieces to be performed, or CP is solved.

There are four cases to be considered now:
2.a. DL corners solved, CP solved
2.b. DL corners solved, CP requires a swap
2.c. DL corners swapped, CP solved
2.d. DL corners swapped, CP requires a swap

2.a. Nothing to do here (yay!)

2.b. The key swap can be performed with a simple algorithm such as F' U F or F R F'

2.c. This case is annoying, I handle it with F' U F R (this will be explained later)

2.d. Use 2-gen (R,U) to put the key swap at DR

In case 2.b, the algs I use are F R F' (swaps UB corners), F R' F or F' U F (swaps UR corners), and F' U' F (swaps UF corners).

In case 2.c, we actually create a swap (F' U F) and then solve it as if it's case 2.d (R).

In the scramble we received, I traced CP to find that a swap is needed between the corner at UFL and the corner at DBR, which is equivalent to swapping the two corners at FR positions. As a result, an R' will position these corners at DR to solve the LURoux reduction.

So the solution for this scramble would be something like this:

Scramble: D2 R2 U B2 R2 D R2 D2 U L2 U F U F2 R' D' B F D

Inspection: x
CP: R'
Piece sorting: No moves necessary 
First block: 
Square: M2 U L' U' L' U2 l U l'
Pair: L' U2 L U' L' U L
Second block:
Square: R2 U R U2 r' U' R2
Pair: U M' R' U r
EODFDB: M' U M U2 M' U' M' U' M2 U2 M' U2 M'
2GLL: U R U' R' U2 R U R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R'

If anyone is interested, I can show the solution to other scrambles which cover the other possible CP cases (2.a/2.b/2.c). I'm also happy to explain my method for tracing CP if that interests anyone.


----------



## mastmtr (Jun 20, 2021)

New heavily algorithm based method

1: Make two opposite crosses intuitively
2: Use an algorithm that separates the corners into their layers
3: Cmll on both faces and extra algorithms to solve impossible cases
4: Last 4 edges in the e slice

Probably has lower movecount than cfop and very algorithmic so the turn speed could be very high


----------



## Waffles (Jun 20, 2021)

I have a problem with that. Recognition.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 20, 2021)

Probably doesn't have a better movecount than CFOP and the algs will be awful.


----------



## Waffles (Jun 21, 2021)

Yeah, it’s good to just get to know the cube better. I doubt that anyone would use this though.



PapaSmurf said:


> Probably doesn't have a better movecount than CFOP and the algs will be awful.



Yeah, solving E Layer edges. Ugh. Those algs are gonna be terrible. And the fact that you need to train like 5 steps with over 20 algs doesn’t help it.


----------



## the dnf master (Jun 24, 2021)

better ub perm from the front: R' U' R U' R U R2 U R U' R U' R'
didn't see this alg anywhere else, so im assuming its new


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 24, 2021)

the dnf master said:


> better ub perm from the front: R' U' R U' R U R2 U R U' R U' R'
> didn't see this alg anywhere else, so im assuming its new


It's just the inverse of the popular Ua perm R U R' U R' U'...
Not a good alg. R2 U R U R' U' R3 U' R' U R' is better.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jun 29, 2021)

I'm kind of glad I didn't come up with ZZ. I probably would have called it "E-Line Crust" because you have a EO followed by the line hence "E-Line" or Elon. You get "Crust" because EO fixes all the edges so once at LL you have a cross on the "U" or, "T" face giving you "Crust" or, Musk.


E-Line Crust = Elon Musk


----------



## LBr (Jun 29, 2021)

the dnf master said:


> better ub perm from the front: R' U' R U' R U R2 U R U' R U' R'
> didn't see this alg anywhere else, so im assuming its new


imo the best u perm is the one with m moves


----------



## the dnf master (Jun 29, 2021)

if ur consistent at it, the s move ones are the fastest


----------



## Waffles (Jun 29, 2021)

the dnf master said:


> if ur consistent at it, the s move ones are the fastest



Not like you’d use it in a solve though. Also you sent that at 4:20 AM my time ;/


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 29, 2021)

Waffles said:


> Not like you’d use it in a solve though. Also you sent that at 4:20 AM my time ;/


Me who uses S move U perms in solves…


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 29, 2021)

Waffles said:


> Not like you’d use it in a solve though. Also you sent that at 4:20 AM my time ;/


i can do RUS u perms consistently in solves if i slow it down to around 0.6-0.7


----------



## the dnf master (Jun 29, 2021)

It seems like no one here learned from luke garret


----------



## LBr (Jun 29, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Me who uses S move U perms in solves…


for me, the s move u perms feel weird to me, so I just do the MU one, because it has fewer regrips than the common RU one, and when I started to be able to do advanced m move fingertricks, i switched to it


----------



## the dnf master (Jun 29, 2021)

LBr said:


> for me, the s move u perms feel weird to me, so I just do the MU one, because it has fewer regrips than the common RU one, and when I started to be able to do advanced m move fingertricks, i switched to it


the RU ones from the back are regripless


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 30, 2021)

I only use them when it’s at that angle, though. I use MU from the front and the back.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 30, 2021)

the dnf master said:


> It seems like no one here learned from luke garret


Algs being consistent/locky is subject to the user's turning style. There are people who screw up the RUS U perms consistently and there are people like Brian Sun who can do them in 0.4 in a solve consistently.
(Coincidentally, my only sub 1 PLL is R2 U' S R2' S' R2 U R2 lol)


----------



## the dnf master (Jun 30, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Algs being consistent/locky is subject to the user's fingertricks. There are people who screw up the RUS U perms consistently and there are people like Brian Sun who can do them in 0.4 in a solve consistently.
> (Coincidentally, my only sub 1 PLL is R2 U' S R2' S' R2 U R2 lol)


Not really, there are a lot of people who use the same fingertricks for an alg, because it's the best, yet some can achieve amazing amazing times while others lock up 95% of the time.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 30, 2021)

the dnf master said:


> Not really, there are a lot of people who use the same fingertricks for an alg, because it's the best, yet some can achieve amazing amazing times while others lock up 95% of the time.


Oh wait I used the wrong word lol. I meant turning style.


----------



## EvanCuber (Jul 1, 2021)

Here is a very interesting idea for a method that it very similar to CFOP/CFCE in a way, if you inspect it closely.
1. Build a 2 by 2 by 2 block anywhere on the cube
2. Solve the three corners that are touching the block, and simultaneously solve a edge adjacent to each corner
3. Permute the remaining four corners (28 Algorithms)
4. Permute the remaining four edges (About 50 Algorithms)
The Pros: Solving corner edge pairs after making block is more efficient since you can solve either edge pair adjacent to the corner, so you can decide which edge pair would be faster and more effective
The Cons: Lookahead is pretty bad


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jul 1, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Here is a very interesting idea for a method that it very similar to CFOP/CFCE in a way, if you inspect it closely.
> 1. Build a 2 by 2 by 2 block anywhere on the cube
> 2. Solve the three corners that are touching the block, and simultaneously solve a edge adjacent to each corner
> 3. Permute the remaining four corners (28 Algorithms)
> ...


That’s like Tripod but probably worse


----------



## Cubewerkz (Jul 19, 2021)

Hi 

Here is a hybrid beginner method that was developed based on my years of cubing. It is based on understanding the cube and use less moves than classic layer by layer. It is quite intuitive and basically use just sexy moves and the inverse, keyhole, commutator concepts. The idea is this

1) Solve the cross intuitively
2) Solve 3 corners
3) solve 3 edges using keyholes (7 edges oriented and permutted)
4) Orient and Permute Remaining 5 edges ( Senarios: 1 Good, 4 bad, 3 Good, 2 bad)
5a) Invert cube with the unsolved 4 corners as bottom layer. Use the last unsolved corner at UFR position to solve last remaining corners (use only RUR’U’ and URU’R’). Use D moves as setup moves 
5b) Solve till last 2 corners ( 3 scenarios: Solved, 1 twisted CW and another CCW and vice versa)
5c) Solve last 3 corners using commuters by forcing a skip.

Example 1: 



Example 2 :




Feel free to ask me question. ( There are additional videos for orientation of last 5 edges)


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 19, 2021)

Cubewerkz said:


> Hi
> 
> Here is a hybrid beginner method that was developed based on my years of cubing. It is based on understanding the cube and use less moves than classic layer by layer. It is quite intuitive and basically use just sexy moves and the inverse, keyhole, commutator concepts. The idea is this
> 
> ...


this looks a lot like 8355/sam/miris





__





Beginner Rubik's Cube Solution - Solve the cube using only 1 algorithm!






cube.rider.biz








__





Beginner Rubik's Cube Solution - MirIS: The repeated sequence that solves the cube.


The easiest way to solve the Rubik's cube, for absolute beginners. This step-by-step tutorial shows how to repeat the same four-move sequence until the cube is solved.




cube.rider.biz












Mirrored Inverse Sexy Method (MirIS)


A beginner method optimised for speed and simplicity EDIT: Full tutorial here. Rationale Steps Cross 3x corner-edge pairs Top cross orientation Top cross permutation Last 5 corners Details For this method the Inverse Sexy move (U R U' R') and its mirror (U' L' U L) are used. We also...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## Cubewerkz (Jul 19, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> this looks a lot like 8355/sam/miris
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Basically it was developed independently as I already know edges first technique before I know what others had developed, I had another tutorial on that as well ( it use sledge hammer and inverse sledge hammer). The add on steps are as follows. I had 2 skip techniques for last 5 corners


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jul 19, 2021)

Cubewerkz said:


> Hi
> 
> Here is a hybrid beginner method that was developed based on my years of cubing. It is based on understanding the cube and use less moves than classic layer by layer. It is quite intuitive and basically use just sexy moves and the inverse, keyhole, commutator concepts. The idea is this
> 
> ...





Filipe Teixeira said:


> this looks a lot like 8355/sam/miris
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. It is 8355.


----------



## StrategySam (Jul 20, 2021)

new os idea?
1. 2x2x3 in inspection
2. While in inspection choose either Mehta TDR, petrus, ZB, which ever fits the rest of the solve best.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 20, 2021)

StrategySam said:


> new os idea?
> 1. 2x2x3 in inspection
> 2. While in inspection choose either Mehta TDR, petrus, ZB, which ever fits the rest of the solve best.


Somebody please use ZB


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 20, 2021)

[freefop hides in the corner]


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jul 30, 2021)

Idk if someone probably already made this method now, but long time ago when I was still using Lazy CFOP, one of the side methods I made was ZZ-1/a.

ZZ-1/a is the same concept of ZZ-a, except that you use Anti-ZBLL.

Steps:
1. EOLine except you force top layer edges to be bad (unless...).
- It depends on certain cases, if all top layer edges are good, just do regular ZZ. If you have 1-3 good ones, it depends on certain EO cases. You choose the shortest move count, either ZZ-a or ZZ-1/a. Most in all, you always choose the shortest move count option.
2. ZZF2L
3. Anti-ZBLL
- During this time, I wasn't that advanced, so I just did CLL and Dotted ELL, in which I completely forgot how to do now.

Anti-ZBLL was a little helpful because last layer cases are easier to recognize. But that's the only Pro side I can think of.
Forcing yourself to do EOLine with bad top layer edges can be a trip, so it's best to just decide depending on the scramble, whether to do ZZ-a or ZZ-1/a, instead of just sticking with one method.


----------



## ruffleduck (Jul 30, 2021)

Anti-ZBLL algs overall seem a lot worse than ZBLL.


Metallic Silver said:


> last layer cases are easier to recognize.


Hard disagree.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jul 31, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> Anti-ZBLL algs overall seem a lot worse than ZBLL.
> 
> Hard disagree.


Yeah but you have to consider how few people have worked on the algs. Im slowly working on genning XLL as I have time. Also flipped edges is a lot easier to have two sided PLL recog for than having to do twisty recog for ZB.


----------



## EvanCuber (Jul 31, 2021)

What the heck even is anti-ZBLL


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 31, 2021)

Ok so how about this

1. F2L without DF edge
2. L5EOP (20 algs)
3. ZBLL (493 algs)

With L5EOP since the corners arent solved, I feel like it could have better and faster algs. This method can result in a low move count as I got a sub10 with this method off camera. No I'm not gonna recon. I also feel like this can result in a low movecount solve.

9.937 D2 R2 U2 F2 L2 U2 B2 R' D2 R' B2 R F U F U F' L D2 B'


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 31, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> What the heck even is anti-ZBLL


I think it's 1LLL when all edges are flipped


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 31, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I think it's 1LLL when all edges are flipped


Yep, ZBLL but no edges oriented


----------



## EvanCuber (Jul 31, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> Yep, ZBLL but no edges oriented


But wouldn't that have terrible algs, seeing as dot cases are already bad enough?


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 31, 2021)

Cll+1 is the best LL method
Prove me wrong
(Insert bad meme)


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 31, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Cll+1 is the best LL method
> Prove me wrong
> (Insert bad meme)


CLL+1 is up there but EG beats it


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jul 31, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> Ok so how about this
> 
> 1. F2L without DF edge
> 2. L5EOP (20 algs)
> ...


It does have some potential, but it also requires learning all of ZBLL.

A way to eliminate learning L5EOP is to do an EO 3/4 Cross (with the solved cross edges being in DL, DB, and DR, and therefore eliminating the need to do EO later in the solve), then do ZZF2L. You would then solve DF with <U> M' U2 M, then do ZBLL. So the steps would be:

1. EO 3/4 Cross
2. ZZF2L
3. Solve DF
4. ZBLL

But doing that basically just turns it into a worse ZZ-a. Anything where the first step is F2L is probably going to be worse than CFOP, just because F2L is already so optimized that there's almost no way to make it better. (At it's most basic level, obviously. You can always come up with new F2L algs, but you can't make the fundamental idea of how F2L works much better than it already is.)


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 31, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> It does have some potential, but it also requires learning all of ZBLL.
> 
> A way to eliminate learning L5EOP is to do an EO 3/4 Cross (with the solved cross edges being in DL, DB, and DR, and therefore eliminating the need to do EO later in the solve), then do ZZF2L. You would then solve DF with <U> M' U2 M, then do ZBLL. So the steps would be:
> 
> ...


I just said solve F2L, not do 3/4 of cross then F2L. I average easily sub-20 with this method because I know most L5eop cases and only about 100 ZBLL (rough estimate).


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jul 31, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> Cll+1 is the best LL method
> Prove me wrong
> (Insert bad meme)


Nothing beats OLL+PLL or EO+ZBLL


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jul 31, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> I just said solve F2L, not do 3/4 of cross then F2L. I average easily sub-20 with this method because I know most L5eop cases and only about 100 ZBLL (rough estimate).


So is it FreeFOP-type F2L, or do you want to make a 3/4 cross? It’s one or the other, there’s no other options.


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 31, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> Also flipped edges is a lot easier to have two sided PLL recog for than having to do twisty recog for ZB.


Even better, you can literally recognise the S/AS anti-ZBLLs without even looking at the sides. The top face is enough to uniquely identify the case.

(Not that that would be a good recognition method… or would it?)



zzoomer said:


> Anti-ZBLL algs overall seem a lot worse than ZBLL.





OreKehStrah said:


> Yeah but you have to consider how few people have worked on the algs.


My 2 cents: the dot 1LLLs really do seem inherently worse than ZBLL on average.

Dot LL algs with certain move restrictions have a strict lower limit to the number of non-⟨R,U⟩ moves:
(i) (for RUFB algs) four F/B turns in QTM (e.g. R' F' U2 F2 U R U' R' F' U2 R)
(ii) (for RrU algs) four Rw turns in QTM (e.g. R' U2 r U' r' U2 r U r' U2 R)
(iii) (for RUFLD algs) if not four F quarter turns, an F/F' pair with at least two L or D moves (e.g. L F R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' F' L')

While F, B and Rw moves flip four edges at once, two of those four will always be in locations that can't be touched by ⟨R,U⟩ moves, so using only one F/F' pair, B/B' pair, or Rw/Rw' pair can at best flip two last layer edges. S moves invalidate this argument (only the DL edge is immobile under ⟨R,U⟩ moves; example of a two-S-move dot 1LLL is S R' U' R U R U R U' R' S'), but they also can't affect corner permutation, so there's a limit to how useful they are.

Normal ZBLL has a smaller lower bound: it's well-known that every ZBLL can be solved in RUL, RUF, and RUD with at most two non-⟨R,U⟩ moves. In practice, a lot of the actual ZBLL algs we use have more than the bare minimum, but that's at least a choice we can make when it comes to normal ZBLL. Anti-ZBLL _forces_ you to use more non-⟨R,U⟩ moves.

Dot 1LLL also excludes all of the very short last layer cases because the shortest dot 1LLL is 11 moves (in FTM and I think STM as well). You don't get 3-cycle corner comms, 3-cycle block comms (e.g. sexysledge), or sexy setups (e.g. fruruf, Sune); you do get U2-setups, but they're limited to only solved CP and diag CP (e.g. R' U2 r U' r' U2 r U r' U2 R and r' D R2 U R' U2 R U' R2 D' r).

Edit: Forgot to mention: there are also U setups, which do cover the adj CP cases, e.g. R U' R2 B2 D' r U r' D B2 R2 U R', so that weakens my above point a bit. These algs still are not very good, though; if I'm not mistaken, the example I just gave is optimal for this type of alg (6 setup moves, i.e. 13 moves total).

(Except for the RrU alg, which I think I learnt from AlgDb, all dot last layer algs mentioned here were ones I genned by myself. Not entirely talking out of my butt!)



MJbaka said:


> But wouldn't that have terrible algs, seeing as dot cases are already bad enough?


(Continuing from my above point.) But the dot _OLLs_ are fine, because you still get to cherrypick the best alg out of 72 dot 1LLLs. Even if 71 of them are garbage, as long as one isn't, you can use that as your OLL alg.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 31, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> So is it FreeFOP-type F2L, or do you want to make a 3/4 cross? It’s one or the other, there’s no other options.


Block build F2L


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jul 31, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> Even better, you can literally recognise the S/AS anti-ZBLLs without even looking at the sides. The top face is enough to uniquely identify the case.
> 
> (Not that that would be a good recognition method… or would it?)
> 
> ...


I didn’t even think about the sunes stuff. That’s cool. The only dot 1LLL cases in interested in is XLL which is the corners oriented family of 1LLL since I think it could be a cool extension for CFCE.


----------



## GodCubing (Jul 31, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Nothing beats OLL+PLL or EO+ZBLL


CLL+1 is 1 lookable with less algs than zbll, and lower movecount and L3E is like the best alg set to grace the earth with its presence


----------



## EvanCuber (Aug 4, 2021)

I have an idea for the 2x2.
1. Solve three corners + CP
2. 2 gen WV to solve PLL and OLL while solving the last corner to the side


----------



## Cubing Forever (Aug 4, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I have an idea for the 2x2.
> 1. Solve three corners + CP
> 2. 2 gen WV to solve PLL and OLL while solving the last corner to the side


I don't think that's 1-lookable


----------



## EvanCuber (Aug 6, 2021)

I have two ideas for the three by three that are extensions to CFOP. Here is the first one
Flipped Edge PLL
1. Solve Cross
2. Solve F2L but solve one edge flipped
3. OLL
4. Solve Flipped Edge and PLL using one of twenty one algorithms
I like the idea for this method because if you get a flipped edge case in F2l and have a solved corner it is really annoying and takes a lot of extra time. A really big advantage to this is you can set up your last F2L pair to one of four F2L pairs and then basic insert, because two of them will give you a flipped edge. Here is my second idea which does not have a name.
1. Solve cross, but solve the cross pieces in any orientation you want (minimizes longest cross solution to six moves and 4 move crosses on average)
2. F2L, but you don't have solve the corners correctly, so you can pair them up with any edge, giving you a large variety of choices for F2L pairs, (I believe it is 16).
3. OLL+Parity(if there is a Parity between U and D layers, also 114 algorithms, or 57 if you do M2 U2 M2 and then OLL algorithm)
4. PUDL (Permute U and D layers using one of 441 algorithms


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 6, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I have two ideas for the three by three that are extensions to CFOP. Here is the first one
> Flipped Edge PLL
> 1. Solve Cross
> 2. Solve F2L but solve one edge flipped
> ...


or you could use actual cfop with 0 extra algs to learn

for flipped edge f2l pair I use intuitive EOLS or you can make use of the empty slots with fast sledge hammer + insert triggers

I won't say anything about the second idea with 441 extra algs (You can learn zbll instead)


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 6, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Flipped Edge PLL
> 1. Solve Cross
> 2. Solve F2L but solve one edge flipped
> 3. OLL
> ...


There are actually 72 cases for PLL + flipped edge. (Fix the location of the flipped edge, then you have 4!^2/2 = 288 ways of permuting the pieces. There are exactly four post-AUFs for each case, so divide by 4 to get 72 cases.) Probably most of the algs are bad, although there's this cool Ja perm: R' F R F' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R

You can also solve OLL together with the flipped edge instead (54 algs). (CubeRoot has the algs.)

I think it's better to just learn an F2L alg for this case and remember which edge(s) it flips, so you can solve last layer EO simultaneously (or at least avoid dot OLL). Forcing flipped-edge is silly because the algs all seem to suck, and if you don't force it, it's rare enough that you might have difficulty remembering the correct alg to use (out of 54 for OLS-FE, or out of 72 for PLL-FE) when you do encounter it.



MJbaka said:


> 1. Solve cross, but solve the cross pieces in any orientation you want (minimizes longest cross solution to six moves and 4 move crosses on average)
> 2. F2L, but you don't have solve the corners correctly, so you can pair them up with any edge, giving you a large variety of choices for F2L pairs, (I believe it is 16).
> 3. OLL+Parity(if there is a Parity between U and D layers, also 114 algorithms, or 57 if you do M2 U2 M2 and then OLL algorithm)
> 4. PUDL (Permute U and D layers using one of 441 algorithms


Interesting.

I think this is not worth it if you just solve F2L like normal CFOP pairs, because you're not really exploiting all the freedom you have. You can freely pseudoslot since bottom layer permutation is irrelevant (it's not even "pseudo" in this case!). The reduced number of cases might also make multislotting viable. Or you could even directly blockbuild your F2L this way.

At first I thought OLL+parity recognition would be hell, then I realised you could just recognise parity on the D face (as if you're checking for PLL parity). Recognition probably still is bad, though. (Maybe speed-optimal algs will end up swapping the two DR corners to fix parity, or something like that.)

My wild speculation is that PBL algs probably suck. Doesn't matter whether you fix parity or not; my guess is most of them are bad regardless, except for the ones with one layer fully solved (i.e. PLL and upside-down PLL). I'd assume someone has tried generating PBL algs before, given that the belt method keeps getting reinvented.


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 7, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I have an idea for the 2x2.
> 1. Solve three corners + CP
> 2. 2 gen WV to solve PLL and OLL while solving the last corner to the side


https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/2x2x2-ru-group-method.79803/#post-1420486 already a thing. I thought of the same thing then found this. Well actually I thought up variant E exactly


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 7, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I have two ideas for the three by three that are extensions to CFOP. Here is the first one
> Flipped Edge PLL
> 1. Solve Cross
> 2. Solve F2L but solve one edge flipped
> ...


Great ideas, but check if the algs are good and for the second one how about just matching random e layer edges and d layer corners so there is no OLL parity


----------



## Thom S. (Aug 7, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I like the idea for this method because if you get a flipped edge case in F2l and have a solved corner it is really annoying and takes a lot of extra time.


R2' U2' F R2 F' U2' R' U R'
Regripless and fairly fast


----------



## Thumbprint (Aug 8, 2021)

Pretty bad method idea: What if you solved cross, did f2l, but paired any edge piece with any corner piece(making sure that the edge is oriented properly of course), did OLL on top, deal with parity by spamming u-perms until there are only two opposite edges in the wrong place, fix them by doing R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2, and then solved the e-slice intuitively.


----------



## Thumbprint (Aug 8, 2021)

Thumbprint said:


> Pretty bad method idea: What if you solved cross, did f2l, but paired any edge piece with any corner piece(making sure that the edge is oriented properly of course), did OLL on top, deal with parity by spamming u-perms until there are only two opposite edges in the wrong place, fix them by doing R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2, and then solved the m-slice intuitively.


I also forgot to mention that the only pro to this method is that its slightly more efficient than cfop in f2l since you can pair up any corner and edge, but it's very confusing and all the parity at the end completely cancels out any time saves that could be made during f2l. This method, though, shall be called CPFOP (cross, pseudo-f2l, oll, pll)


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 8, 2021)

Thumbprint said:


> Pretty bad method idea: What if you solved cross, did f2l, but paired any edge piece with any corner piece(making sure that the edge is oriented properly of course), did OLL on top, deal with parity by spamming u-perms until there are only two opposite edges in the wrong place, fix them by doing R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2, and then solved the e-slice intuitively.


That sounds like a worse version of pseudoslotting.


----------



## Thumbprint (Aug 8, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> That sounds like a worse version of pseudoslotting.


I know what pseudoslotting is, but don't have a very good understand of it, so correct me if I'm wrong about anything. I don't think its like pseudo slotting because you aren't really setting anything up or doing multiple pairs at once like pseudo-slotting. Again, I don't really have a good understanding of pseudo slotting so I could just be rambling on about something completely different that it, but I don't think it's like pseudo-slotting.


----------



## Thom S. (Aug 9, 2021)

Thumbprint said:


> Pretty bad method idea: What if you solved cross, did f2l, but paired any edge piece with any corner piece(making sure that the edge is oriented properly of course), did OLL on top, deal with parity by spamming u-perms until there are only two opposite edges in the wrong place, fix them by doing R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2, and then solved the e-slice intuitively.


This is one of the ideas pretty much everyone has and it pops up in this thread often. 
You don't have any advantages as even bad F2L cases are more efficient than additional PLLs. 
I'm sure if you get mire familiar with F2L you will see how bad this is.


----------



## Thumbprint (Aug 9, 2021)

Thom S. said:


> This is one of the ideas pretty much everyone has and it pops up in this thread often.
> You don't have any advantages as even bad F2L cases are more efficient than additional PLLs.
> I'm sure if you get mire familiar with F2L you will see how bad this is.


Yep that sounds about right. I came up with that "method" after just messing around with the cube for a couple minutes so its not exactly surprising that someone else came up with it already. And you're absolutely right about it being garbage. I average like more than twice as slow with it than cfop and roux. I just wrote it down because I hadn't heard of anything else similar, that was my bad.


----------



## EvanCuber (Aug 9, 2021)

Kind of a weird idea, but what if you just did ZZ but also did CP while building EO cross thus reducing the last layer to 84 cases so you can PLL skip every time with 84 algorithms


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 9, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Kind of a weird idea, but what if you just did ZZ but also did CP while building EO cross thus reducing the last layer to 84 cases so you can PLL skip every time with 84 algorithms


Doing cp during eocross isn't feasible in a speedsolve. The only time I think it's viable is during last slot, which is what zz-d is.


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 9, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> Doing cp during eocross isn't feasible in a speedsolve. The only time I think it's viable is during last slot, which is what zz-d is.


Feasible during last 2 slots


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 9, 2021)

ZZ-D is what you'd want to look at. CPLS is the most feasible way in a speedsolve, but overall ZZ-A is better. If you want something a bit more abstract, look at 2GR, but that's not very good for speedsolving.


----------



## tsmosher (Aug 10, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> ZZ-D is what you'd want to look at. CPLS is the most feasible way in a speedsolve, but overall ZZ-A is better. If you want something a bit more abstract, look at 2GR, but that's not very good for speedsolving.


Also YruRU.


----------



## tsmosher (Aug 10, 2021)

More 42 variants:

VHLC Variant (Intermediate)​51-52 moves​
Mehta-style FB on D (lD) - 7 moves
"2.5 QB" - 7 moves
Basically, solve 2 E-layer Ledges and *any* Redge, positioning this Redge in DR.


Insert FR *or* BR F2L pair to form square. - 7 moves
"VHLC" - 8 or 9 moves / 16-32 cases
Insert correctly-oriented U layer corner into unsolved slot, while solving EO. Correctly-oriented means that the corner would be oriented correctly after un-transforming (i.e., R or R').


Conjugated NMCLL - 11 moves
This could be done in 2 looks for 7 additional moves. This is where most of the work would lie in creating this variant. Does anyone know how many cases this would entail?


un-transform - 2 moves
L5EP-FR - 9 moves
WVLC Variant (Beginner)​58-59 moves​
Mehta-style FB on D (lD) - 7 moves
"2.5 QB" - 7 moves
Basically, solve 2 E-layer Ledges and *any* Redge, positioning this Redge in DR.


Insert FR or BR F2L pair to form square. - 7 moves
"WVLC" - 9 or 10 moves / 27 cases
Insert correctly-oriented U layer corner into unsolved slot, while solving CO. Correctly-oriented means that the corner would be oriented correctly after un-transforming (i.e., R or R').


Conjugated NMCLL (Oriented) - 10 moves / 6 cases
This would be the equivalent of the 2nd look of 2-look Conjugated NMCLL. For this step, you could use CLL algs which destroy EO on the LL (e.g., FRUR'U'F').


un-transform - 2 moves
L5E-FR - 16? moves
EO and EP. My gut tells me that L5EOP-FR followed by EPLL would be the most effective approach here.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 11, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> More 42 variants:
> 
> VHLC Variant (Intermediate)​51-52 moves​
> Mehta-style FB on D (lD) - 7 moves
> ...


I like it. There are likely some refinements relating to EO and possibly the pairs used to finish the square on the right. I haven't seen the application of transformation used with FR L5EP. Just FR L5E.

I wouldn't call everything that uses transformation a variant of 42.


----------



## Megaminx lover (Aug 11, 2021)

Here is 1:
1. Solve cross
2. Solve F2L rotationless by
a. Solve back left
b. Solve back right and front left
c. solve front right
3. solve OLL
4. solve PLL
If you get bad edges for 2a and 2b, Use another slot to pair them up. For 2c, if you get a bad edge, move edge to M slice withh U/ U', do M/M', solve pair, then insert edge back.
Basically ZZ-EO


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 13, 2021)

has any1 generated algs for DF/DB swap + epll?


----------



## ruffleduck (Aug 13, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> has any1 generated algs for DF/DB swap + epll?


Yeah I think Speedcubereview shows algs for them in one of his videos (don't remember which)


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 13, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> Yeah I think Speedcubereview shows algs for them in one of his videos (don't remember which)


Yeah he made a video on pseudo cross


----------



## Hazel (Aug 13, 2021)

Megaminx lover said:


> Here is 1:
> 1. Solve cross
> 2. Solve F2L rotationless by
> a. Solve back left
> ...


Interesting take on improving CFOP, but unfortunately methods like this tend to simply be slower. Although rotationless solves are nice, having one or two rotations during F2L doesn't lose as much time as jumping through hoops to avoid it.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 13, 2021)

3/4 Cross
F2L
L5EOP but don't preserve corners
ZBLL


----------



## Melvintnh327 (Aug 13, 2021)

*BELT METHOD*

also I need to be quiet now to not ruin my 69 message score


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 13, 2021)

Melvintnh327 said:


> *BELT METHOD*


Very original, best method ever, I (no joke) average low 20s with a variant of belt that reduces to a domino cube.


----------



## Megaminx lover (Aug 13, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> has any1 generated algs for DF/DB swap + epll?


I could if you want...


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 13, 2021)

Opp: M2 U2 M2
Adj: Either R U R' U' M2 U2 M2 U' R U' R' or M2 U' M U2 M U2 M2 U' M2
W: M2 U M U2 M' U' M2
Cw O (I think this is Ob): M' U' M2 U' M2' M
Ccw O (Oa?): M' U M2 U M2 U M
All of these algs presume lefty M moves apart from Cw O, which is probably fastest with righty, but doing ring-ring is fine and probably preferable if you use lefty normally. For righty, just mirror the algs.


----------



## StrategySam (Aug 13, 2021)

ZBLS+2 Corners


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 13, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> Opp: M2 U2 M2
> Adj: Either R U R' U' M2 U2 M2 U' R U' R' or M2 U' M U2 M U2 M2 U' M2
> W: M2 U M U2 M' U' M2
> Cw O (I think this is Ob): M' U' M2 U' M2' M
> ...


ty all of you guys
EDIT: I optimised these for me (righty M moves, lefty U moves)

Opp: M2 U2 M2
Adj: M2 U' M2 U2 M' U2 M' U' M2
W: M2 U M U2 M' U' M2
Cw O: M' U' M2 U' M2' U' M
Ccw O: M' U M2 U M2 U M


----------



## tsmosher (Aug 13, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> has any1 generated algs for DF/DB swap + epll?


check out WaterRoux L7E. they are in there under L6EP.


----------



## Thumbprint (Aug 16, 2021)

Back with another probably bad method idea: 
Step 1. Solve a face plus 2 f2l pairs on the left
Step 2. Do coll to solve the top corners
Step 3. Do an algorithm to solve the UL edge (or more; I just came up with this and don't know how to gen algs)
Step 4. Do another algorithm to solve the rest of the cube (still don't know how to gen algs so this also might not be possible)


----------



## abunickabhi (Aug 16, 2021)

Thumbprint said:


> Back with another probably bad method idea:
> Step 1. Solve a face plus 2 f2l pairs on the left
> Step 2. Do coll to solve the top corners
> Step 3. Do an algorithm to solve the UL edge (or more; I just came up with this and don't know how to gen algs)
> Step 4. Do another algorithm to solve the rest of the cube (still don't know how to gen algs so this also might not be possible)


This sounds super similar to Roux, the FB and LSE step are a bit different.


----------



## Thumbprint (Aug 16, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> This sounds super similar to Roux, the FB and LSE step are a bit different.


Thinking about it now, it does sound similar to roux. I came up with this after learning commutators and I thought that if I made a layer plus 2 f2l pairs I could solve the rest of the left side using commutators, but then it hit me that I could just do coll and possibly come up with an alg set that would solve the UL edge, then another alg set to solve the last 5 edges. But it is very similar to roux.


----------



## Megaminx lover (Sep 2, 2021)

random idea
1. F2B
2. EODFDB
3. ZBLL
Basically a roux based method that is marginally better than roux for at least 400 more algs


----------



## RyanSoh (Sep 2, 2021)

Megaminx lover said:


> random idea
> 1. F2B
> 2. EODFDB
> 3. ZBLL
> Basically a roux based method that is marginally better than roux for at least 400 more algs


https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBRoux


----------



## Megaminx lover (Sep 2, 2021)

RyanSoh said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBRoux


oof.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Sep 2, 2021)

Megaminx lover said:


> random idea
> 1. F2B
> 2. EODFDB
> 3. ZBLL
> Basically a roux based method that is marginally better than roux for at least 400 more algs


What @RyanSoh said and it's worse than standard Roux(@Tao Yu is more qualified to give an opinion on this lol)


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 2, 2021)

I proposed this method on my 1LLS method doc and in discord but ima finally do it here now

Triangular Waterman

Step 1: Triangle like in triangular Francisco on BDL (Average Movecount: ~7)
Step 2: 1LLS, 615 cases I found out recently (Average Movecount: ~8)
Step 3: Solve another 3-6 Edges, relies on intuition and TPS may not be high here. (Average Movecount: ~11)
Step 4: Waterman L4E, L5E, L6E, or L7E, after performing algs, you permute midges. (Average Movecount: ~14)

Step 1 can be used for blockbuilding intuition. Step 2 has 615 algs for 1LLS with the subgroups being CLL, TCLL+, TCLL-, TTLL, A bunch of RU gen algs, ones where the last 1st layer corner is oriented, and the rest. Step 3 can be used for intuition again, but can use algs to solve 2-3 edges at one alg. 1LL4E and 1LL5E combined is like 270-280 algs and L6E and L7E like normal (not 1 look) is almost 400 algs and the 3 move 4 algs for permuting midges.

7+8+11+14=40

~40 AVERAGE MOVECOUNT LOL

between 1000-1200 algs tho thats bad.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Sep 4, 2021)

f2l-1
epls (els + epll)
l5c


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 5, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> f2l-1
> epls (els + epll)
> l5c


I'm extremely sure this exists and Algorithms are generated


----------



## Cubing Forever (Sep 5, 2021)

Thom S. said:


> I'm extremely sure this exists and Algorithms are generated


it's 8355 but advanced


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 6, 2021)

This is my first post on here so sorry if I get anything wrong.

I didn't put new in the title or anything for this method as I'm unsure as to if it has already been developed, I'm aware of the speedcubing wiki and all the pages of methods It has so I have checked as hard as I can to see if I can find this method.

The methods name is snow, it used to stand for something but now it doesn't mainly because I forgot what it stands for however I'm still going to use it if it is a new discovery.

A few things to say about this method is it should have a minimum of 4 algorithms more to learn if you know CFOP and is also very similar to CFOP except an extra step in between F2L and OLL. My current Average PB is on this method but my single PB is using CFOP, average used to be on CFOP and single used to be with this method until about 4 days ago

Steps:
Cross Minus an edge
F2L Minus a pair, The unsolved cross piece allows for a lot more trick with this step so take advantage of it (There are only 2 pairs in every solve that you don't have to insert, the other two you do have to insert)
Create and insert the final 1x2x2 block (i'll explain this one soon and leave some algorithms that can be used)
OLL (Other algorithm sets can be used as well)
PLL (Other algorithm sets can be used as well)

For F2L minus a pair, the only pairs that you don't solve is one of the two that go next to the cross piece edge that isn't inserted, so for example I'm using white cross and I didn't insert the blue edge. This means I either need to insert the blue and orange pair or the blue and red pair, Which ever pair you insert also decides on which algorithm you do afterwards but they are all very similar. If you chose to not use the blue white edge in the cross you have to insert the green red pair and green orange pair

This next step is one I hope people can figure out as I don't think I will right it well, you want to make you're last pair but before inserting it you wanna insert the missing cross piece into the place you would usually put the last pair, to check if its the correct orientation do r U r' or l' U' l depending on the pair you inserted to see if the edge will solve the cross, if not you want to flip that edge (you dont actually insert and uninsert the edge again in the method, this is just for the first time so people figure out what orientation you are meant to put the edge in, this can be figured out easily during normal solves afterwards. While inserting the edge make sure you don't break up the pair, I hope this can be figured out without me needing to explain it. Once you have done that bring the F2L piece the front most likely with a U2, there will now be 4 algorithms, fixed box a, fixed box b, broken box a and broken box b.

Fixed Box A ( if the Block is made on the left side of the cube)

l' U' l

Fixed Box B (Block on the right side)

r U r'

Broken Box A (Block needs to be made on the left, but pair is on right side instead)

U' F U F' L' U2 L U' F' L F L' U2 l' U' l
L F' L' F2 U F2 L F L' U2 l' U' l

Broken Box B (Block needs to be made on the right side)

U F' U' F R U2 R' U F R' F' R U2 r U r
R' F R F2 U' F2 R' F' R U2 r U r'

For broken box, the first algorithm is easier to me and I believe the second is faster. After this you have OLL and PLL or CLL and ELL or any thing else you want to learn.

So is this method new, been developed previously or too similar to another method to be considered its own method. If its new I would recommend learning it and giving a go, it would be nice to see what good cubers get as my PB is 18 seconds, I wouldn't recommend changing from any of your main methods unless you truly prefer this one though.

I would just like to point out that my old PB was using an older version of this method which was making full F2L and then just inserting the edge in afterwards, im actually unsure as to which version of the method is better

I've just done a little testing and I would say use the block part if you are fast enough with it, if not solve all F2L and insert the edge in after. One more thing you can do is solve the edge during F2L which can happen sometimes by accident or solve the edge and then insert the final F2L piece.


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 6, 2021)

Yo I'm back with two more most likely stupid ideas, this time for 3BLD. 

Belt Method 
Okay, I know it sounds dumb. But for people who don't want to learn a ton of algorithms yet still be decent at three blind, why not just do the belt, and then, ES (Edge Separation), CS (Corner Separation), FP(Fix All Parities), OLL, PLL. All you have to do is one look your belt and remember how each algorithm moves your pieces.

Anti-Belt Method
Probably sounds even dumber but what if you separated all your edges to their correct side while except the E slice. Then you fix all Parities, Permute U and D layer edges with 144 algorithms or 2 steps of 12 algorithms, then separate corners, Permute U layer corners, Permute D layer corners. Last, L4E, to solve the E slice. On this method you have to one look ESEO, and remember how each algorithm affects each piece.


----------



## cuberswoop (Sep 6, 2021)

Quick overview:

COELL (so-ell)

3C - Make 3 out of 4 of the cross edges (3Cross)

RMO - All of F2l Done except for 1 cross piece (Roux Minus One)

CPE - Orient all the last edges while inserting the last cross piece. (Cross Plus Edges)

OLL - Orient the last layer (You can use ZBLL, COLL, CLL, and lots of things here since all the edges are up)

PLL - Permute The Last Layer


This is an improved version of CFOP, it uses mostly R, U, M, and L moves. It's very ergonomic, and lookahead is the same, if not easier, then cfop. The algs were made with cube explorer. I have a W.I.P google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q3fV-Br-41YNF42mA2IakGuniDkazBdm4EK2lQb5deQ/edit) with some algorithms to orient the last edges and insert the last cross edge.




Spoiler: Solve



Scramble: U2 B2 F' D2 U2 L2 U2 B R2 F' R2 B2 U' B2 U' F' D2 B L2 R' F2'

Solve:
Inspection: z2

3C: R' L' D2

RMO1: R U R' D R U' R' D'
RMO2: U' R U2 R' U' R U2 R'
RMO3: y2 U' L' U L U F U' F'
RMO4: U R U R' U2 R U R'

CPE: y2 F2 D2 F' M2 F E2 B' U M2 U B2
OLL: Skip
PLL: M2 U M U2 M' U M2 U2



Please give feedback on my method and tell me if it's already been invented.


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 6, 2021)

This is just a worse version of HK.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 6, 2021)

cuberswoop said:


> Quick overview:
> 
> COELL (so-ell)
> 
> ...


I don't really get the example solve. y2 rotations are horrible and two of them are really awful, the CPE had pretty bad moves like B and E moves, and cross really isn't that hard. If you don't want to do cross just use Nautilus/Roux/Mehta and if you really want to do something like this just use HK (https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Hawaiian_Kociemba)


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 6, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> This is just a worse version of HK.


better than CFOP isnt it?



cuberswoop said:


> Quick overview:
> 
> COELL (so-ell)
> 
> ...


use L5EOP instead of just pick better algs for CPE


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 6, 2021)

cuberswoop said:


> CPE - Orient all the last edges while inserting the last cross piece. (Cross Plus Edges)
> 
> OLL - Orient the last layer (You can use ZBLL, COLL, CLL, and lots of things here since all the edges are up)


Or you can just use ZZ, which is the best method for EO. Also the algorithm you used for CPE in your example solve would literally take the fastest speed solvers half their solve; it is just ergonomically terrible. Too many methods have been created along the line of leaving out a cross edge, another being COLL and then L5E.


----------



## LBr (Sep 6, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> better than CFOP isnt it?


better than waterman xD


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 6, 2021)

LBr said:


> better than waterman xD


Let's not start that in this thread too. To think it was already bad enough in the others


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 6, 2021)

yeah dont trash talk waterman, its bad enough I have tons of people accusing me of faking solves with it just because its waterman


----------



## LBr (Sep 6, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> yeah dont trash talk waterman, its bad enough I have tons of people accusing me of faking solves with it just because its waterman


yh I don't think you faked the solves tbh. 

But about coell, it has no advantage over CFOP. Inserting a cross edge while orienting edges of the last layer is just... pointless


----------



## cuberswoop (Sep 6, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Or you can just use ZZ, which is the best method for EO





MJbaka said:


> astest speed solvers half their solve; it is just ergonomically terrible.


In my opinion, zz sucks

so what I get is fix ergonomics, polish up the method.



LBr said:


> Inserting a cross edge while orienting edges of the last layer is just... pointless


Or you could go and use VLS with 432 algs, your choice.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 6, 2021)

cuberswoop said:


> In my opinion, zz sucks
> 
> so what I get is fix ergonomics, polish up the method.
> 
> ...


Very strong word. Look, I'm not the biggest fan of ZZ but it is far from sucking. EO cross is pretty efficient and F2L has better ergonomics and higher TPS potential. OLL is much easier to recognize and can allow thing like ZBLL without having to do setups. Polishing up the method is not going to do anything since there are already better, very similar methods.

I also think you are thinking of ZBLS. VLS solves OLL, ZBLS does EO while solving to LS.


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 7, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> Steps:
> Cross Minus an edge
> F2L Minus a pair, The unsolved cross piece allows for a lot more trick with this step so take advantage of it (There are only 2 pairs in every solve that you don't have to insert, the other two you do have to insert)
> Create and insert the final 1x2x2 block (i'll explain this one soon and leave some algorithms that can be used)
> ...


I don't think it has a name per se, but it definitely falls under the category of FreeFOP, where F2L isn't solved by rigidly doing a full cross then F2L pairs. It's not terrible.

Some awkward F2L cases have nicer solutions when you don't have to fuss over preserving a cross edge, e.g. r U r' U r U' r' instead of R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 or R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 (7 moves, but many wrist half turns) or (R U R' U')3 or (R U' R' U)3 (11 moves not counting AUF).



WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> Broken Box B (Block needs to be made on the right side)
> 
> U F' U' F R U2 R' U F R' F' R U2 r U r
> R' F R F2 U' F2 R' F' R U2 r U r'


Faster alternatives:
(U) R U2 (R' M') U' M
(U) r U2 R' U' M



cuberswoop said:


> COELL (so-ell)
> 3C - Make 3 out of 4 of the cross edges (3Cross)
> RMO - All of F2l Done except for 1 cross piece (Roux Minus One)
> CPE - Orient all the last edges while inserting the last cross piece. (Cross Plus Edges)
> ...


The concept isn't terrible per se, but you do need better "CPE" algs. If you keep the unsolved cross edge at DF or DB, your CPE is basically a subset of EODFDB as used in ZBRoux, and it can be done fully MU 2-gen.

(In fact, the only viable variant of this _is_ ZBRoux. Otherwise, you're just creating an additional step to fix the cross instead of just solving the cross properly in the first place. On very rare occasion (<1%) it might make sense to not immediately solve a full cross, but short of just using Roux or related methods, this is not something you should treat as a main method.)



Filipe Teixeira said:


> has any1 generated algs for DF/DB swap + epll?


May be of interest: DF-DB swap + ELL (by Meep).


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 7, 2021)

Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 7, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> I don't think it has a name per se, but it definitely falls under the category of FreeFOP, where F2L isn't solved by rigidly doing a full cross then F2L pairs. It's not terrible.
> 
> Some awkward F2L cases have nicer solutions when you don't have to fuss over preserving a cross edge, e.g. r U r' U r U' r' instead of R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 or R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 (7 moves, but many wrist half turns) or (R U R' U')3 or (R U' R' U)3 (11 moves not counting AUF).
> 
> ...


thanks, that was the old way of doing the method, just do full F2L and then insert the last edge


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Sep 7, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying


ima ofendedd
EDIT: wait, that pfp doesn't belong to you!


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 7, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> ima ofendedd
> EDIT: wait, that pfp doesn't belong to you!


You've been missing out Filipe.








Cubing Ducks


This is a discussion thread for cubing ducks only. The rest of you cubing potato heads can get out of here. anyway this a thread for cubing ducks to: 1. Revolutionize the effects of ducks on cubing 2. Petition for the Cubicle to make a Duck Logo Sticker to put on your cube 3. Any other...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 7, 2021)

cuberswoop said:


> Quick overview:
> 
> COELL (so-ell)
> 
> ...


This isn't an improved version of CFOP. It's a good lesson in why having F2L edges stuck in D is bad and it also has some meh cases and has been invented countless times. As previously stated, if you want ZBLL or EO, use ZZ. It doesn't suck, it's good. See a lot of previous posts by me and other people (this one is particularly alright and I still mostly agree with it, if not fully),


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 8, 2021)

cuberswoop said:


> Quick overview:
> 
> COELL (so-ell)
> 
> ...


So improvement means adding moves and making it less good? 
What Edge is in the last cross slot?

i The last Cross piece - great, CFOP solve
ii The Cross piece, flipped - another set of algorithms which I can guarantee is more moves than the 4 it takes to fix it before F2L.
iii One of the F2L Edges - you can do some tricks for pairing in good scenarios with 3-8 movers but only in the FD slot.
iiii One of the Top Edges - this is probably what you intended but it won't happen all the time. 

Overall, if you don't wanna do cross but want to do F2L, use Petrus and do F2L Pair all the time.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 8, 2021)

Thom S. said:


> So improvement means adding moves and making it less good?
> What Edge is in the last cross slot?
> 
> i The last Cross piece - great, CFOP solve
> ...


i


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 8, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying


Well the only reason why is because without the 4th cross piece its much faster to do F2L and there is a lot more you can do to make pairs, and insertion of the pairs can also be easier


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 8, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> Well the only reason why is because without the 4th cross piece its much faster to do F2L and there is a lot more you can do to make pairs, and insertion of the pairs can also be easier


It's not faster to do F2L. At most, it's equal. The things you gain from having that edge free, you lose from having any other F2L edge stuck in slot.


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 9, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Is it just me, or is everyone developing stupid methods lately that all have to do with cross minus and edge? Literally, it is only like 2 extra moves to put that cross piece and a whole new method should not be developed just to save that little bit of time. No offense, but it is really getting annoying


If I were to make a new method I defiantly wouldn't go for a cross minus an edge solution, the method I suggested I was one I have been using since 2019 and just never thought to release it till now. CFOP in my opinion is a bad method compared to others, the only reason I think people use it is because the method has been developed so much that despite being 20+ more moves then other methods people are still faster with CFOP, I would really like to work on a low algorithm, low move count and high tps method but no ideas come to mind. I'll work on it trying to find a method but when it comes to me making a method its never usually that good


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 9, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> the only reason I think people use it is because the method has been developed so much


The main reason people use CFOP is because almost all world class speedcubers use the method, and all big Youcubers encourage and teach CFOP.


WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> that despite being 20+ more moves then other methods people are still faster with CFOP,


Good CFOP solvers generally average ~55 moves. Good Roux and ZZ solvers generally average ~47 moves. Viable speedsolving methods generally lie in the 40-60 move spectrum. CFOP is not _that_ bad when it comes to movecount, but it is on the high movecount side.


WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> I would really like to work on a low algorithm, low move count and high tps method but no ideas come to mind.


Yeah, that's everyone's dream. Unfortunately, "low algorithm, low move count" contradicts with "high tps".


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 9, 2021)

There's a triangle in method development. You can have 2 out of the 3 things. Low movecount, high TPS, good lookahead. CFOP is heavily optimised for the latter two. Roux is more optimised for the first and the last. ZZ does the middle one well, the other two ok. Mehta is optimised for the first two (there are too many alg steps for fluid lookahead). It depends on what you want from a method to what you'll pick, but there's also the point that some methods are just a bit better than others as you can simply do only one. Petrus hits the low movecount, is pretty meh in the next two, as an example.


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 10, 2021)

Ok so I made two methods in 2019, Snow i revealed and honestly didn't think it was that bad, this one I don't think will ever be good, and later was improved by mehta method but doing it like this i dont think will ever be made fast. I called it TEG, idk why. So its cross, belt, Bottom layer corners, Top layer OLL, Insert Corners (can be done quick with two different algs, one always inserts just one corner while the other one can insert 2 if lucky, and then PLL. Can anyone tell me what they average with CFOP and with this method so see if i want to improve it. Algorithms are R U R' U' X3 and R2 U R2 U' R2


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 10, 2021)

forget about the first algorithm


----------



## CubeRed (Sep 10, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> So its cross, belt, Bottom layer corners, Top layer OLL, Insert Corners (can be done quick with two different algs, one always inserts just one corner while the other one can insert 2 if lucky, and then PLL. Can anyone tell me what they average with CFOP and with this method so see if i want to improve it. Algorithms are R U R' U' X3 and R2 U R2 U' R2


So you do top OLL befire you do corners?
Kind of like Roux but with corners, I guess. I don't know how the last alg works. It relocates the belt and the cross edges.


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 11, 2021)

R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2, made a mistake


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 11, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> Ok so I made two methods in 2019, Snow i revealed and honestly didn't think it was that bad, this one I don't think will ever be good, and later was improved by mehta method but doing it like this i dont think will ever be made fast. I called it TEG, idk why. So its cross, belt, Bottom layer corners, Top layer OLL, Insert Corners (can be done quick with two different algs, one always inserts just one corner while the other one can insert 2 if lucky, and then PLL. Can anyone tell me what they average with CFOP and with this method so see if i want to improve it. Algorithms are R U R' U' X3 and R2 U R2 U' R2


Just do Ribbon instead


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 11, 2021)

Eo-Line (6 Moves)
Left 123+CO (19 Moves)
Solve FR and BR edges (4 Moves) 
6CP (12 Moves)
L5E (8 Moves)
Final Movecount is averaging 43 moves. Should note that after CO, only R2, U, and U are usable for intuitive steps (FR and BR). What do you guys think?
I actually just realized that after calculating every possibility, solving FR and BR have an average movecount of 2.3333... bringing the movecount down to 41.3. Almost a sub-40 movecount method viable for Speedsolving!


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 11, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Eo-Line (6 Moves)
> Left 123+CO (19 Moves)
> Solve FR and BR edges (4 Moves)
> 6CP (12 Moves)
> ...


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW where the algs? I want to learn. Also I suck at EO


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 11, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Eo-Line (6 Moves)
> Left 123+CO (19 Moves)
> Solve FR and BR edges (4 Moves)
> 6CP (12 Moves)
> ...


How is the movecount for FR and BR only 2.3? CO is already done, so won’t that make the algs much longer?


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 11, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> How is the movecount for FR and BR only 2.3? CO is already done, so won’t that make the algs much longer?


Oh wait I realize now that is correct. I thought you could put one in the UR, and one in the DR, then fix it with a R or R' but I realize that would break CO, since you can only do R2, U, and U'. I will think about a better approach, because doing L7E would be way to many algs, (2520). Perhaps if you solved only the DR edge, then do L6E for the last step (360 algorithms), and then it would reduce that step to either a one or two move case. Bringing the movecount down to like 40.5 moves! However you would still have a Parity if your DR edge was in FR or BR
Edit: Also I can't gen algs so someone else would have to do it


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 11, 2021)

This probably already exists but I think I found a new petrus variant that lowers the movecount and higher the algcount by ALOT.

Petrus 222 and 223 like normal
EO like normal
Instead of doing F2L, just solve a square and get to F2L-1
Like My World Method, do one of 3044 algs to solve Last Slot + Last Layer at same time. Less algs than 1LLL.


----------



## PiKeeper (Sep 11, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> This probably already exists but I think I found a new petrus variant that lowers the movecount and higher the algcount by ALOT.
> 
> Petrus 222 and 223 like normal
> EO like normal
> ...


I guess that's fine in theory, but nobody is going to learn 3044 algs.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 11, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> I guess that's fine in theory, but nobody is going to learn 3044 algs.


they arent even genned yet, i should have taken a school computer home since my computer doesnt have cube explorer


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 11, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> I guess that's fine in theory, but nobody is going to learn 3044 algs.


Some algs that are genned are of course the ZBLL and TTLL algs, some TSLE algs are genned, some 1 look WV algs, alot of algs are genned we just need more.


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 11, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Left 123+CO (19 Moves)


CO recognition before last slot is very bad. I think this is the main problem with your method


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 11, 2021)

Ok So FreeFOP is kinda like CFOP plus some roux elements and if im not mistaken which i probably am HK drops the roux elements for a long list of algorithms so i kinda did a similar thing with CFOP and mehta elements replacing ribbon algs and i want to know if it has any potential,
Steps:
Cross
3 F2L Pairs and 1 Edge
Bottom Corner Orientation (Without messing up the bottom and middle layers edges and corners)
5CP (6CP algs but it solves five so thats what im calling it)
L5EP

It seems like an ok method, but i havent actually experimented with it i just though it up right now


----------



## PiKeeper (Sep 11, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> Ok So FreeFOP is kinda like CFOP plus some roux elements and if im not mistaken which i probably am HK drops the roux elements for a long list of algorithms so i kinda did a similar thing with CFOP and mehta elements replacing ribbon algs and i want to know if it has any potential,
> Steps:
> Cross
> 3 F2L Pairs and 1 Edge
> ...


That's basically the ribbon method


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 11, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> That's basically the ribbon method


either im extremely dumb or you didnt read it probably, and i think its the latter


----------



## PiKeeper (Sep 11, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> either im extremely dumb or you didnt read it probably, and i think its the latter


You replaced two alg steps with three. So it's basically just an objectively worse ribbon.


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 11, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> You replaced two alg steps with three. So it's basically just an objectively worse ribbon.


I disagree, while probably slower this method lowers the alg count from 532 to just 12


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 11, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> CO recognition before last slot is very bad. I think this is the main problem with your method


Not really.. you just have to see how many of your six corners are already facing up and down


----------



## PiKeeper (Sep 11, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> I disagree, while probably slower this method lowers the alg count from 532 to just 12


The original alg count is 266 not 532, and all you are doing is just making the last step 4 look instead of 2 look. While it does lower the alg count, it's objectively worse.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 11, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Not really.. you just have to see how many of your six corners are already facing up and down


this aint look nothin like ribbon lol


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 11, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Not really.. you just have to see how many of your six corners are already facing up and down


Oops! I thinking about CP, not CO


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 11, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> The original alg count is 266 not 532, and all you are doing is just making the last step 4 look instead of 2 look. While it does lower the alg count, it's objectively worse.


Sorry yes i rushed when adding the algs up, i added the total in it which i didnt even know it was that then


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 12, 2021)

I got the final algorithm count. There are 47 6CP cases and 360 6EP cases. Monday I will start generating algorithms!


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 12, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I got the final algorithm count. There are 47 6CP cases and 360 6EP cases. Monday I will start generating algorithms!


SEND ALL ALGS TO ME PLEASE


----------



## Megaminx lover (Sep 13, 2021)

bad idea
1. petrus 2x2x3
2. EO+CP (How many algs will there be? over 10000?)
3. 2GRB
4. 2GLL


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 13, 2021)

Megaminx lover said:


> bad idea
> 1. petrus 2x2x3
> 2. EO+CP (How many algs will there be? over 10000?)
> 3. 2GRB
> 4. 2GLL


I mean, if you know yourself that it's bad, there is little reason to post.


----------



## brododragon (Sep 13, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> I got the final algorithm count. There are 47 6CP cases and 360 6EP cases. Monday I will start generating algorithms!


360 seems like maybe too many


----------



## Megaminx lover (Sep 14, 2021)

Thom S. said:


> I mean, if you know yourself that it's bad, there is little reason to post.


I actually think it's good, with the exception of step 2


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 17, 2021)

So this is a weird method I made for CF

1. Corners
2. EO
3. Domino Reduction
4. Thistlewait Reduction
5. Thistle Wait alg Thing

Algs for EO are still being genned lol
Domino Reductions are still being genned
Thistlewait Algs are also still being genned.
I got access to all algs with the last step but for better algs, there are some single moves in algs. Not all the algs are like this.

this is bad lol but ima post it anyway. Dont ask me why.


----------



## Z1hc (Sep 17, 2021)

Hello I’m quite new here. I have a method that I would like to call: Cooler
Why cooler? Well you will have to find out.

First step: Blockbuild 2x2x3 block so F and U layers are unsolved. It’s like the base of a cooler where you store your drinks.

second step: this could be possible in one algorithm but with the F face facing you and the U face on top orient edges like in ZZ.

third step: Solve UL and UR. You could also do this in one algorithm but it’s not needed in one algorithm. This is like the handle for a cooler.

Then you can solve FD edge.

fourth step: try to put the pieces UBR UBL and UB edge and corners in the back top 1x1x3 slot. You could also use a commutator.

fifth step: solve the UBR and UBL corners with one algorithm.

sixth step: Orient the 4 corners from the F face.

seventh step: solve the rest in one algorithm. I don’t know how many algorithms there are but I will take a look if this is a new method.

I haven’t found a method like this on speedsolving wiki yet so it might be a new method.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 17, 2021)

The reason you haven't found it on the wiki is that it's not good. You're better off using any of the big four.


----------



## Z1hc (Sep 17, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> The reason you haven't found it on the wiki is that it's not good. You're better off using any of the big four.


Oh okay.


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 17, 2021)

new ZZ variant / EOLSLL variant

- CO: 23 cases, 7 HTM
- PLSLL: 453 cases (includes PLL, TTLL, WDLL) 16-17? moves

current name is ZZ-COP (CO, permute)


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 19, 2021)

Dumbest + Funniest method has just been created, its called Flake Method (This is what i saved the name for)
Step 1. NESW Edges (North east south west), solve the cross on the centre that makes it the fewest moves possible, if cross can always be done in 5 moves this has to be atleast 4 moves.
Step 2. F2L, centres wont match so you need to insert the pair in the slot where edges next to the pair would match
Step 3. Oll
Step 4. Pll
Step 5. CFP
Step 6. May have to do another CFP, will be easy to avoid though

CFP:
(Centres and Faces Permutation 
This step is what completely ruins the method as well as making it funny at the same time, there is 11 algs all together.
This is so hard to explain to the point where I wont even try and leave it for someone to figure out

GCOC Perm - x U D R U' D B2 L2 F' R' L' U L2 D' R2 F2 U' R2 D' R2 U
G Perm for Corners
O Perm (4x4) for Centres

JEOC Perm - R' D F' R L' U F' R U' R2 F2 R2 U2 R2 F2 L2 D'
J Perm for Edges
O Perm (4x4) for Centres

FEOC Perm - U R U B' R L' D' B' R' B R2 D' R2 F2 R2 D' L2 S2
F Perm for Edges
O Perm (4x4) for Centres

TEOC Perm - U R B' U R L' B' D R' B' D' L2 D2 R2 U F2 B2 U B2 D'
T Perm for Edges
O Perm (4x4) for Centres

YCOC Perm - U' L F' U R' L' B' U L' B U D R2 U' B2 D B2 M2 D'
Y Perm for Corners
O Perm (4x4) for Centres

REOC Perm - L D' F R L' U' F L' U R2 F2 R2 U2 R2 F2 L2 D
R Perm for Edges
O Perm (4x4) for Centres

VCOC Perm - U R' F U' R L B U' R B' U' D' L2 U B2 D' B2 R2 L2 U
V Perm for Corners
O Perm (4x4) for Centres

HC Perm - M' E2 M E2
H Perm for Centres

ZC Perm - M' E2 M E2
Z Perm for Centres
Note : This one doesn't actually solve the edges but helps set up a CFP case

D1 Perm - S M' S' M
Solving all dots

D2 Perm - M' S M S'
Solving all dots


All Algs were generated on a site that didnt give me notation and i had to manually write it, so some may be completely wrong such as the FEOC Perm
Knowing the method is bad i just never think about sorting out the algs however the one i know doesnt work atm FEOC Perm takes like 1 move to change it into the TEOC Perm, im just an extremely lazy guy


----------



## abunickabhi (Sep 19, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> Dumbest + Funniest method has just been created, its called Flake Method (This is what i saved the name for)
> Step 1. NESW Edges (North east south west), solve the cross on the centre that makes it the fewest moves possible, if cross can always be done in 5 moves this has to be atleast 4 moves.
> Step 2. F2L, centres wont match so you need to insert the pair in the slot where edges next to the pair would match
> Step 3. Oll
> ...


NESW edges is nice coinage of new term.

Flake method sounds good.


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 19, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> NESW edges is nice coinage of new term.
> 
> Flake method sounds good.


i didnt know if it already existed or not, you could also call it a flower


----------



## Z1hc (Sep 19, 2021)

I might of invented this but here is a idea

Solve bottom layer and left layer so there is a unsolved 2x2x3 block left.

Do OLL but for the 2x2x3 block but don’t mess up the two layers from the first step..
Then PLL plus the last two edges. Around 40 algorithms for PLL + L2E.

not the clearest example.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 20, 2021)

here is a new undeveloped version of edges first with way too many algs ungenned

1. Blockbuild up to F2L-1 but with only the edges solved
2. Solve last 5 edges all in 1 look (unknown amount of algs but at least 800 and not genned other than ELL)
3. Solve 3 Corners of any layer, preferrably the layer with the most amount of corners presolved)
4. L5C in 1 look (1228 algs most ungenned)


----------



## Z1hc (Sep 20, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> here is a new undeveloped version of edges first with way too many algs ungenned
> 
> 1. Blockbuild up to F2L-1 but with only the edges solved
> 2. Solve last 5 edges all in 1 look (unknown amount of algs but at least 800 and not genned other than ELL)
> ...


Maybe for L5C orient then permute. Way less algs.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 20, 2021)

Z1hc said:


> Maybe for L5C orient then permute. Way less algs.


way more moves lol. But that is still like 40-50 algs


----------



## Z1hc (Sep 21, 2021)

Here’s a method idea but for 2x2

Step 1: Make a V on the bottom so just FRD is unsolved.

Step 2: Solve BLU corner and orient the missing FRD corner of the bottom layer. Around 10 algorithms for this step.

Step 3: Solve the oriented FRD corner and everything else in one algorithm. Should be 216 algorithms.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 21, 2021)

Z1hc said:


> Here’s a method idea but for 2x2
> 
> Step 1: Make a V on the bottom so just FRD is unsolved.
> 
> ...


nice i like where this method is going. It is a subset of 1LLS which is 614 algs and a subset of VR which is 3684 algs.


----------



## Skewbed (Sep 22, 2021)

How many algs are there for 1LLL with phasing? Would it be 4x OLLCP? That might be feasible.


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 22, 2021)

Skewbed said:


> How many algs are there for 1LLL with phasing? Would it be 4x OLLCP? That might be feasible.


3915 algs for 1LLL, 3916 if you count the skip case


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 22, 2021)

That's not 1LLL with phasing, that's 1LLL.

It'll be approximately 1/4 of 3915, so 978.75. Still in the range of 1000.


----------



## Z1hc (Sep 24, 2021)

Thought of a method:
First step: EO and the line on the bottom like in zz.
Second step: Blockbuild but instead of solving normally you can solve it so you need to do an R,R’ or R2 to get it solved at the the end. Kind of like NMCLL. You do that for both sides.
last layer: I forgot what it was called but I’ll come and edit this later if I find it again. But you have to do 1 or 2 algorithms to put the Two side colors on the side. Here’s what I mean: L U’ R2 U R U’ R’ U L’ U’ R U R’ U’ R2 U. The two side colors are opposite so it’s easier to solve the cube.

last step just do L and R moves.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 24, 2021)

Skewbed said:


> How many algs are there for 1LLL with phasing? Would it be 4x OLLCP? That might be feasible.


I'm not gonna lie, I've been toying with the idea of letting learning phased 1LLL be my end-game alg set to learn after ZB, and a few other ZZ/Petrus alg sets


----------



## Cubing Forever (Sep 24, 2021)

Z1hc said:


> last layer: I forgot what it was called


It's called NMLL(Non-Matching Last Layer)


----------



## Athefre (Sep 24, 2021)

Yeah, it's NMLL. And that is actually why NMLL was developed. Non-matching blocks seemed interesting to use in ZZ, but there wasn't an easy to recognize LL method for non-matching blocks. So the idea was to find the L/R stickers since those stay consistent even when the left and right blocks don't match.

NMLL isn't the best LL method for speedsolving, but it is really interesting I think.


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 24, 2021)

Athefre said:


> Yeah, it's NMLL. And that is actually why NMLL was developed. Non-matching blocks seemed interesting to use in ZZ, but there wasn't an easy to recognize LL method for non-matching blocks. So the idea was to find the L/R stickers since those stay consistent even when the left and right blocks don't match.
> 
> NMLL isn't the best LL method for speedsolving, but it is really interesting I think.


I actually used NMLL semi-regularly for a Month. Problem is, when you do one colour every time, you look at OLL and PLL only by one Colour. When you go to things like COLL, CMLL and OLLCP, you learn to look at the relationships that colours have (matching, adjacent, opposite) in order to recognise the case. When you do NMLL(with any of the big three) you can't go by that alone, you need to learn how every case needs the pieces to be moved.
So eventually you do thousands of solves and drills to learn a whole new recognition system and you save 7 moves on good cases.
My Opinion but I did seriously use it for CFOP, Roux (the most), ZZ and Petrus in order to have this conclusion.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Sep 24, 2021)

Athefre said:


> NMLL isn't the best LL method for speedsolving, but it is really interesting I think.


It can be one of the best if not the best. Remember those variants I proposed in the method development discord server?


----------



## Athefre (Sep 24, 2021)

Thom S. said:


> I actually used NMLL semi-regularly for a Month. Problem is, when you do one colour every time, you look at OLL and PLL only by one Colour. When you go to things like COLL, CMLL and OLLCP, you learn to look at the relationships that colours have (matching, adjacent, opposite) in order to recognise the case. When you do NMLL(with any of the big three) you can't go by that alone, you need to learn how every case needs the pieces to be moved.
> So eventually you do thousands of solves and drills to learn a whole new recognition system and you save 7 moves on good cases.
> My Opinion but I did seriously use it for CFOP, Roux (the most), ZZ and Petrus in order to have this conclusion.


Do you have an example?



Cubing Forever said:


> It can be one of the best if not the best. Remember those variants I proposed in the method development discord server?


Yeah, those are definitely cool. It would be nice to get everything into a doc for those variants so we can really compare.


----------



## tsmosher (Oct 1, 2021)

Step 1. Roux SB + 1 (any L.edge) - 8 moves
Yes, Roux SB first!

*Any* oriented L.edge is positioned in DL.

The DR edge here can be *any* oriented U/D non-L.edge (i.e., any U/D edge except DL or UL), giving you a lot more flexibility in how you build this block.

To be clear, you can use DL or UL as well, but this limits you down to only 1 possible FB to build in the next step (down from the usual 4 possibilities).


Step 2. Roux FB - 15 moves
Insert two F2L pairs on the left, completing a (possibly non-matching) FB.

You have 2 options for your first F2L pair that will complete a square in dBR or dFR. This square can then be "swiveled" back and forth with L/L', giving you 2 options for the final F2L pair you insert.


Step 3. NMCMLL/NMCDRLL - 11 moves
I struggle with the name for this step. (While thinking up a name, it occurred to me that there is no name for a set of CLL algorithms which have no regard for EO but only affect the U layer.)

The algs used here can disturb DB, DF, or DR. (DL will always be solved and should be preserved.)

The algs here needn't preserve EO. (In fact, the centers do not even have to be aligned yet.)

NMCMLL recognition is used here. (This recognition works well when the M slice centers are "off" as they often will be.)


Step 4. L6E/L7E - 14 to 17 moves
Here is where it gets good.

Step 4a. 2 Opp EO - 9 moves
I hate the name of this step, but I do like keeping names consistent. (This is the name used by shadowslice in his proposal of 42.)

First, perform EOLR/EOBF/EOdM. (In other words, resolve EO whilst influencing UL/UR, UB/UF, or DB/DF into DB/DF.)

EO alignment would be decided by the alignment of your (righthand) Roux SB. By the end of this sub-step, U/D centers would need to be on U/D or vice versa.

Next, perform the AMFs/AUFs necessary to solve DB/DF, UL/UR, or UB/UF. (i.e., Cancel into M2 + U/U' as in the end of Roux step 4b.)

UB/UF would be solved into their proper positions, but their triplets would be moved to ul/ur for now with U/U'.

DB/DF should not require any AMFs/AUFs unless they are solved in their opposite positions (fixed by cancelling into M2 U2 M2).

This leaves us with the M slice edges and DR. (Or, in the case of EOdM, the U layer edges and DR.)


Step 4b. L4EP/L5EP - 5 to 8 moves
There are 3-4 possibilities for how to finish here:

If you have a proper Roux SB (i.e., DR is in DR), finish with EPLL (4 cases) if DB/DF are solved or L4EP (4 cases) if 2 U edges are solved. (L4EP is also commonly referred to as "Roux step 4c".) In this case, your solve would simply be a funky version of Roux.

If you do *not* have a proper Roux SB (i.e., DR is not solved):

If you solved DB/DF in (the previous) step 4a, finish with the L5EP-DR algorithm set (EPLL + 12 additional cases).

If you solved UL/UR or UB/UF in (the previous) step 4a, perform an x2/[r2] rotation, and finish with the RLSE-UO algorithm set (L4EP + 24 additional cases).

RLSE-UO recognition is identical because UL will be always be solved after rotating. Recognition is made slightly harder due to non-matching blocks though.

Note: if you don't mind the algs being <MD> (instead of <MU>) and the recognition being different (read: probably harder), you can avoid this x2/[r2] rotation entirely and solve L5EP using <MD> algs.


Un-transform (AUF/ADF/ALF) - 2 moves
Total: 50 to 53 moves (+ x2/[r2] possibly)



Admittedly, ergonomics of this method are not ideal. Perhaps you could build everything as in Roux (with DL in Roux FB being flexible) then do a d2/y2/[u2] after F2B. However, in my opinion, this extra move/rotation seems unnecessary when you consider the fact that inserting 2 F2L pairs on the left would be completely ordinary in CFOP or ZZ.



Another CP-first idea I've toyed with but not listed here.

(Any slice move can be used at any point during the solve.)

CP line (<RrUuFf>) - 5 moves
3QB (<RrUu>) - 7 moves
EOdM (<RrU>), preserving belt edges - 11 moves
F2L pair with last belt edge (<RU> only), completing belt - 7.5 moves
CLS (<RU> only), solving L5C - 10 moves
L5EP-DR - 8 moves
Total: ~49 moves STM

You will want to look ahead and find the last belt edge (probably also DB and/or DF) during 3QB to make EOdM one-lookable.

Also, orienting one additional edge (e.g., into DB as prescribed in YruRU) during 3QB would greatly reduce the case count for EOdM.

Some CLS algs would need reworking to conform to the <RU> move set.

Everything else should be pretty straightforward.



Roast me!


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 2, 2021)

I dont see much 2x2 in this

How about, this
1: Solve 2 Adjacent Corners and put them in DL kinda like a Mehta FB (~1.5 Moves)
2: Solve the last 2 corners of the first layer randomly using only R and U moves. (~2.5 Moves)
3: L6C in 1 look. (~9 Moves)


Pros:
1. Easy to 1 look because steps 1 and 2 can be done simutaniously
2. Low Movecount (same as EG)
3. Common to see entire step 1 skips
4. 5 Moves maximum is all it takes to get to the last step
5. Some algs are shorter (4-6 Moves with some algs)
6. All cases easy to recognize. CLL, Any TCLL, For Bottom 2, only 6 cases.

Cons:
Alot of algs
R and U moves arent the best moves on 2x2
3 steps instead of 2 like in CLL, EG, TCLL, VR, 1LLS, etc.

The movecounts are not counting cases with skips. Steps 1 and 2 are not rare to have skips on.

for L6C, there are 687 algs and are divided into 16 subsets (15 with 43 algs and 1 with 42 algs)

1. 42 CLL
2. 43 LEG-1
3. 43 TCLL+
4. 43 TCLL-
5. 43 BTCLL+
6. 43 BTCLL-
7. 43 TLEG+
8. 43 TLEG-
9. 43 tCLL
10. 43 tLEG-1
11. 43uCLL
12. 43 uLEG-1
13. 43 tuCLL
14. 43 tuLEG-1
15. 43 utCLL
16. 43 utLEG-1

some of these sets have bad names but some are good names.

after learning all algs, if you get lucky, you can user gods number method on here. This is just a start tho.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 3, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> Step 1. Roux SB + 1 (any L.edge) - 8 moves
> Yes, Roux SB first!
> 
> *Any* oriented L.edge is positioned in DL.
> ...


This is essentially Roux in a different order, but adding in an extra edge for the sake of it. It's definitely not an improvement and is probably a hinderance as LSE and SB are already not that bad. It's less efficient than Roux too.


----------



## tsmosher (Oct 4, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is essentially Roux in a different order, but adding in an extra edge for the sake of it. It's definitely not an improvement and is probably a hinderance as LSE and SB are already not that bad. It's less efficient than Roux too.


I add the extra edge personally if it is hard to insert the proper DL edge. (e.g., It is located in FL or BL and would take 3+ moves to relocate.) This method was just me thinking of a way to make the edge I don't care about be the DR edge (for ergonomics and for certain alg sets such as CDRLL) instead of the DL edge.

I also like how you can plan the entire intuitive part of the solve in inspection if you are color neutral. FB+1 is essentially just a triplet, half belt, and an oriented Redge. (8-9 moves. EOCross or EO222 are harder than that.) F2L, CLL, and L7E can then be entirely algorithmic.

This is very much Roux though- with more freedom in how you build FB and SB.

Fair points though. Thanks for checking it out!


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 8, 2021)

A new method! The EPCL method! (Pronounced ep-cle not ee-pee-see-el). EPCL is a type of columns first method designed to be weird but unique. It was supposed to be similar to Roux and ZZ but it ended up being similar to SSC(Shadowslice Snow Columns) instead. Also, this is more of a fun method rather than a speedsolving method because it’s pretty inefficient and stuff.
Number Of Algs: 58-60
I will add the stats when the method gets more developed.
The major 4 steps are:
EOCross (Edge Orientation cross)
Pairs
COLL (Corners of Last Layer)
L8E (Last 8 Edges)



Spoiler: EOCross



Orientate all the edges in the cube and make an unpermutated cross instead of a normal cross to lower movecount. A mixed cross is just a cross at the bottom but the center and edge colours don’t have to match. Just ZZ’s eoline without with a mixed cross.





Spoiler: Pairs



Make 4 corner edge pairs (f2l pairs) and solve them. This, like ZZ, is efficient because you don’t have to use F or B moves, making it rotation less. An option is to have the corners unoriented when you so, the pairs, then you solve the corners with one out of two algorithms. If you do this, remember that, if the corner and the pairs have one of the same colors (eg, white red blue corner paired with a green red edge), then make sure none of the colors match. If none of the colors match (eg, white red blue corner pair with green orange edge), make sure the opposite colors(blue/green, red/orange, white/yellow) are matching.





Spoiler: COLL



Just use the COLL algs and the d corner algs if unoriente..





Spoiler: L8E



Solve the remaining 8 edges by first, solving parity if needed(use M2 U2 M2), and then solving them with an algorithm (EZD Algs).





Spoiler: Algorithms



Algorithms:
L8E (EZD Algs)
H both layers: M2 U2 M2 y M2 U2 M2
Z Top H Bottom: M2 D' R2 (U D') M2 (U' D) L2 U M2
Ua Top H Bottom: (U) M2 D M' D M2 U' M2 D M D M2
Ub Top H Bottom: R2 (U' D) M2 D M' U2 M' U' M2 D2 L2
H Top Z Bottom: M2 U' L2 (U D') M2 (U' D) l2 U M2
Both Layer Z: M2 D' M2 (U D) M2 U' M2
Ua Top Z Bottom: M2 D M' U2 M' (U D') M2 U M2
Ub Top Z Bottom: M2 D' M' U2 M' (U' D) M2 U' M2
H Top Ua Bottom: (D) M2 U M' U M2 D' M2 U M U M2
Z Top Ua Bottom: M2 U M' D2 M' (U' D) M2 D M2
Ua Both Layers: M' (U' D) M2 D2 M' U' M' (U' D) M (U')
Ub top Ua Bottom: L2 (U' D) r2 U M2 U' l2 (U' D) L2H top Ub Bottom: M2 U2 M2 D' M2 U M' U2 M U' M2
Z Top Ub Bottom: M2 D' M2 (U D') M D2 M U' M2
Ua Top Ub Bottom: L2 (U' D) R2 U M2 U' L2 (U' D) L2
Ub both layers: M' (U' D) M2 U2 M' D M' (U' D) M (D)

D Layer Corner Algs (there’s a selection)
Adjacent Swap Alg list
R2 U F2 U' D' F2 D R2 (8stm*)
R2 U' R2 U2 F2 D' F2 D (8stm*)
R2 U' R2 D2 B2 D' B2 D' (8stm*)
R2 D R2 U' D' R2 U R2 (8stm*)
R2 D R2 D2 F2 U F2 D (8stm*)
R2 D' F2 U D F2 U' R2 (8stm*)
D B2 U' B2 U2 R2 D' R2 (8stm*)
D' F2 U' F2 D2 R2 D' R2 (8stm*)
D' F2 D F2 U2 R2 U R2 (8stm*)

Diagonal Swap Alg list
R2 F U2 M2 U2 F r2 (7stm*)
R2 F D2 M2 D2 F r2 (7stm*)
R2 F' U2 M2 U2 F' r2 (7stm*)
R2 F' D2 M2 D2 F' r2 (7stm*)
R2 B R2 E2 R2 B R2 (7stm*)
R2 B' R2 E2 R2 B' R2 (7stm*)
F2 R U2 S2 U2 R B2 f2 (7stm*)
F2 R D2 S2 D2 R B2 f2 (7stm*)



If you have any ideas or suggestions let me know!
Also if this method already exists then let me know.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 8, 2021)

What do you do if the pair edges are trapped in DF or DB? (DL and DR are also problematic, albeit a bit less so.)

Also you can probably find better CLL algs if you're only preserving pairs and EO, eg. F R2 U' R2 U R2 U R2 F'.


----------



## hellocubers (Oct 8, 2021)

this has potential to be an actual speedsolving method.


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 8, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> What do you do if the pair edges are trapped in DF or DB? (DL and DR are also problematic, albeit a bit less so.)
> 
> Also you can probably find better CLL algs if you're only preserving pairs and EO, eg. F R2 U' R2 U R2 U R2 F'.


Oh yea! in that case I’m changing the EO to eocross and with a pseudo cross so it doesn’t take too much time. Also, yea I‘m gonna change the coll to cll.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 8, 2021)

This sounds very similar to a ZZ variant called ZZ-4c, but worse. That variant is actually quite good so I suggest taking a look at it, as it may be closer to what you were trying to achieve.


----------



## LukasCubes (Oct 8, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> A new method! The EPCL method! (Pronounced ep-cle not ee-pee-see-el) It was supposed to be similar to Roux and ZZ but it ended up being similar to SSC(Shadowslice Snow Columns) instead. But it is NOT a variant of SSC, got it?
> Number Of Algs: 42 or 58
> I will add the stats when the method gets more developed.
> The major 4 steps are:
> ...


this method seems interesting lol i might learn it tho i suck at EO


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 8, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> A new method! The EPCL method! (Pronounced ep-cle not ee-pee-see-el) It was supposed to be similar to Roux and ZZ but it ended up being similar to SSC(Shadowslice Snow Columns) instead. But it is NOT a variant of SSC, got it?
> Number Of Algs: 42 or 58
> I will add the stats when the method gets more developed.
> The major 4 steps are:
> ...


I myself have thought of this aswell as other people, there isn't much interesting about it as said its just worse ZZ-4c.
Its literally just don't solve the cross directly with like a D move to make the rest of the solve less efficient because you later have to solve it while preserving f2l/CLL, unlike 4c which is low alg count and more efficient than ocll/pll by quite a bit


----------



## tsmosher (Oct 8, 2021)

Yes, this approach with EO Mixed Cross would be ZZ-4c.

I don't know if I'd compare it to SSC.

Unless you have some really efficient ideas around L7E/L8E, L5E/L6E are going to be superior. Lower move count, easier ergonomics, easier recognition, more "auto-pilot"/algorithmic in nature. L7E is implemented wisely in some methods (e.g., LMCF, WaterRoux). Always at the cost of more steps, more algorithms, etc. etc.

Check out the No More PLLs method to see the same concept applied to CFOP-- although I always felt like that method didn't directly address the problem of resolving EO. Just have your edges oriented by the time you get to the last layer!

I am a big fan of these methods. This is the way I usually solve with ZZ. Ending COLL -> L5EP (can use any mixed D edge) or L6EP (M2 + 4c).


----------



## LBr (Oct 8, 2021)

my problem would be l8e. I think its ergonomics would be kinda awkward, with the rotations/s moves, whereas in roux, just don't need rotations. This is basically just like an eo version of columns


----------



## tsmosher (Oct 8, 2021)

LBr said:


> This is basically just like an eo version of columns



Yep.

Speaking of columns, if you can find a nice way to keep your edges separated...

EZD seems like an alg set you might be interested in. It permutes L8E (U/D layers) if:

edges are already separated to their appropriate layers, and
already oriented.
<RrULlDM> gen.
average ~ 9.5 moves STM not counting post-AUF.


----------



## voidrx (Oct 8, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> A new method! The EPCL method! (Pronounced ep-cle not ee-pee-see-el) It was supposed to be similar to Roux and ZZ but it ended up being similar to SSC(Shadowslice Snow Columns) instead. But it is NOT a variant of SSC, got it?
> Number Of Algs: 42 or 58
> I will add the stats when the method gets more developed.
> The major 4 steps are:
> ...


This is just a worse ZZ.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 9, 2021)

voidrx said:


> This is just a worse ZZ.


....duh


----------



## abunickabhi (Oct 9, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> A new method! The EPCL method! (Pronounced ep-cle not ee-pee-see-el) It was supposed to be similar to Roux and ZZ but it ended up being similar to SSC(Shadowslice Snow Columns) instead. But it is NOT a variant of SSC, got it?
> Number Of Algs: 42 or 58
> I will add the stats when the method gets more developed.
> The major 4 steps are:
> ...


Nice idea!


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 9, 2021)

I changed the EO mixed cross to EO unoriented cross. I’ll do more solves on it to change the pairs up a bit.


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 9, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> I changed the EO mixed cross to EO unoriented cross. I’ll do more solves on it to change the pairs up a bit.


this idea is slightly better, but what would be best would to not do EO and just do columns with cross ep and what would be better than that would be just doing columns


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 9, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> I changed the EO mixed cross to EO unoriented cross. I’ll do more solves on it to change the pairs up a bit.


“EO unoriented cross”


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 12, 2021)

Now, I changed it even more, and made it so that you can make normal pairs or pairs with unoriented corners. This is’t even supposed to be more efficient, but it’s there! Also the Algs are 7-8 stm.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Oct 13, 2021)

I have thought of a roux 4x4 method for a while similar to Hoya, which I hope is original.

1. Solve 2 opposite centers which are adjacent to your block center.
2. Solve 2 other adjacent centers, one including your block center (the other center i usually make my D center but any center adjacent to your block center works)
3. Rotate to where the unsolved centers are (F and U) and where your block center is under (D). Solve the 3 edges of your block Hoya style and insert the corners necessary to your block after.
4. Solve the remaining centers on F and U
5(a). If there is a random solved edge (excluding your block edges), insert into your FD slot. If not, solve a random edge and insert into FD slot
5(b). Solve remaining edges using 3-2-3. To replace rotating, use wide U moves
6. Rotate where your block is on your left and solve as 3x3. If there is OLL parity, solve before doing CMLL. If there is PLL parity, solve during LSE 4c.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 13, 2021)

This is just doing Meyer but with a Hoya start, so I would class it more as a hybrid than a new method. It's probably quite good on larger cubes.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Oct 13, 2021)

*>> Reinvented beginner belt method <<*
1. Belt
2. Rotationless Cross <M, U, S>
3. Bottom corners (f2l)
4. your favorite flavour of last Layer

***Pros*
1. Belt+some cross edges can be planned on inspection
2. Rotationless
3. Beginner friendly, few algs
4. It's fun

***Cons*
1. Too many inneficient moves because restrictions
2. Freefop f2l may be more spam tps friendly
3. Too many corners can be trapped in the wrong slot leading to f2l havoc


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 13, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> Now, I changed it even more, and made it so that you can make normal pairs or pairs with unoriented corners. This is’t even supposed to be more efficient, but it’s there! Also the Algs are 7-8 stm.


so now its just uh, belt method?


----------



## the dnf master (Oct 13, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> *>> Reinvented beginner belt method <<*
> 1. Belt
> 2. Rotationless Cross <M, U, S>
> 3. Bottom corners (f2l)
> ...


Hmm 4 pros and 3 cons, I would say that's a win. Time to switch!


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 15, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> so now its just uh, belt method?


Technically no because it has a selection

I’m not even trying anymore I’m just making it weird now


----------



## abunickabhi (Oct 15, 2021)

Method looks cool. Good work!


----------



## hellocubers (Oct 15, 2021)

this got 1k views in just a week?


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 15, 2021)

Wtf

I can’t even do that on YouTube


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 17, 2021)

CubetyCubes said:


> Technically no because it has a selection


theres a version of belt that has these exact steps that already exist


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 20, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> theres a version of belt that has these exact steps that already exist


oh


----------



## CubetyCubes (Oct 22, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> *>> Reinvented beginner belt method <<*
> 1. Belt
> 2. Rotationless Cross <M, U, S>
> 3. Bottom corners (f2l)
> ...


I actually came up with this when I first found out about the belt method lol


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Oct 22, 2021)

Is this a Petrus variant?

2x2x3 
Pretty self explanatory.

EO-Pair
Solve either the FR or BR pair while orienting edges. <R,U,F>

TSLE - 104 algs <R,U>, <R,U,L> or <R,U,D>
Just like in ZZ-CT.

PLL+1
I don't know the alg count for this step, but solve the rest of the cube (PLL + the DSR edge).


----------



## tsmosher (Oct 23, 2021)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> Is this a Petrus variant?
> 
> 2x2x3
> Pretty self explanatory.
> ...



TSLE only solves FRE. When does DRF get solved?

The alg count is 93, I believe. 21 of these are PLL, and 12 are L5EP.









Mehta PLL+1


PLL+1 This is the Mehta PLL+1 algsheet. It solves PLL and the DR edge. There are 93 cases, but 33 of these are PLLs or L5EPs, so only the remaining 60 are listed here. These cases are further divded into five sets of 12 cases each, depending on whether the corners have an adjacent or diagonal s...




docs.google.com


----------



## Ninjascoccer (Oct 23, 2021)

I have a new method idea
And if it already exists then let me know
It‘s more of a fun method than a speedsolving method
Algs: 47 but if you know other methods then you only need to learn a few



Spoiler: Steps



Step #1: First Block (FB)
Make a 1x2x3 block just like the first block in Roux.

Step #2: Second Block (SB)
Make A 1x2x2 block on the back. Just do one F2L pair on the right-back slot and the DR edge.

Step #3: Corners of both Layers (COBL)
COBL has been divided into 2 parts.
Part 1: Solve the last corner of the D layer and make sure the edge connected to that corner is oriented or else the rest of the solve will be harder.
Part 2: Solve the last layer corners with any CxLL method of your choice.

Step #4: Last Seven Edges (L7E)
Orient all the remaining edges. This step has also been divided but in 3 parts.
Part 1: Orient edges just like step 4a in Roux. Also make sure the center piece is either solved or can be solved in an M2.
Part 2: Solve the FR edge with an algorithm, then solve the DF and BF edge intuitively.
Part 3: Solve the 4 remaining edge using the EPLL algs.





Spoiler: Algs



Here are a list of algs for step 4 part 2
R' U2 D M U2 M' D' R (8stm)
R' D' F2 M F2 M' D R (8stm)
R' D' M' U2 M U2 D R (8stm)
F' M' F U2 F' M F U2 (8stm)
M' F M' D2 M D2 F' M (8stm)
M' F' U2 M U2 M' F M (8stm)



Soooooooooo…
what do you guys think?


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Oct 23, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> TSLE only solves FRE. When does DRF get solved?


Ah. When I originally made this, I had 5CP, then L5EP instead of PLL+1, forgetting that one corner would not be solved. I guess PLL+2 would probably not be the best.


----------



## tsmosher (Oct 23, 2021)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> Ah. When I originally made this, I had 5CP, then L5EP instead of PLL+1, forgetting that one corner would not be solved. I guess PLL+2 would probably not be the best.



Yeah. Trying to come up with my own methods, I've often gotten stuck in that exact cube state, so I know it well. I think it would be more of TTLL+1 than PLL+2, but who knows? An insurmountable number of algs without a doubt.


----------



## Z1hc (Oct 23, 2021)

I have a new method that has a lot of different variations. But I’ll choose this variation of the method I might of made:

step 1: 2 1x2x2 blocks. One at Lfd and one at rBd. Kind of like F2L minus a 2x2x2 chunk and the back left pair.

step 2: solve the back left edge. Very easy step but some algorithms may help.

Step 3: make a 1x1x2 block at ULb. This step is also easy. Just make sure the 1x1x2 block top color is the same as the top center color.

step 4: Orient the last 5 edges while solving FR. This step will need some algorithms.

Step 5: solve the 2 last corners on the bottom layer. You could choose to use algorithms or just use 2 commutators to solve.

Step 6: solve another 1x1x2 pair at URb using some algorithms.

Step 7: solve the FD and RD edges.

Step 8: solve the last layer with a Zbll. There are a lot less zbll cases since you made 2 1x1x2 blocks.


----------



## SciKE (Oct 24, 2021)

MethodNeutral said:


> A bit of an update on LURoux: I've developed a better way of performing the reduction step, so here is an outline. I will be using this scramble from cstimer: D2 R2 U B2 R2 D R2 D2 U L2 U F U F2 R' D' B F D
> 
> I scrambled with white top green front, and I solve with white on D. So perform the scramble with your D-layer face on U in order to follow along.
> 
> ...


Nobody decided to follow up on this??? This is honestly the first genuinely good and novel idea I've seen going back in this thread and nobody replied or asked questions about it.

Like how cool is this idea? A completely different take to rotationless CP methods I personally havent seen before. It does CP very early in the solve, whereas most ZZ or at least the 2GLL related methods do it later in the solve like before left block (zz-d) or for the insertion of final pair (zz-e/orbit). Other CP first methods like Briggs or 2gr usually use a CP+1x1x3, this doesnt. Reducing to RUL but you can solve LB with only LU and RB with only RU, imagine if this could be adapted to ZZF2L? The ergo problem of ZZF2L switching between LU and RU would be gone, you just LU spam until LB solved, move to RU, solve RB, then do whatever to finish the solve (im still not sure about the EODFDB to 2GLL path yet, something more akin to ZZ eof2l with this reduction). I love this idea and would love to see some development or at least thoughts on this because this is too cool to pass up.

Not to sound rude but how are all these HK/Ribbon/alt-LSLL garbage methods getting more traction than stuff like this?


As for my few couple cents on it. Im not a huge fan of the EODFDB to 2GLL. But I cant seem to think of any other way that does EO after the 2 blocks that doesnt break CP so I guess that is the best way to implement. Only thing i can think of is doing EODFDB as early as possible so the transition from <LU> LB to <RU> RB to 2GLL is smoother. At the moment it goes from anything for CP/piece sorting to <LU> to <RU> to <MU> back to <RU> which isnt that smooth. A did think of a few ways to fix this, one stays in the spirit of 2GLL, the other drifts off into a Roux variant.

First one, staying true to 2GLL:

CP/Piece sorting
EODFBDB
LB
RB
2GLL

Main problem with this is nothing is solved when doing EODFDB, so the DFDB edges could be anywhere, but you could be looking for them in CP/Piece sorting and planning/influencing your EODFDB. Doing EO like this while doing DFDB would be terrible, especially not being able to do it from inspection with CP in the way. But I do think that the transition from <RU> RB to <RU> 2GLL is way better. Is it worth it? Probably not, not even gonna bother trying to do an example solve for this so lmao.


Heres the other, definitely more roux oriented, trading EODFDB for regular LSE and 2GLL for 2G CMLLs:

CP/Piece sorting
LB
RB
2G CMLL (aka, just using the the COLLs that are 2 gen for each case. Its just 2GLL without the edge cycles)
LSE

*so the "2G CMLLs" are As Right Bar, S Left Bar, U Back Row, T Rows, L Pure, H Columns, and Pi Right Bar. Obviously make sure youre using the 2G algs.

Honestly I kinda like this. Its only 7 algs for "2G CMLL" (god thats such a shite name). Its honestly just roux with CP before but I like it. Is it viable? probably not, heres an example from the scramble given above.

Scramble: D2 R2 U B2 R2 D R2 D2 U L2 U F U F2 R' D' B F D

x // inspection
R' // CP+PS (1)
l2 U2 L' U' L2 U' l U' l' U2 l U L' // LB (13)
R2 U R U2 r' U' R2 U M U M' U2 r' U' R // RB (15)
R' U' R U' R' U2' R // CMLL (7)
U M' U M' U' M U' M' U' M U' M' U2 // LSE (13)

Total 49 stm, but thats with an easy CP+PS and a short CMLL, not that the RU cmlls arent fast but some are pretty long like L Pure. I assume it averages around 55-60 stm? Not terrible for a 7 alg method.


As of now MethodNeutral's original method is definitely better, I just wanted to add SOMETHING to this. Hopefully this sparks some interest in this kind of LU to RU reduction for something like ZZ, which Im gonna do some thinking about. Will update with any other ideas, and maybe MethodNeutral has some extra juicy information to share? hint hint nudge nudge more example solves pls pls


----------



## Ultimatecuber0814 (Oct 24, 2021)

Not bad. This method is worth giving it a try. The belt method is not really good. It requires lots of moves which makes your time slower and it's kinda complicated for me. You need to keep the belt "alive" and pause a lot to check on what's going on, what moves should you apply, and you can mess up easily. I don't know, but for me, until you get way more experienced, you shouldn't try belt method,. There are also parities. Of course you can try it out, it's kinda fun too and also has pros. Check out J Perm's video on it:


----------



## SciKE (Oct 24, 2021)

Ultimatecuber0814 said:


> Not bad. This method is worth giving it a try. The belt method is not really good. It requires lots of moves which makes your time slower and it's kinda complicated for me. You need to keep the belt "alive" and pause a lot to check on what's going on, what moves should you apply. I don't know, but for me, until you get way more experienced, you shouldn't try belt method, There are also parities. Check out J Perm's video on it:


who are you talking to


----------



## Ultimatecuber0814 (Oct 24, 2021)

SciKE said:


> who are you talking to


Uhh... Everybody? Just giving you guys some of my suggestions.


----------



## PiKeeper (Oct 24, 2021)

SciKE said:


> Like how cool is this idea? A completely different take to rotationless CP methods I personally havent seen before. It does CP very early in the solve, whereas most ZZ or at least the 2GLL related methods do it later in the solve like before left block (zz-d) or for the insertion of final pair (zz-e/orbit). Other CP first methods like Briggs or 2gr usually use a CP+1x1x3, this doesnt. Reducing to RUL but you can solve LB with only LU and RB with only RU, imagine if this could be adapted to ZZF2L? The ergo problem of ZZF2L switching between LU and RU would be gone, you just LU spam until LB solved, move to RU, solve RB, then do whatever to finish the solve


The reason this method hasn't taken off is because cp anywhere before last slot is seen as slow and unnecessary. It takes away from inspection and barely provides any benefit to f2l, whereas planning a pair during that inspection time has a huge benefit. And zzf2l doesn't have an ergo problem at all if you use eocross, so that's why nobody cares about applying this to zz.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Oct 24, 2021)

Ninjascoccer said:


> I have a new method idea
> And if it already exists then let me know
> It‘s more of a fun method than a speedsolving method
> Algs: 47 but if you know other methods then you only need to learn a few
> ...


This seems like (worse) 42 without the transformation bit and L7E can be done intuitively.


----------



## SciKE (Oct 24, 2021)

Mathsoccer said:


> The reason this method hasn't taken off is because cp anywhere before last slot is seen as slow and unnecessary. It takes away from inspection and barely provides any benefit to f2l, whereas planning a pair during that inspection time has a huge benefit. And zzf2l doesn't have an ergo problem at all if you use eocross, so that's why nobody cares about applying this to zz.


Thats not my point, I'm fully aware it's not going to revolutionize ZZ, but why do you think things like CT exist? They aren't viable but they have intriguing ideas that keep them relevant, even if theyre a meme. My point is that this a genuinely interesting idea and people instead are praising shitty amalgamations of methods (see the reply by Cubing Forever literally right above this) that don't bring any novel ideas. MethodNeutral had a genuinely intriguing idea for a unique approach to "ZZ"F2L and Im just amazed that people decided to skip over that and reply to *Insert shitty *_*F2L/F2L-1/F2L-1e/F2B/LSLL method here*_.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 24, 2021)

SciKE said:


> Thats not my point, I'm fully aware it's not going to revolutionize ZZ, but why do you think things like CT exist? They aren't viable but they have intriguing ideas that keep them relevant, even if theyre a meme. My point is that this a genuinely interesting idea and people instead are praising shitty amalgamations of methods (see the reply by Cubing Forever literally right above this) that don't bring any novel ideas. MethodNeutral had a genuinely intriguing idea for a unique approach to "ZZ"F2L and Im just amazed that people decided to skip over that and reply to *Insert shitty *_*F2L/F2L-1/F2L-1e/F2B/LSLL method here*_.


In general, people skip over ZZ altogether since most people think the method sucks, which is a shame.


----------



## PiKeeper (Oct 24, 2021)

SciKE said:


> Thats not my point, I'm fully aware it's not going to revolutionize ZZ, but why do you think things like CT exist? They aren't viable but they have intriguing ideas that keep them relevant, even if theyre a meme. My point is that this a genuinely interesting idea and people instead are praising shitty amalgamations of methods (see the reply by Cubing Forever literally right above this) that don't bring any novel ideas. MethodNeutral had a genuinely intriguing idea for a unique approach to "ZZ"F2L and Im just amazed that people decided to skip over that and reply to *Insert shitty *_*F2L/F2L-1/F2L-1e/F2B/LSLL method here*_.


I'm not sure what you mean by people praising non-novel methods. The reply you talked about is literally Cubing Forever dismissing that method as bad.


----------



## SciKE (Oct 25, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> In general, people skip over ZZ altogether since most people think the method sucks, which is a shame.


Very much a shame. A lot of methods are very viable and deserve a decent following. Anyone who isn't in the ZMS discord server should definitely join, its a great server.



Mathsoccer said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by people praising non-novel methods. The reply you talked about is literally Cubing Forever dismissing that method as bad.


Exactly, those methods are getting feedback while the method I quoted got a couple reactions and thats about it.


----------



## Ninjascoccer (Oct 27, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> This seems like (worse) 42 without the transformation bit and L7E can be done intuitively.


Ya Ik this is just supposed to be a fun method
its not supposed to be taken that seriously


----------



## Z1hc (Oct 31, 2021)

I might have a variation of LSFB from speed solving wiki:
(For this explanation make sure to have yellow as your bottom face.)
First step: make a 1x2x2 block at bd[R].
Second step: make another 1x2x2 block but at bd[L]. 
Now it should look like roux F2B right left but without the front 2 F2L pairs.

Third step: orient the L6C. They can be 2 gen if you choose to.

Fourth step: If you have your 1x2x2 blocks in the back with them in the first 2 layers then you can solve FL and FR but you dont really need to care about permuting them. Kind of like a square 1 middle slice.
Fifth step: Orient L6E while putting a yellow edge in BD.
Sixth step: this step is 2 gen and intuitive. Turn the cube so the two 1x2x2 blocks are at LD. Then you make a 1x1x3 yellow bar (doesent need to be a completed bar) and also solve the middle bar from step 4. 

Seventh step: You can either permute everything in one algorithm (around 150?) or do 2 look way.


----------



## Ninjascoccer (Nov 1, 2021)

I just came up with this idea.
I realised it’s just SSC without EO but I’m posting it anyway(I took 10 minutes coming up with this don’t judge)
So basically,
First you make 3 quarters belt
Then you solve the remaining D layer corners (the last one separating edges and using WV)
Then EZD


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 9, 2021)

Feel free to let me know if I am dumb for inventing a method that already exists
So yesterday I came up with a method that goes like this (have no idea what to name it) :
EO 
F2L (yes without cross) 
solve top corners while preserving EO 
Solve Midges in 1 look 
Rotate and Solve S layer which is now the M layer 1 look

Here are some example solves
B2 U R2 D F2 D2 R2 F2 R2 B2 F2 U' F' U2 B' L D F' D2 L2 F U' 
F R B D L U' F x2 // EO
D U' R D' // BR pair
R U2 R' // FR pair
U2 L D' L U2 L' S' U2 S D L' U2 L // BL and FL pair
R2 D' R U R' D R U R U' R' U' R // COLL
U2 R D2 M' D2 L F' M2 F R2 x // Midges
y' M' U2 M U2 // Rotate and solve S layer edges
53 STM

L2 R2 B F2 R2 U2 B F2 L2 F' U2 F' R U F2 R' D' L B' L2 U' 
B' D R' U R F // EO
L2 // FL pair
R2 U L U L' // BL pair
D R' U2 R D' // FR pair
U' M' U2 r' U' R2 U2 R D R' U2 R D' R2 // BR pair cancelled into COLL
U R2 F2 U2 M2 U M2 U F2 R2 // Midges
y' M' F2 M F2 // Rotate and solve S layer edges
45 STM

This method averages around 47 moves. (All algs not generated yet).
Thank you


----------



## hellocubers (Nov 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> _solve top corners while preserving EO
> Solve Midges in 1 look
> Rotate and Solve S layer which is now the M layer 1 look_


If this was a real method, the italic text would be the hardest parts.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 9, 2021)

hellocubers said:


> If this was a real method, the italic text would be the hardest parts.


only solving Midges would be somewhat hard because you have to look at the bottom. the other two are easy. solving corners is just COLL and Solving S layer edges is just roux L4E or L3E


----------



## hellocubers (Nov 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> only solving Midges would be somewhat hard because you have to look at the bottom. the other two are easy. solving corners is just COLL and Solving S layer edges is just roux L4E or L3E


yeah but what about preserving EO?


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 9, 2021)

hellocubers said:


> yeah but what about preserving EO?


LOL. COLL is the algorithm set to solve the corners and preserve EO.


----------



## Ninjascoccer (Nov 9, 2021)

I actually saw someone think of this method called EPCL (cubetycubes) but he turned it into a disaster lol.



Ninjascoccer said:


> I actually saw someone think of this method called EPCL (cubetycubes) but he turned it into a disaster lol.


Hopefully you know more than him


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 9, 2021)

Ninjascoccer said:


> I actually saw someone think of this method called EPCL (cubetycubes) but he turned it into a disaster lol.


how exactly lol?


----------



## PiKeeper (Nov 9, 2021)

I'm pretty sure this columns first variant has already been mostly proposed by others but dismissed because it's bad. Lookahead sucks during F2L, COLL isn't that great of an algset, and solving midges has bad lookahead and is not ergonomic.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 9, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> I'm pretty sure this columns first variant has already been mostly proposed by others but dismissed because it's bad. Lookahead sucks during F2L, COLL isn't that great of an algset, and solving midges has bad lookahead and is not ergonomic.


oh k.


----------



## hellocubers (Nov 10, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> LOL. COLL is the algorithm set to solve the corners and preserve EO.


ohhh sorry i never learned COLL. I use roux.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 10, 2021)

hellocubers said:


> ohhh sorry i never learned COLL.


NP.


hellocubers said:


> I use roux.


COOL


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 10, 2021)

Alright, don't get angry with me for bringing up another method (fell free to call me dumb for inventing another method that already exists)
I came up with this in like 10 min.
Steps
Solve a 1x1x3 (should be connected to the centres) and place it in DL position
Belt
EO
6CO
6CP
Insert the cross edge that goes between the two corners on the right thus creating another 1x1x3. align both the 1x1x3s to their respective centres using u / u' / u2.
Solve LSE like Roux.

Here are some examples
B2 D F2 L2 D2 B2 R2 F2 U' B2 D' F' R B' L B2 F U2 R' U'
y' L2 U' L' // 1x1x3
R' U' R' u2 U R M R U R' M' // Belt
M2 U' M U' M // EO
U' R' U2 R U R2 U' R U2 R // 6CO
U' x U2 R' D' R U2 R' D R x' // 6CP
D2 // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
M' U2 M U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U // LSE
49 STM

U2 D' L D' B L2 F B2 U B' D2 R2 F2 L2 F2 D2 L2 B' U2 B' D2
x2 y L' B2 // 1x1x3
u' R2 u R2 u R // Belt
M' U' R2 U R' r' // EO
U D' R U R' U2 R U R' D // 6CO
U2 R2 D' R2 U R2 U' R2 U' D R2 U R2 // 6CP
M2 U' S' U2 S M2 u' // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
M U2 M U' M' U2 M' // LSE / L5E
51 STM

D' F' B D2 B U' B D2 L' B' L2 D2 F' L2 F L2 F' U2 L2 D2 B
F U' L' F2 y // 1x1x3
U' R u' U' R u' R2 r2 R U R' r2 // Belt
M R2 U' M r2 // EO
U' R' D' R U R' D R // 6CO
U' R U2 R' D' R' D R' D' R' U2 R' // 6CP
U2 M' U2 M D // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
U M' U2 M U x' U2 M U2 M' // LSE
55 STM

D' L2 R2 D F2 R2 D2 F2 L2 F2 R2 U F R B2 R2 D' B' F R' U
x2 F2 U F' // 1x1x3
u' U2 R' u2 R' U R' u' R U R' // Belt
U M2 U' M U' M // EO
R D' R U' R' D R' // CO
U F U F' R2 F U' F' U' R2 // 6CP
S' U2 S u2 // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
M U2 M' U' M2 U' M U2 M U' // LSE / L5E
51 STM

U L2 U' L2 R2 U' F2 L2 B2 D F2 U2 B' R' F2 L' U' B L2 U2 B' R'
y2 x D2 B U2 L // 1x1x3
u R' u2 R' U' R' u2 r2 B U2 B' r2 // Belt
M' U' M' U M U' M // EO
U' R2 U2 R' U R' U R U2 R' // 6CO
U2 F U F' R2 F U' F' U2 R2 // 6CP
S' U2 S u // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
M U2 M U' M' U2 M U2 M2 U2 // LSE
57 STM

U B2 F2 U2 B2 U' L2 U' R2 U2 L2 F' R U' F' D L' D B D2 F' 
U B U' F2 // 1x1x3
r U' r' u U' R' u R u R U' R' // Belt
U' M2 U' M U' M // EO
R U' R' U R' U R' U' R // 6CO
R2 U' D' R2 U R2 U' R2 // 6CP
S' M' U M U2 S // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
U' M' U2 M U' // Somehow left with L3E
50 STM

F' L2 D2 L2 U2 F' R2 F' D2 F R2 B2 L U2 B' F R' D' F' D L 
x' D2 L // 1x1x3
U' R2 U' R' u2 R2 U' R' // Belt
U R F R2 F' R // EO
R2 U2 R' U R' U2 R U R' // 6CO
U' R2 U R2 U R2 D R2 U' R2 U R2 // 6CP
D' // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
M' U2 M U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U' // LSE
48 STM

L' F2 D2 F2 U2 F2 R' B2 F2 R' F2 L' F' R U2 B' F' U' L' F U2
x' y U' L' // 1x1x3
u R u' R2 u' R U R' // Belt
U' F' L' F U F L F' D' // EO
U2 R U' R U2 R' U R' U R U R' // 6CO
U2 R2 U R2 U' D R2 U' R2 U R2 D' R2 // 6CP
S' M' U' M S u2 // Roux F2B with EO and CMLL done
M U2 M' U' M' U2 M U' // LSE
58 STM

U' L2 B2 D R2 B2 L2 F2 D2 U' R2 U2 F U' L D2 B2 D' B F' L 
y2 U' B2 U2 F2 // 1x1x3
u R2 U2 R u2 U2 R2 M U R' M2 U' M // Belt + EO
R' D' R U' R' D R // 6CO
U2 D' R U' R' U2 D R2 U2 R2 D' R U R' // 6CP
D2 y M2 U2 M2 S' M' U M U2 S U' // LSE (But not Roux style)
49 STM

U2 F2 L2 D' B2 D F2 L2 U F2 R2 F2 L' B2 D' L U B2 D2 B' R2 F 
x' y' R2 U L // 1x1x3
u' R2 u R2 u r' U r // Belt
U2 M' U' M // EO
U2 R2 U2 R' U R' U2 R U R' // 6CO
R2 U D R2 U' R2 U R2 // 6CP
y M2 U S' U2 S // Roux FB with EO and CMLL done
U' M2 U M2 U M' D2 M' D2 // LSE
47 STM

Average movecount = 51.5 STM


----------



## tsmosher (Nov 10, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> Alright, don't get angry with me for bringing up another method (fell free to call me dumb for inventing another method that already exists)
> I came up with this in like 10 min.
> Steps
> Solve a 1x1x3 (should be connected to the centres) and place it in DL position
> ...


I've had this idea many times with different finishes. The thing that makes this method hard to make viable would be 6CO/6CP algs which generally aren't the best. (A lot of R2 and such.) Not a terrible idea.

EDIT: For example, you could ignore edges and leave L7E for the end with this approach. Things like that.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 11, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> I've had this idea many times with different finishes. The thing that makes this method hard to make viable would be 6CO/6CP algs which generally aren't the best. (A lot of R2 and such.) *Not a terrible idea.*


You mean this method is not a terrible idea?


tsmosher said:


> EDIT: For example, *you could ignore edges and leave L7E for the end* with this approach. Things like that.


I will work on that. I will probably leave L7EP for the end.


----------



## PiKeeper (Nov 11, 2021)

I would say this method is just a worse roux. Basically if you take out the pointless eo step in the middle and use dcal+cdrll to solve corners (better algs than 6CO+6CP) You have essentially just made up a different way to do SB.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 11, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> I would say this method is just a worse roux. Basically if you take out the pointless eo step in the middle and use dcal+cdrll to solve corners (better algs than 6CO+6CP) You have essentially just made up a different way to do SB.


Ok


----------



## tsmosher (Nov 11, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> I would say this method is just a worse roux. Basically if you take out the pointless eo step in the middle and use dcal+cdrll to solve corners (better algs than 6CO+6CP) You have essentially just made up a different way to do SB.


But half belt being ~5 moves or less and DCAL being ~9 moves, it is not a terrible SB (although it is partial). 64% algorithmic as well.

Yes, pro Roux would build entire SB in ~15 moves, according to Mr. Mansour. But more realistic for most people, I think, is ~17+ moves for SB. If SBLS is done algorithmically, I think that is 45-50% algorithmic in either case.

You're not wrong though. And Mehta could be said to simply be "a different way to do SB" as well...


----------



## Waffles (Nov 12, 2021)

tsmosher said:


> But half belt being ~5 moves or less and DCAL being ~9 moves, it is not a terrible SB (although it is partial). 64% algorithmic as well.
> 
> Yes, pro Roux would build entire SB in ~15 moves, according to Mr. Mansour. But more realistic for most people, I think, is ~17+ moves for SB. If SBLS is done algorithmically, I think that is 45-50% algorithmic in either case.
> 
> You're not wrong though. And Mehta could be said to simply be "a different way to do SB" as well...


Isn’t everything just a different method, copying a step, etc? Like you could say ZZ is just CFOP made harder and roux is just a weird Mehta, and it goes both ways. Yes I know I’m two months out of date but I doubt that someone has invented some genius method that solves the cube in 20 moves or less in 5 seconds. Basically what I’m trying to say is this is a useless post and I’m trying to get more posts for no effort isn’t every method an expansion of another one, or just a slightly more efficient way of doing something?

By the way I’m not hating on any of the methods I mentioned for God’s sake people get so hyped up over methods it’s kinda strange I use CFOP/ZZ and I know Mehta LEOR and Roux to some extent so yeah there’s your proof bye I’m out


----------



## Z1hc (Nov 12, 2021)

Might be or not, I have a new method.

Step 1: EO

Step 2: make the first layer on the bottom. Make sure it’s solved with the centers. 

Step 3: solve BLU and BRU corners using 1 algorithm. Or 2 if you are a beginner.

Step 4: Solve UL and UR edges in a single algorithm. Or 2 if you are a beginner. Make sure you don’t break EO after.

Step 5: solve 3 middle layer edges. Algorithms are necessary for fast solves. There are less algorithms due to there being EO. It doesent matter if LF or RF is unsolved, just make sure you don’t break EO after.

Step 6: L5P (Last 5 Pieces). There isn’t that many algorithms for this.

I am gonna guess this method has under 100 algorithms, correct me if I’m wrong.


----------



## ruffleduck (Nov 13, 2021)

Z1hc said:


> Might be or not, I have a new method.
> 
> Step 1: EO
> 
> ...


In step 3, why only solve BLU and BRU corners, why not solve all U corners?
oh right... that would make this method EO waterman


----------



## Z1hc (Nov 13, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> In step 3, why only solve BLU and BRU corners, why not solve all U corners?
> oh right... that would make this method EO waterman


I didn’t even think of it being EO waterman. I was thinking of just solving everything in one algorithm if I were to solve all the 4 corners. And it would also make the method Ofapel method with EO.

My current option for this method is kind of unique.


----------



## ruffleduck (Nov 13, 2021)

Z1hc said:


> My current option for this method is kind of unique.


But not promising... solving 2 corners and 3 edges in different layers would probably involve bad algorithms


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 13, 2021)

I thought of a beginner sort of method which goes like this
1st layer with block building
Solve 3 of E slice edges using commutators (not necessarily all 3 in one commutator)
Solve 2 LL edges
L3E
Or you could just combine the last 2 steps and call it L5E

This method averages 55 moves with advanced block building and maybe 65 with normal 1st layer (like doing cross and then inserting corners)

Let me know your thoughts on this
Here are some examples

L' F2 R' B' R B2 L' D R F2 U' B2 U R2 U F2 B2 R2 U2 F2
z2 // inspection
D U' R' D' L D' z' D R' F' U L' U' L R // 1st layer
U R' U L U' R U L' // CxLL
u' R' U' R E' R' U R E // 2 E layer edges using commutator
R U R' E R U' R' D // 3rd E layer edge
U' M' L' U' L U M U' L' U L // 2 LL edges
y U' R E2 R' U2 R E2 R' // L3E
58 STM

U R2 U' F2 R2 U' L2 R2 U B2 F2 U' L' U F' D' R2 B R B D' F2
y // inspection
D2 R2 L B D' B2 z' U L' U' L' U' L // 1st layer
U' R U2 R' F R' F' R U' R U R' E' R U2 R' E // Cxll cancelled into 2 E layer edges using commutator
L' U L E L' U' L E' // 3rd E layer edge
U M2 U' M U2 M' U' M2 // 2 LL edges
y B' r U R' U' M U R U' R' B // L3E
56 STM

D R B' D' F' L' B' R U' R2 U2 D2 R2 B' R2 B2 L2 F' U2 R2 U2
y' x // inspection
U2 r B' r' F2 U' r' F z' y' U2 R' F2 M F' r // 1st layer
U' R U2 R' F R' F' R U' R U' R' // CxLL
y' R' U' R E R' U R // 2 E layer edges using Commutator
y' R' U R E R' U' R // 3rd E layer edge
y' M F' L F M' F' L' F // 2 LL edges
U2 R' E2 R U2 R' E2 R U' // L3E
57 STM

F' R U2 D' F' D2 F' U F R2 B2 R2 U2 B2 L2 B D2 R2 B'
R2 B U' D B2 F z' U D2 R U' R' U R2 U R U R' // 1st layer
U R U2 R' F R' F' R U' R U' R' // CxLL
L U L' E L U' L' U' R' U R E' R' U' R // 2 E layer edges using commutator
y' E2 x' y2 M' U' M U2 M' U' M // L3E
52 STM


----------



## any name you wish (Nov 17, 2021)

I have made a new method which is really good for 5x5-7x7. I use this method for 6 and 7 but I use Yau on 5x5, but it's still pretty good.

Step 1: Centers
Step 2: Cross
Step 3: Last 8 Edges
Step 4: 3x3 Stage


----------



## AlgoCuber (Nov 17, 2021)

That's just... Reduction but you pair up cross first?


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Nov 17, 2021)

Yeah this is basically reduction, usually with reduction you want to pair up edges randomly, ie not doing all white then all yellow etc... Also with reduction you want to leave the entirety of 3x3 stage until after you have finished the reduction stage, this gives you a bit more freedom with edge pairing.


----------



## any name you wish (Nov 17, 2021)

TipsterTrickster said:


> Yeah this is basically reduction, usually with reduction you want to pair up edges randomly, ie not doing all white then all yellow etc... Also with reduction you want to leave the entirety of 3x3 stage until after you have finished the reduction stage, this gives you a bit more freedom with edge pairing.


Look ahead is way easier this way.


----------



## tsmosher (Nov 17, 2021)

any name you wish said:


> Look ahead is way easier this way.


How is lookahead better than Yau (with 4 cross edges) though? It seems to me like you're just doing Yau with cross edges and L4C in a different order.


----------



## AlgoCuber (Nov 17, 2021)

any name you wish said:


> Look ahead is way easier this way.


It's not worth the restriction in edge pairing. You can't use some edge pairing tricks that you would normally and it restricts what you can pair for the first 3/4 edges. The extra lookahead advantage for 6x6+ is negligible because you're taking away 3 seconds at most, but the disadvantages definitely add more time to your solve than it gains.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 17, 2021)

Another method (lol)
Starting steps
1.FB (like Roux)
2. Belt
3. EO
4. CO
5. SB (like Roux)
(or)
4. CO
5. CP and insert DR edge
6. LSE
Next steps 
1) Solve corners of LL and Finish with LSE 
(or)
2) Solve DF and DB edges and finish with PLL
(or) 
3) Place the DR and DL edges opposite while solving he DF and DB edges like Roux L4E. This reduces the number of PLLs to 7 (H perm, A perms, N perms, F perm and T perm)
(or)
4) If the corners are solved, just do LSE
Let me know you thoughts on this

Here are some examples
B' R F U2 D' B D L U D' F2 U2 R2 B R2 F2 L2 U2 R2 B R2 F 
y x' // inspection
R2 U F L' B D' // FB (6)
R r U' R' U R // Belt
R2 U2 R2 S' U S // EO
R D R' U R D' R' // CO
M2 U' R2 U2 R2 // SB
U M' U2 M' U' M2 U2 M U2 M // LSE
40 STM

D' F2 D L2 F2 U2 B2 D2 R2 F2 R2 F2 R U2 B' U' F2 L2 B2 L' B 
x // inspection
R2 D2 U2 L' D' B2 // FB
U r U R' u r U' r' // Belt
U M' U M // EO
U R U' D' R U' R' U2 D R U R2 U R2 U2 R2 u' // CO cancelled into SB
U M' U2 M' U2 M2 // DF and DB
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' U // PLL
56 STM

R2 F2 D2 L2 B' R2 D2 L2 D2 B' R2 F L' D2 F' D R' F2 D R U2 F2 
z2 x // inspection
R2 U B2 L' F2 D // FB
R2 M U' R' // Belt
U' S' U' S // EO
R U R' U R U2 R U' M2 U' M2 U' R2 // CO cancelled into SB
U2 M' U2 M // DF and DB
U R' U R' U' y R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F U // PLL
47 STM

U' R2 B2 L2 D F2 R2 F2 U' F2 D L2 B' R' B' D2 R U' F L U' 
y // inspection
R B U L B // FB
R' r U' r // Belt
U' R' F R2 F' D R' U R D' R' // EO cancelled into CO
R2 U2 R2 U' r2 U' R2 // SB
U' M' U2 M' // DF and DB
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' U' // PLL
49 STM

U2 B2 U F2 D B2 U' L2 B2 D' L2 F2 L B L2 R2 D' B' D U' R' U 
y x2 // inspection
R D' B' D F // FB
U r U r' u r U' r' // Belt
R2 U2 M' U' M R2 // EO
U D' R U' R' U2 R U' R' D // CO
R2 M2 U2 M2 U R2 u' // SB
U x' M2 U2 M2 U2 x // DF and DB
U R2' F R F' R' U' F' U F R2 U R' U' R U' // PLL
57 STM

R2 U2 D' B' U2 F R' U2 L F2 D2 L2 B U2 F' R2 B L2 B2 U2 
z2 y // inspection
L' D2 L U2 L' // FB
r U r' U2 r' U' r // Belt (EO skip)
U' F R2 U R2 U' F' // CO
U' r2 U2 M2 U R2 // SB
U2 M U2 M' U M' U2 M' U2 M2 U' // DF and DB
x R' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 x' // PLL
45 STM

B D2 B' D2 F L2 F2 L2 R2 F L2 F R U B2 R' B' U L2 D2 U'
z2 // inspection
D2 L B2 R2 D2 F // FB
R2 U2 R // Belt
M2 S' U' S M2 // EO
U2 R2 U R' U R U2 R' U R' U2 // CO
R U' R' D' R U R2 D R U' R' D' R D // CP
S' U2 S // SB
U M' U2 M U M2 U' M' U2 M' U2 // LSE
53 STM

U2 B2 R2 F D2 U2 R2 B' L2 D2 B2 U2 L' B U B2 F2 L F U F 
x2 // inspection
L R U L R2 D // FB
R u r U' r' // Belt
U2 S' U S // EO
L U2 L' U' L U' L' // CO
R2 U R2 U' D R2 U' R2 U R2 D' R2 // CP
U S' U2 S u' // SB
U2 x U2 M' U2 M // LSE
44 STM

F U2 F L2 B U2 B2 F' U2 R2 F R2 D U' L' D R2 F D L R' 
y x' // inspection
D F B' U F' D2 // FB
U r R U' M2 R // Belt
M U' M' U' M U' M' // EO
U R' U' R U2 D R' U' R D' // CO
U2 R U R' B2 R U' R U R2 B2 // CP
S' U2 S // SB
M' U2 M U M2 U M U2 M' U2 M2 // LSE
54 STM

F2 R2 B2 D2 L' B2 R' D2 L B2 L' R2 F' U F' U2 F' U2 L' R2 F' 
z2 x2 // inspection
U' R D B U' L2 B // FB
R U2 S' U' S U R2 U R' r2 // Belt + EO
y' U2 R D R' U R D' R' y // CO
U R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 // SB
M' U2 M R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' U' x2 M' U2 M U2 // Finish
54 STM

Average movecount = Around 49


----------



## PiKeeper (Nov 17, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> Another method (lol)
> Starting steps
> 1.FB (like Roux)
> 2. Belt
> ...


This is literally roux-domino-duction.


----------



## ruffleduck (Nov 17, 2021)

It would be nice if everyone here used NBRS to describe their method/substep ideas.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 18, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> This is literally roux-domino-duction.


and what is that?



zzoomer said:


> It would be nice if everyone here used NBRS to describe their method/substep ideas.


what is NBRS?



PiKeeper said:


> This is literally roux-domino-duction.




There isn't anything like that on the speedsolving wiki.


----------



## PiKeeper (Nov 18, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> and what is that?


A method proposed by Blobinati Cuber
It's
FB+EO
Belt
CO
SB
LSE
PLL but its only 7 cases


----------



## V Achyuthan (Nov 18, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> A method proposed by Blobinati Cuber
> It's
> FB+EO
> Belt
> ...


OH K


----------



## BenChristman1 (Nov 18, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> A method proposed by Blobinati Cuber
> It's
> FB+EO
> Belt
> ...


If all of the edges are already done, wouldn’t the only PLL cases be the A perms and E perm? (and skip, obviously)


----------



## tsmosher (Dec 3, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> what is NBRS?


Notation Based Reference System


----------



## Quốc Hưng (Dec 4, 2021)

Hello, I'm was made this method one month ago, this a 4x4 method for the ZZ method.
Some think ZZ44 is better than 4Z4 but I'm not.
I think ZZ44 and 4Z4 are the same.

And I'm very sorry PaPa Smurf cubes because spam his page. 


 Link ZZ44: ZZ44 method inf0

How about you


----------



## ruffleduck (Dec 5, 2021)

Lol, I like how you blur out the link to the method page


----------



## Quốc Hưng (Dec 6, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> Lol, I like how you blur out the link to the method page


Ha, that is cool, right ?


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 8, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> If all of the edges are already done, wouldn’t the only PLL cases be the A perms and E perm? (and skip, obviously)


might be a H perm as well.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 8, 2021)

This is just a variant of petrus but with higher TPS since the are 4 consecutive algorithmic step. this might be discussed already or not. I don't know about that.
Here are the steps
1. 222 + 223
2. FR1 edge (referring to as FR1 because there will another step coming up that would involve a different FR piece)
3. solve D layer corners using one alg (can use DCAL or a maybe new algs can be generated since BR edge isn't solved leading to lower movecount)
4. (do a y rotation placing the 223 on the back) EO in one alg
5. solve DF and the current FR (current FR is the previous step's BR) using one algorithm
6. ZBLL (which is also one alg)

Here are some examples
1. F' D L U R2 D L2 F2 L2 F2 D' B2 R2 U2 R B F R B2 L2 R
z2 U R2 U2 F' L B2 // 222
F' R2 F2 R' F2 // 223
R U' R // FR1
U R' U' R // Corners of D layer
y R' F' U' F U R // EO
R U' M' U2 M U' R' // DF and FR2 
U2 L' U R U' L U' R D R' U2 R D' R2 // ZBLL 
45 STM

2. F U' D' R' B2 L' F' L' U D2 F' B U2 D2 F L2 B' D2 F R2 U2 
z2 D' L U' F' L2 // 222
R U' L F L' R' F2 // 223
U2 R' // FR1
U' R' U2 R' U' R U2 R // Corners of D layer
y M' U R U M U' R' // EO
R U' M' U2 M U' R' // DF and FR2
R U2 L' U R' U' R U R' U' R L U2 R' U' // ZBLL
51 STM
45 with cancellations

3. B2 R D2 R' D2 F2 D2 F2 R' F2 R2 B2 D' L2 U2 B' L B D R2 
z2 D2 U F2 R D2 // 222
U' R' U R B2 // 223
U2 R' // FR1
U R' U' R' U' R U R // Corners of D layer
y M' U' R U M U' R' // EO
U2 M2 R U M2 U M U2 M' R' // DF and FR2
U2 M' U2 y R' U2 R U2 F l U' z' U // ZBLL
48 STM

Let me know your thoughts on this


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Dec 8, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> This is just a variant of petrus but with higher TPS since the are 4 consecutive algorithmic step. this might be discussed already or not. I don't know about that.
> Here are the steps
> 1. 222 + 223
> 2. FR1 edge (referring to as FR1 because there will another step coming up that would involve a different FR piece)
> ...



This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?


----------



## Quốc Hưng (Dec 8, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> Lol, I like how you blur out the link to the method page


What do you think about ZZ44. Can it get faster ?


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?


TBH. This might be at the same level as APB. One problem with the APB I face is that you need to learn 116 Algs just to solve 3 pieces (ya I know this can be done intuitively). in this method, the number of algs you need to learn for Corners of D layer is actually really low, since most are F2L algs and also last 2 edges which are DF and FR2 are like not more than 25-30 algs maybe. I have not calculated yet. Also in APB during the EO pair step you have 2 unsolved belt edges, which makes it difficult to recognize EO (although this can be done faster in higher levels). while this method has only one Belt edge unsolved and also FR solved which is actually easier recognition and less algs. and again I don't know if this is better or worse or equal as APB.


----------



## PiKeeper (Dec 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> TBH. This might be at the same level as APB. One problem with the APB I face is that you need to learn 116 Algs just to solve 3 pieces (ya I know this can be done intuitively). in this method, the number of algs you need to learn for Corners of D layer is actually really low, since most are F2L algs and also last 2 edges which are DF and FR2 are like not more than 25-30 algs maybe. I have not calculated yet. Also in APB during the EO pair step you have 2 unsolved belt edges, which makes it difficult to recognize EO (although this can be done faster in higher levels). while this method has only one Belt edge unsolved and also FR solved which is actually easier recognition and less algs. and again I don't know if this is better or worse or equal as APB.


You can also just directly compare this to Mehta if you want. It has more steps than TDR and more algs than CDRLL and I don't see many clear benefits.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> You can also just directly compare this to Mehta if you want. It has more steps than TDR and more algs than CDRLL and I don't see many clear benefits.


probably could say the same to APB can't you?


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> This seems to be APB with more steps and a higher (on average) movecount. Can you make a comparison showing why you think this would be more beneficial?


Also during higher levels a solver should be able to plan 222 + 223 + FR1 in inspection Ig. Then the rest of the solve would be just algs.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> You can also just directly compare this to Mehta if you want. It has more steps than TDR and more algs than CDRLL and I don't see many clear benefits.


Mehta is like a damn god method. you can't just go comparing every new method that someone invents with that.


----------



## PiKeeper (Dec 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> Also during higher levels a solver should be able to plan 222 + 223 + FR1 in inspection Ig. Then the rest of the solve would be just algs.


That's literally the whole idea of Mehta. And the whole point is the compare new methods with already existing methods to see if they are an improvement. You have yet to give a clear reason why your method is better than Mehta or APB.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> That's literally the whole idea of Mehta. And the whole point is the compare new methods with already existing methods to see if they are an improvement. You have yet to give a clear reason why your method is better than Mehta or APB.


ok then. Mehta TDR has 5 steps which are, FB - 3QB - EOLE - TDR - ZBLL. So does APB, 223 - pair - EO while inserting the pair - L3P - ZBLL. And so does this method, 223 + FR1 - Corners of D layer - rotate and do EO - DF and FR2 - ZBLL. and I DIDN'T SAY this method is and IMPROVEMENT.
*I JUST SAID I HAVE INVENTED A METHOD. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT DUDE?*


----------



## PiKeeper (Dec 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> ok then. Mehta TDR has 5 steps which are, FB - 3QB - EOLE - TDR - ZBLL. So does APB, 223 - pair - EO while inserting the pair - L3P - ZBLL. And so does this method, 223 + FR1 - Corners of D layer - rotate and do EO - DF and FR2 - ZBLL. and I DIDN'T SAY this method is and IMPROVEMENT.
> *I JUST SAID I HAVE INVENTED A METHOD. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT DUDE?*


Chill out. You wanted my thoughts on this method, I gave you my thoughts. Also if you want to claim that your method is five steps, Mehta-TDR is four steps.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> Chill out. You wanted my thoughts on this method, I gave you my thoughts. Also if you want to claim that your method is five steps, Mehta-TDR is four steps.


and may I ask how?
don't say 3QB + EOLE is one step


----------



## PiKeeper (Dec 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> and may I ask how?
> don't say 3QB + EOLE is one step


FB+3QB would be considered one step. It's literally the first step of your method


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

PiKeeper said:


> FB+3QB would be considered one step. It's literally the first step of your method


ok. please don't start an argument now. the rest of my method is different right? also it is easier recognition I think. There is just a thing I want to just confirm. When athefre came out with the APB method, everyone said it is good/great/improved version of petrus. but when I come out with any method people just give mean comments. Is it because athefre has given a good explanation and has more experience and I didn't give a good explanation and I have only one year experience? again don't want to start an argument and no offense to athefre or anyone. and definitely not saying APB is bad, I have actually tried it and it is definitely a lot better than petrus and maybe even ZZ.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

I am not gonna argue anymore. I don't care (no offense) if anyone likes this method or not. I am proud of my invention and that is all that matters to me.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 9, 2021)

No one was arguing, you turned it into an argument. If you really feel so defensive about your method that no one can criticise it, you are way too emotionally attached to it. It's great that people are coming up with new ideas, but very very very rarely are they good or genuinely new. Take the criticism and either improve the method or move on.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> ok. please don't start an argument now. the rest of my method is different right? also it is easier recognition I think. There is just a thing I want to just confirm. When athefre came out with the APB method, everyone said it is good/great/improved version of petrus. but when I come out with any method people just give mean comments. Is it because athefre has given a good explanation and has more experience and I didn't give a good explanation and I have only one year experience? again don't want to start an argument and no offense to athefre or anyone. and definitely not saying APB is bad, I have actually tried it and it is definitely a lot better than petrus and maybe even ZZ.



I put a lot of thought into ideas before I decide to post them somewhere. I've thrown away thousands more ideas than I've actually developed. I only develop things that I know are completely unique for the time and or appear to be good for speedsolving. The important thing is to examine every detail of an idea that you have and to not be attached to it just because it is your idea and because you really want it to be good. If it isn't good, then you have to move on to another idea. Keep trying ideas with no self bias and you'll come across one that is objectively good.

If you put an idea out there, expect for it to receive judgement. My judgement is that I don't like that there are pieces in the way for the algorithm-based F2L steps. The same as in Mehta there is an edge in the way of the other pieces. So when you solve the corners the algorithms have to work around or take out the edge. This is as opposed to APB where the first step keeps the pair on the U layer out of the way and the edges are oriented while inserting this pair. Then the L3P step is almost completely free with the RUS moveset available without having to disturb the pair too much. I'm a fan of freedom in methods. But maybe others like the restrictions. Also, try to do something along with the EO step. This will reduce the number of steps and likely also the overall movecount.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 9, 2021)

Athefre said:


> I put a lot of thought into ideas before I decide to post them somewhere. I've thrown away thousands more ideas than I've actually developed. I only develop things that I know are completely unique for the time and or appear to be good for speedsolving. The important thing is to examine every detail of an idea that you have and to not be attached to it just because it is your idea and because you really want it to be good. If it isn't good, then you have to move on to another idea. Keep trying ideas with no self bias and you'll come across one that is objectively good.
> 
> If you put an idea out there, expect for it to receive judgement. My judgement is that I don't like that there are pieces in the way for the algorithm-based F2L steps. The same as in Mehta there is an edge in the way of the other pieces. So when you solve the corners the algorithms have to work around or take out the edge. This is as opposed to APB where the first step keeps the pair on the U layer out of the way and the edges are oriented while inserting this pair. Then the L3P step is almost completely free with the RUS moveset available without having to disturb the pair too much. I'm a fan of freedom in methods. But maybe others like the restrictions. Also, try to do something along with the EO step. This will reduce the number of steps and likely also the overall movecount.


thank you


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Dec 9, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> TBH. This might be at the same level as APB.


Same level as APB with more steps, less devolvement, no results, etc. I don't think so.



V Achyuthan said:


> One problem with the APB I face is that you need to learn 116 Algs just to solve 3 pieces (ya I know this can be done intuitively). in this method, the number of algs you need to learn for Corners of D layer is actually really low, since most are F2L algs and also last 2 edges which are DF and FR2 are like not more than 25-30 algs maybe. I have not calculated yet.


Woah there, I hope you aren't implying more algs is a bad thing. There are so many things wrong with that statement. L3P is an intuitive step that is executed algorithmically. I wouldn't think of it as 116 algorithms but instead as 116 *cases* there are so many trivial cases in that number that can not be justified as an alg. It's so intuitive that the alg spreadsheet is more of a guide leading you through efficiency then telling you "Do this certain set of moves or you'll RUIN THE CUBE DUDE!!". Also I'm pretty sure solving the two corners is eighty algorithms much less intuitive (In terms of solving efficiently) so I have no idea how you got twenty-five. On top of that recognition is roughly equal to L3P because corner recognition is harder than edges.



V Achyuthan said:


> Also in APB during the EO pair step you have 2 unsolved belt edges, which makes it difficult to recognize EO (although this can be done faster in higher levels). while this method has only one Belt edge unsolved and also FR solved which is actually easier recognition and less algs. and again I don't know if this is better or worse or equal as APB.


Umm... not really. It can be done faster at any level due to several things. I don't know how much you know about APB but you don't look at all the pieces in any given moment during F2L. You first build your Pair (2-4 moves if it's not already done) and once that is done you'll instantly know the orientation based on if the pair can be inserted or not as is. After that you only need to look at five pieces, not six as you're implying since due to process of elimination you can determine whether the one you are not watching (Let's say BR) is a "good" edge or a "bad" edge. Easier recognition and less algs isn't better if the steps before that are worse. That's like arguing that OCLL>PLL is better than ZBLL. Sure, PLL has good recognition but the combined time of recognition for OCLL>PLL is around the same as ZBLL and executing one alg is faster than two (That's why EG is so prevalent in 2x2).



V Achyuthan said:


> probably could say the same to APB can't you?


That's what I was comparing it to. You can compare it to Petrus, Mehta, and APB since they all start with a 223



V Achyuthan said:


> Also during higher levels a solver should be able to plan 222 + 223 + FR1 in inspection Ig. Then the rest of the solve would be just algs.


If you can plan 223 + FR in inspection the why would you be lazy be learning less algs for worse movecount?



V Achyuthan said:


> Mehta is like a damn god method. you can't just go comparing every new method that someone invents with that.


The whole point of comparing new methods to already established methods is to determine if it's viable. If you don't think your method is comparable in terms of potential to Mehta than it's a bad method. Don't try to weasel your way out of things you can't defend because that just shows everyone how little work you put into it and how unprepared you are to show it's viability. If you want to make a method that gets positive attention be able to give results and admit to its weaknesses and try to fix those weaknesses.



V Achyuthan said:


> ok then. Mehta TDR has 5 steps which are, FB - 3QB - EOLE - TDR - ZBLL. So does APB, 223 - pair - EO while inserting the pair - L3P - ZBLL. And so does this method, 223 + FR1 - Corners of D layer - rotate and do EO - DF and FR2 - ZBLL. and I DIDN'T SAY this method is and IMPROVEMENT.
> *I JUST SAID I HAVE INVENTED A METHOD. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND IT DUDE?*


Are you claiming that FB > 3QB is two step but 222>223 is one step, although you also claim that FR1 can be planned in inspection also so really 222>223>FR1 is one step which is literally the same thing as FB>3QB.

If it is not an improvement than why are you trying to prove it's viability as a contender for being better or equal to Mehta and APB?



V Achyuthan said:


> ok. please don't start an argument now. the rest of my method is different right? also it is easier recognition I think. There is just a thing I want to just confirm. When athefre came out with the APB method, everyone said it is good/great/improved version of petrus. but when I come out with any method people just give mean comments. Is it because athefre has given a good explanation and has more experience and I didn't give a good explanation and I have only one year experience? again don't want to start an argument and no offense to athefre or anyone. and definitely not saying APB is bad, I have actually tried it and it is definitely a lot better than petrus and maybe even ZZ.



We were actually not trying to start an argument. I just wanted to know what advantages it had over APB and you gave me some weak points that proved absolutely nothing. When PiKeeper pointed something out you became offended and started being aggressive while spamming posts that had a whiny tone and added nothing to constructive criticism. It helped no one. Athefre's methods get a lot of positive feedback because he pours a lot of work into his ideas before publishing them making sure there are no major flaws and being prepared to answer questions in a responsible, helpful way.

Your methods don't get that same attention because what we get from your methods is that something popped into your head and you constructed it without much thought and then post shortly after an unoriginal, amateurishly put together mess of a "method" that is usually just a worse way of doing another method. You then become offended when people don't believe in it as much as you do and make trashy posts that just create toxicity.



V Achyuthan said:


> I am not gonna argue anymore. I don't care (no offense) if anyone likes this method or not. I am proud of my invention and that is all that matters to me.


If you are proud of it that's fine but you should know that in real lie this isn't how it works and sometimes you just have to recognize your mistakes and failures. You can't always hide in your own world thinking what you did is justifiable and that everyone is just out to get you because they have some kind of grudge against you. I for one do not have a grudge and try to make things right with people I can be negative to (including Lukascubes).

If you work on refining this method and give proof maybe people would pay actual attention but with how you present your methods most people will continue to take it with a grain of salt.

(Gosh this is a long post. [ @BenChristman1 ])


----------



## CornerTwisted (Dec 9, 2021)

B: Belt-1
E: EFL
C: CFL and last slot 
O: OLL
P: PLL
This is a kind of transitional method from beginners method to CFOP
Belt-1
The belt is an intuitive step, the goal is to get 3 pieces from the middle layer to their designated spots. This step can take around 5 moves if done intuitively and is very easy to plan the whole step in inspection.
Edges of the first layer
This step requires M and U moves to insert each edge on the first layer. To do this, it is essentially making a cross while keeping the belt-1 solved. This takes around 15 HTM moves for me, and you can play around with this and get probably even less moves.
Corners of the first layer+LS
In this step, you use the open slot you have in your belt to insert the corners of the first layer. Then for the last slot you pair the last edge as an F2L slot and insert it. This is really fast and takes somewhere around 20 moves.
OLL and PLL
If you are familiar with CFOP or LBL, you already know this step very well. tThe last layer can be done from 2 look, 3 look, 4 look and anything with more steps, though assuming you know full OLL and PLL, it takes average 25-30 moves, but is super quick as there is barely any intuition, and it is all algorithms.

I tried this method for a bit, and got some sub 20 solves with a PB of 16.83(I average 18 with CFOP and CFCE methods)

I recommend to beginners who are learning F2L but aren’t very fast at it or struggle with their first 2 layers

This is just an alternate F2L strategy
Advanced:
CFOP
BCOP


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 14, 2021)

Just made this doc of 1 scramble 61 methods








1 scramble 61 methods


Scramble B D' F2 D2 L2 D2 R2 B2 L2 F' U2 R2 B' U R' B2 R D' R F L2 CFOP z2 y' R' F R D' R' F2 D' // Cross L U L' U L U' L' // First pair d' U' R L U' L' R' // second pair D U R U' R' D' // third pair R U' R' U' R U R' // fourth pair R' U' F' U F R // OLL U' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' /...




docs.google.com




Feel free to tell me if I missed any method(s).
Thank you
Edit : These solutions do not demonstrate the average movecount of each mother, nor are these the most efficient solutions. These are just to demonstrate the steps of the method.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 14, 2021)

Here's an idea(OH-only) which I was thinking about for a few weeks:



Spoiler: Motivation



CP(or 2-generator reduction) is a cool concept, but I feel that most methods that involve it use it in the wrong place, i.e the start of the solve. This would result in a waste of inspection, the inability to be colour neutral and lack of choices. This Mehta variant that I'm proposing has CP later in the solve which allows you to be colour neutral.





Spoiler: Steps



Step 1: Mehta-style FB
Step 2: Belt
Step 3: DCAL(80 cases)
Step 4: CPEO(25 cases excluding the cases which are AUFs to other cases and the cases where the edges are oriented)
Step 5(and 6): one of two variants below





Spoiler: Variants



Here are the variants for steps 6 and 7:
Variant 1: Solve the rest of the cube in 1 alg(2GLL+1)(408 cases)
Variant 2: CDRLL(or OCLL since there's only 7 cases)+L5EP
Variant 3: JTLE+EPLL





Spoiler: Movecounts(FB+belt+DCAL+CPEO)



ok, let's be honest here(for full CN):

FB: 6-6.5
Belt: 9-10
DCAL: 9-10
CPEO: 10-12
Total: 34-38





Spoiler: Movecounts(finish)



2GLL+1: 14-14.5 according to @Athefre iirc
CDRLL+L5EP: 9.5+10=19.5
JTLE+EPLL: 10+10=20



Total avg movecount= 48-54 moves



Spoiler: Pros



Allows for a 2-gen finish while allowing full CN(which most other CP methods don't allow).
Has a movecount comparable to Roux/ZZ-a.
Could be a viable alternative to Roux/ZZ-a if CPEO recog is fixed.





Spoiler: Cons



High algcount
FB+belt ergonomics can be bad for some people.
I can't seem to come up with a good recog system for CPEO(If someone comes up with an idea I'd be super grateful to them).
There isn't any algsheet for 2GLL+1 yet afaik.





Spoiler: Example solves






> R2 U2 R D2 R2 B2 R B2 U2 R2 U2 F R' U' F' D L' U' F' D'


2GLL+1 version: 46 STM
D2 R F L R U2 R' //FB
D2 R2 u' R' u2 R //belt
R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 //DCAL
u U R' U2 R U2 F R F' //CPEO
R U R' U R U' R' U R' U' R U' R' U R' U R //2GLL+1

CDRLL+L5EP version: 54 STM
D2 R F L R U2 R' //FB
D2 R2 u' R' u2 R //3QB
R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 //DCAL
u U R' U2 R U2 F R F' //CPEO
U R U2 R' U' R U' R2 U2 R U R' U R //CDRLL
U R' U' R U R U R U' R' U2 //L5EP

L B2 L' R' U2 F2 L2 B2 L' D2 R' F2 D R B U2 F U R' U2 R2

2GLL+1 version: 48 STM
x y //inspection
F' E U F' r2 U2 r2 //FB
R' E R' U' R u' f' U f //Belt
U R U' R2 U R2 U' R //DCAL
U2 r U' r' U' r U r' F' U F //CPEO
U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U R U2 //2GLL(+1)

JTLE+EPLL version: 54 STM(53 w/cancellation)
x y //inspection
F' E U F' r2 U2 r2 //FB
R' E R' U' R u' f' U f //Belt
U R U' R2 U R2 U' R //DCAL
U2 r U' r' U' r U r' F' U F //CPEO
U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' //JTLE
R2 U' R' U' R U R U R U' R //EPLL



I'd name it Mehta-CPEO or something ig.
Anyone is welcome to voice their opinions/concerns for this.
Thank you.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 14, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Here's an idea(OH-only) which I was thinking about for a few weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This looks cool. I might try it once the algs are finished. Also how to gen algs for CP?


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 14, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> This looks cool. I might try it once the algs are finished. Also how to gen algs for CP?


Cool. CPEO algs are finished though. Just a few optimizations are required here and there. It's the recog method that isn't finished yet.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 14, 2021)

I found a new method (sort of). 


Spoiler: Steps



1. EO + Build 1x2x3 block like the Roux method except it can have any U/D colour on the bottom side and any E slice edge on the E slice. 
2. do the same on the other side except when inserting the last pair use WV to Orient corners
Finish any ways you want to



This is just a fun method and not really a speedsolving method.



Spoiler: Example solve 1 45 STM



F2 R2 D B2 L2 B2 U' B2 F2 L2 B' R D2 R' U2 R' B2 D' F D
F' U2 L D B // EO
D' F2 D // FB
U R' U2 R U' M2 U2 R U' R' // SB
L' U' L U' L' U2 L // CO
B2 // corners
x2 S U2 S' M2 U r2 U2 R2 U2 R2 y // DB,DL and DR + parity
U2 M U2 M U M' U2 M' U2 // L5EP





Spoiler: Example solve 2 50 STM



y' B2 D2 B // EO
D' R' F2 D // FB
U2 R U R2 U' r2 U2 U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R // SB + CO
U2 R2 U2 B2 R2 U' F2 U R2 U R2 U' F2 // F2L-1
y' U' R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2 U' R2 U R2 U' D' U' // TTLL



Let me know your thoughts on this. Can this be used for speedsolving?


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 14, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Cool. CPEO algs are finished though. Just a few optimizations are required here and there. It's the recog method that isn't finished yet.


ya I understand. Just asked how to gen CP algs. Also can you add some example solves to the main post?


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 14, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> ya I understand. Just asked how to gen CP algs. Also can you add some example solves to the main post?


You can watch this to know how to gen CP algs. I've got two example solves in the 3x3 example solve thread which I'll add later.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 14, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> You can watch this to know how to gen CP algs. I've got two example solves in the 3x3 example solve thread which I'll add later.


ok thanks


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 14, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Here's an idea(OH-only) which I was thinking about for a few weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


for CPEO Recog, just split it into recognizing the COLL case to determine the CP, then the EO case


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 15, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> for CPEO Recog, just split it into recognizing the COLL case to determine the CP, then the EO case


Yeah I did think about this but I feel that the information might be insufficient to determine which two corners have to be swapped.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Dec 15, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Yeah I did think about this but I feel that the information might be inefficient to determine which two corners have to be swapped.


You just need to be able to recognize each COLL, and then have memorized what COLL case for each OCLL corresponds to each CP. it really shouldn’t be an issue


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 15, 2021)

OreKehStrah said:


> You just need to be able to recognize each COLL, and then have memorized what COLL case for each OCLL corresponds to each CP. it really shouldn’t be an issue


Thanks.
EDIT: idk why but this actually reminds me of ROLL.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 16, 2021)

I thought of a LSLL thing
before solving the Last slot build a 1x1x3 block and solve the LS while preserving the 1x1x3 block. And then 1LLL. This reduces the number of 1LLLs that need to be learned.
Here are some examples


Spoiler: Example solve 1 53 STM



R2 B R2 U2 B2 F U2 F L2 F D2 U2 R' B D2 L U B2 R2 D' R' 
R U R U' D' R' U R' F D U F' L' U' L D' // xx-cross
U' F U' F' // 3rd pair
U2 R U' R' U F' U F // 113 Block
R' D' R U2 R' D R U R U' R' // 4th pair while preserving 113 block
U' M' U R U' r' U R U R' U F' U F // 1LLL





Spoiler: Example solve 2 53 STM



F' R' L2 D R' U2 F L2 F R' B2 U2 B2 U2 R D2 L' U2 R' F2 U2 
z D' F2 D2 F' // Cross
U2 R' L U2 L' R // 1st pair
U R2 u R2' u' R2 // 2nd pair
y2 R' U2 R U R' U' R // 3rd pair
U F' U F // 113 Block
U2 R U R' U' R' D' R U2 R' D R // 4th pair while preserving 113 block
R' U2 R U R' U R f R U R' U' f' U // 1LLL


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 16, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> I thought of a LSLL thing
> before solving the Last slot build a 1x1x3 block and solve the LS while preserving the 1x1x3 block. And then 1LLL. This reduces the number of 1LLLs that need to be learned.


Thought of. Called Line and Anti-Line subsets


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 16, 2021)

Thom S. said:


> Thought of. Called Line and Anti-Line subsets


lol. ok then I had thought of another LSLL as well
Solve the last slot while permuting the edges (yes without orienting them).
Here are 2 examples

1. R2 U' B2 R2 F2 R2 F2 D' F2 D' L2 U R' B' D2 U2 B2 L D F2 R2 B2 
x U L U' L F' // Cross
D' L' U2 L u // 1st pair
U2 L F' U F L' // 2nd pair
R' U R2 U R' // 3rd pair (5)
y R' U2 R2 U R2 U' R U R' U R // 4th pair + Permute edges
U' R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R' U // ZBLL/1LLL

2. D2 R2 B2 D U2 F2 L2 U' F2 R2 U2 B2 R' B' D' B R U2 F' L' D
F2 R2 B' D R U' R' L' // xcross
y R U2' R2' U' R2 U R' L U' L' // 2nd & 3rd pairs
U2 R' F R F' R U' R' U2 R U2 R' // 4th pair + Permute edges
y' r U R' U R U2 r' U R U2 R' U' R U' R' U // 1LLL


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 16, 2021)

That gives you some just straight up bad 1LLLs. You might as well just do ZB. Just generally, don't use this thread as a method idea dump. Instead, try to think through the method properly and, if it came to you in about 5 mins, why no one else has mentioned it.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 16, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> That gives you some just straight up bad 1LLLs. You might as well just do ZB. Just generally, don't use this thread as a method idea dump. Instead, try to think through the method properly and, if it came to you in about 5 mins, why no one else has mentioned it.


OK ig


----------



## Athey! (Dec 17, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Here's an idea(OH-only) which I was thinking about for a few weeks:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like this, it isnt anything like a method breaker but it just feels good to have a Mehta variant specifically for OH

Also i think the belt could be built better if we do a rotation, kind of cross on left, so you only need R, r and U moves for making the belt


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 18, 2021)

This variant/method might already be proposed.
223
F2L pairs
CxLL
L5E
44 STM
49 STM
43 STM
41 STM
This method averages around 45 moves


----------



## Cubing Forever (Dec 18, 2021)

V Achyuthan said:


> This variant/method might already be proposed.
> 223
> F2L pairs
> CxLL
> ...


bruh it's rearranged nautilus/HK but could be ok


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 18, 2021)

Has been proposed multiple times.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 18, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> Has been proposed multiple times.


Just as I thought lol


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Dec 20, 2021)

Just an idea I thought of, not really sure if it is that good.

There are 5 general steps:

1. EO-LOL (EO-Line on left)
Reduces the cube to <R,U,D>

2. Basically just domino reduction, but it could have a better name.
We need to put E-layer pieces in the E-layer and orient the corners. This is what I thought up (from a speedsolving context):

2a. Put 2 oriented corners on D

Then either:

2b. Finish "F2L" by making pairs out of belt edges and corners. For the first pair, it will quite often be inserted with just an R move due to the freedom here.

2c. OCLL

Or:

2b. Insert one pair (again, will quite often be inserted with just an R move)

2c. TSLE

The OCLL path has less algs, but I believe the TSLE path may be faster.

3. DL triplet
Build a triplet of D-layer pieces and put it at DL. Can be done with <R2, r2, U, D> moves

4. CPDR
This step solves the triplet at DR and CP. There are 2 approaches you could take:

Either:

4a. Solve a pair of a corner and an edge at DR (and fix the belt)

4b. Use a 5CP algorithm to solve CP

Or:

4a. Solve the edge at DR

4b. Use a 6CP algorithm to solve CP

The 6CP path is faster, but 5CP has less algs. Both paths use the <R2, r2, U, D> move set. It is important that these preserve the DR edge, so are not mehta algs.

5. L6EP
You could learn full L6EP, or just do it like Roux by solving UL/UR and then the rest.

I am not posting example solves, as I do not have the algs for 5/6CP that preserve the DR edge, so the solves will have an unrealistically high movecount.

Anyway, is this any good?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 20, 2021)

Check out SSC. It is basically what you proposed, but better.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 23, 2021)

Recently I was thinking about option select during petrus. Here are all the thinks I could think of
APB
223, 2 pairs, EO+insert final cross edge and ZBLL
223, 2 pairs, CxLL, L5E
223, EO, RB, ZBLL
223, EO, CP, RB, 2GLL
B1CEZ (Yes my method. Don't get me wrong here. Could be used if someone doesn't like learning a lot of algs)
223, Just solve F2L, ZBLL
223 + one belt edge, EOLE, DCAL, CDRLL, L5EP
223 + one belt edge, EOLE, DCAL, JTLE, PLL
223 + one belt edge, EOLE, 6CO, 6CP, L5EP
223 + one belt edge, EOLE, 6CO, APDR, PLL

The last 4 are basically just Mehta (because I consider Mehta to be a variant of Petrus)
Can option select be used during petrus? Let me know


----------



## V Achyuthan (Dec 23, 2021)

Ok this might be another variant of petrus
Might be good. Might suck. I don't know
Step 1 - 223
Step 2 - Place the DB and DR edges in FR and DR places in any orientation of permutation
Step 3 - EODRDB. Solve EO and DR and DB edges
Step 4 - insert DFR corner
Step 5 - Solve last pseudo pair
Step 6 - ZBLL
Here are some examples to get an idea
47 STM
46 STM
38 STM
41 STM
43 STM (39 with cancellations)
This method averages 45 moves (same as APB)
Let me know your thoughts on this


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 23, 2021)

That's not a variant, it's forcing a specific way of solving RB. Also, you mean DR and BR. Also


PapaSmurf said:


> Just generally, don't use this thread as a method idea dump. Instead, try to think through the method properly and, if it came to you in about 5 mins, why no one else has mentioned it.


Please, stop just dumping ideas.


----------



## cuberswoop (Dec 23, 2021)

PapaSmurf said:


> That's not a variant, it's forcing a specific way of solving RB. Also, you mean DR and BR. Also
> 
> Please, stop just dumping ideas.


Petition for limiting @V Achyuthan's method proposals per month to 400. (joke)


----------



## tsmosher (Dec 23, 2021)

More of a LS/LL approach than a method.

Conjugated Last Layer:

1. Get to F2L-1 state.
2. Build any oriented U layer pair.
3. Use oriented U layer pair to conjugate/transform either of the solved slots adjacent to the last slot.
(Conjugation can happen on any face of the cube: F, B, L, or R.)
4. Use any Conjugated Last Layer method to solve the last layer of the cube.
Options include: conjugated C(O)LL > E(P)LL, conjugated NMLL, conjugated ZBLL, etc.
5. AUF; unconjugate the conjugated layer; AUF.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 26, 2021)

is this an existing method? feels like one

Cross-1
2x2x3
EO
F2L
OCLL
PLL


----------



## cuberswoop (Dec 26, 2021)

brododragon said:


> is this an existing method? feels like one
> 
> Cross-1
> 2x2x3
> ...


I'm no scientist, but that's Pertus, right?. (This has to be a joke right?)


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Dec 26, 2021)

brododragon said:


> is this an existing method? feels like one
> 
> Cross-1
> 2x2x3
> ...



That's just a CFOP approach to Petrus.

Or you could just use Petrus.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 26, 2021)

lol yes

just interested to see if it's an existing thing, but yeah it's very similar


----------



## ruffleduck (Dec 27, 2021)

brododragon said:


> is this an existing method? feels like one
> 
> Cross-1
> 2x2x3
> ...


Literally Petrus except inefficient 223 (kind of like how Mehta is!)


----------



## guelda (Dec 29, 2021)

Hi everybody!

Not progressing much since quite some time with the Roux method, I guess I need to get back to work and learn some stuff, etc.
For LSE, I learned the EO algs from Kian from the beginning, and spam them, never thinking about good or bad arrow, or even arrow tbh 
On the excellent "2021 Guide to improve in Roux" which can be found on Reddit, the suggested order of learning is the following: 4c > SBLS > FBLP > CMLL > EOLR

Even if working on block building is important, I'd like to improve on 4th step, ie. start practicing EOLR. I'm still using 2-look CMLL, learning those 42 algs is a bit frightening - and apparently it would be better to start with EOLR, cf. a comment on the mentioned Reddit page:

========================================================
I might be wrong, but my idea is that learning CMLL is not very rewarding. 31 extra algs and recognition would easily take more than a month to learn, and it will be saving around 1s per solve. EOLR would save 1s with a much shorter learning time.
========================================================

By searching the web, I once found Fan Yiqun's page: https://www.fanyiqun.com/
If you click on "Yiqun’s 2-Look", you'll find a page where he talks about his own system for LSE: "Y2L", which should apparently be better than EOLR (translated):

========================================================
If you are a person who is too lazy to learn formulas, then Gilles Ru’s traditional solution is suitable for you, and you can get a good result by using it.
If you are a one-handed player, then Kian Mansor’s plan is suitable for you, one-handed observation should be able to keep up, the number of steps is very short.
If you are a two-handed player, then Fan Yiqun’s Y2L is a very good choice. It has not many steps, the least number of observations, and the observation difficulty is also small. BU recognition method is not required, and dynamic observation is not necessary.
========================================================

I translated the page but it is still not obvious to me how this works... Did any of you tried Y2L and what are your thoughts about it please?

Have a great cubing day!


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Dec 30, 2021)

his method has 128 cases 
you would be better off getting better at blocks 
eolr is mostly done with intuition no one sits and learns 300+ cases 
you should learn cmll as soon as possible 

I dont think this is worth it 
other things you might want to look at are: DFDB recognition for lse and line blocks


----------



## GodCubing (Dec 30, 2021)

Y2l is actually quite interesting. I might develop it. The movecount will be similiar to normal roux however and will not be better than EOLR, but it could be a nice 4c recognition method. 

In case people are wondering rouxers generally solve LSE optimally after doing EO and puting ULUR on bottom.


----------



## guelda (Dec 30, 2021)

Thanks for your feedback guys!

For LSE, I use J-Perm's "method" which I guess is DFDB. Sometimes it seems like I get some additional understanding and do stuff which he doesn't teach, it is not really conscious though but a bit satisfying (intuition is cool).


----------



## GodCubing (Dec 30, 2021)

guelda said:


> Thanks for your feedback guys!
> 
> For LSE, I use J-Perm's "method" which I guess is DFDB. Sometimes it seems like I get some additional understanding and do stuff which he doesn't teach, it is not really conscious though but a bit satisfying (intuition is cool).


Learn BU from my YouTube. It's much easier and you can cancel moves. Unless you want to learn DFDB from that document on it I can link it if you want. JPerms approach is old and outdated.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 5, 2022)

2 Look LSLL method (most of the time) with few algs:

1. Have an oriented LL edge attached to an oriented LL corner (probably already done)
2. Conjugated OLL-CP (331 algs, recognition is the same as 42)
3. L5EP (16 algs)


----------



## GodCubing (Jan 5, 2022)

Skewbed said:


> 2 Look LSLL method (most of the time) with few algs:
> 
> 1. Have an oriented LL edge attached to an oriented LL corner (probably already done)
> 2. Conjugated OLL-CP (331 algs, recognition is the same as 42)
> 3. L5EP (16 algs)


I like it. Zipper L5EP algs are very fast and having a pair like this is _very_ common. This probably better than zipper not accounting for recognition


----------



## Bayamo Penguin (Jan 15, 2022)

guelda said:


> Hi everybody!
> 
> Not progressing much since quite some time with the Roux method, I guess I need to get back to work and learn some stuff, etc.
> For LSE, I learned the EO algs from Kian from the beginning, and spam them, never thinking about good or bad arrow, or even arrow tbh
> ...


that reddit link is excellent, ty


----------



## V Achyuthan (Jan 19, 2022)

Not proposing this thing but just asking everyone if this is a variant of hoya cause I used it in a solve recently (for some reason) 
Basically before pairing the last cross edge with hoya why don't we just finish the centres and solve the Last cross edge like Yau.


----------



## Eli Apperson (Jan 19, 2022)

V Achyuthan 2904 said:


> Not proposing this thing but just asking everyone if this is a variant of hoya cause I used it in a solve recently (for some reason)
> Basically before pairing the last cross edge with hoya why don't we just finish the centres and solve the Last cross edge like Yau.


bc it interrupts the flow. Having to completely change how you solve edges just for one edge doesn't really make sense.


----------



## Garf (Jan 19, 2022)

CubableYT said:


> bc it interrupts the flow. Having to completely change how you solve edges just for one edge doesn't really make sense.


I agree. If you solve the last cross edge, then you have to do F L' to be able to preserve the cross edges and continue solving the centers.
Therefore, doing just those moves to solve the centers breaks the fluidity of the solve and you are gonna have to fix the set-up later.


----------



## Eli Apperson (Jan 19, 2022)

TheEpicCuber said:


> I agree. If you solve the last cross edge, then you have to do F L' to be able to preserve the cross edges and continue solving the centers.


And for less than a 4-5 move difference it isn't really worth it.


----------



## Skewbed (Jan 25, 2022)

Hexagonal Francisco Variant:

A Random Example Solve (*over 90% 2-gen* <RUru>, 64 HTM):

alg.cubing.net visualizer link

Scramble: U F2 D F2 L2 D2 R2 D' L2 F2 D' R2 L B2 U' R' F' U R U R

R D L2 // Square
R F2 // Square + Extra Corner Piece
U' R U R' u' R' // Hexagon
R U R' r U r' // 1st Edge
u R U R' r U r' // 2nd Edge
u U2 r U r' // 3rd Edge
u U2 r U2 r' // Pseudo-LSLL
y' U' R' U R U' R' U R D2 // LS
r U R' U' r' F R F' // OLL
U2 R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 U' // PLL

I'd imagine this method could do a lot better on a luckier scramble, and with someone who has better blockbuilding than me. This solve was pretty unlucky with having so many twisted E-slice edges, but is a good demonstration of how close to 2-gen this method can be.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jan 25, 2022)

Hexagonal Fransico is actually quite good. I feel like there should be a better way to finish though, but L5C->L6E is a lot of algs. Maybe some sort of conjugation approach could work.


----------



## SciKE (Jan 27, 2022)

Y4c
A two-sided Roux 4c recognition system expanding on GodCubing's EZ4c system for 3 cycles.



Spoiler: Introduction



To start off, if you do not know already, there are currently 2 main 4c recognition systems everyone uses. Each recognize what 4c case you can get before solving 4b, aka the UL and UR edges by looking at certain pieces and where they would end up.

BU is the easiest. Before inserting ULUR, you look at what edge would be in BU after inserting and keep that edge in mind while you insert and AUF. Based on what color that edge is and what color your F center is, you can deduce what 4c case you have fairly easily.
DFDB is the better bigger brother to BU. You look at the colors of the UF and UB edges before inserting ULUR and keep those edges in mind. Based on that as well as the BU edge, you can deduce your 4c cases even further.

GodCubing made a recognition system that allows you to eliminate the need to look anywhere besides the U and F faces to deduce what cycle cases you get. The problem is this only really works for deducing 3cycles. GodCubing's technique is using the UF sticker and comparing it to whatever sticker our AUF is aimed at. So if we would have to AUF U to solve the corners after inserting ULUR, we would use UF and the UL stickers. Vice versa with U' and UR stickers. As well as that he compares the FU sticker to the F center color, similar to the BU and DFDB systems. Using these two, we can determine what type of cycle we get and if we can cancel out moves by AUFing the opposite direction without needing to look at anything else.

I wanted to try and keep that 2 side recognition and simplicity of opposite or same colors. Instead of remembering what edge/edges will be in BU/DFDB you can figure it out just by tying some cases to the 4c cases. After tinkering around with this, not really trying to remember what cases are what, I'm fairly used to and confident using this already. I feel like this could be learned as easily as DFDB with some simple rules to follow. As many have said before, it doesn't really matter what 4c system you use, as long as it works and you are consistent with it. I just wanted to go more in depth with an idea somebody else proposed.



Basically you are comparing the UF sticker to the UL and UR sticker, and then the FU sticker to the F center. If you draw the arrows these comparisons make, it makes a Y shape, hence Y4c. This is broken up into 3 "recog pairs", each recog pair can have one of two states. The stickers in the pair are opposite colors, or the stickers are the same color. Using the 3 pairs in 6 different combinations (with a smaller one off rule that is trivial), you can break down all of the possible 4c cases into these 6 unique cases.

The first recog pair is the UF sticker plus whatever edge your AUF would put into UB. So if you would do a U after inserting the ULUR edges, the target sticker would the be UL edge, vice versa with U' AUF and UR edge. 
The second recog pair is the opposite edge of the target edge from the first recog pair. You can think of it as the edge your AUF would put to UF. So if you AUF U, it would be the UR edge, vice verse with AUF U' and UL edge.
The third recog pair is the FU sticker and the F center.

AUF normally unless specifically saying otherwise.
**Dots cases can either AUF normally or opposite way, it depends on how you solve dots cases. If you solve them using ME gen, AUF normally; if you use MU gen, AUF the other way


UF + targetUF + opp targetFU + center4c caseExampleoppoppoppULUR line, dots**
UFUB line, 4c skip, AUF oppositeU' M U M2 U M2 U M U'
M2 U2 M2 U2 M2 U' M2oppoppsameULUR line, columns
UFUB line, 4c skipU' M U M2 U2 M2 U' M'
M2 U M2 U M2 U M2 U' M2 U'oppsame(opp)M or M' U2 cycleU2 M U2 M' U2 M2 U' M2oppsame(same)M or M' U2 cycleM U2 M' U2 M' U2 M U M2same(opp)oppM2 U2 cycleM' U2 M U M2 U M2 U2 M2 U'same(opp)same4c skip, AUF oppositeM' U' M2 U M2 U M' U M2 U'

Here is a link to the google sheet version (along with my mega sheet !!!)



Spoiler: Optimizations



Common Patterns/Observations/Optimizations

The easy cases (s/o)
These cases you do not need to recog the opposite target. Once you see that UF and the target sticker are the same, you can skip to recoging the FU+c pair. If the UF+target pair is the same color, the opposite target pair will always be the opposite color.

The intermediate cases (o/s)
These cases do not need to recog the FU+c pair. Once you recog that the target sticker is opposite and the opposite target is the same, you know you have a "raise the dot" 3cycle either way. The difference between the FU+c pair does not recog anything for these cases.

The "sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe s**t" cases (o/o)
These cases dont have optimizations relating to the recog pairs. But they do have a small addition that allows you to distinguish them further. For both cases if you have a line connecting the UF and UB edges and the U center, it will be a 4c skip.

Making the recog even easier on your brain
So instead of remembering the cases like "opp, same, same" or something like that, you can just remember which of the pairs are the same color and recog off of that. This doesnt lose anything and still works 100% of the time. So the s/o/o case, which is a M2 U2 cycle, could just be recognized that only the UF+target pair is the same.
Eventually the patterns of each case will become brainless, possibly as easy as BU recognition.





Spoiler: Pros and Cons



Pros
2 sided, no need to head tilt
Simple recog, whether the colors match or not is trivial and brainless to recog
Could be or is as brainless as DFDB or BU after some practice
Works equally well with misoriented centers

Cons
The 3 recog pairs is a bit more than the recog for BU or DFDB, plus the one line case 
Its very conditional, some cases recog some things while others dont, could be awkward to get used to
Being a somewhat different approach to 4c prediction, this can be awkward to switch too



I am planning to make a video for this method just in case I am bad at explaining things over text. If this is confusing please ask I am happy to answer.


----------



## Quốc Hưng (Jan 28, 2022)

Hello, I have a new4x4 speedsolving method for LEOR solver.

Overall Step :
1.F2C like Meyer
2.First Block (Like Meyer)
3. Pairing andOrient DF DB edge then put them at DR,BR
4.L4C
5.Finish DF DB edge
6.EOPairing+OLL parity.
7.Right Block->COLL+EPLL(with pll parity)
How do you feel about this idea?

I think it very good because two step is done after reduction (FB,EOstrip)


----------



## Quốc Hưng (Feb 3, 2022)

LEO4 METHOD​
Hi, I just had an idea a few days ago, about a 4x4 rubikscube method for LEOR solver.

Steps :
1.L/R Center
2.FirstBlock (Like Meyer)
3.F4C
4.Solve DF, DB dedge.
5.EO Pairing the remaining edges without messing up the block (Do this like Z4, but without messing up the 3x3x4 Block)
6.FLIP Final Badedge
7.Solve like LEOR or Petrus (RightBlock->LL+Parity PLL)

Pros
* Good ergonomics during edge pairing as no F/B moves are needed
* Final 3x3 phase is just RU blockbuilding followed by LL, no pause for inspection of EOSTRIP.
*Two Step is done after Reduction, resulting lower movecount for 3x3StAGE.
*Less cube rotation
*Better ways to deal with parity. The number of algs used in a solve with double parity is one less than with standard Yau with double parity, and PLL parity recognition is easier due to corners being solved.
Cons
* More moves during edge pairing.
* Good ability to see EO during lookahead is required, but this should be pretty natural for LEOR users already.
* In some cases, flipped ledges may accidentally be created but this should be avoidable with good lookahead. 

Do you think this a good method ?
_Inventer : Hồ Nguyễn Quốc Hưng_​


----------



## V Achyuthan (Feb 3, 2022)

Quốc Hưng said:


> LEO4 METHOD​
> Hi, I just had an idea a few days ago, about a 4x4 rubikscube method for LEOR solver.
> 
> Steps :
> ...


Here are the thing why I think this method is "not good"
1. During edge pairing you will always require F moves (not B moves though).
2. A "lot" more moves during edge pairing since it is EO Edge pairing.
3. EO edge pairing isn't really a good step. Partial EOedge pairing might be good.
4. This one is my personal opinion, this is just another way to get to a solved 223 state after edge pairing on big cubes. There are many other methods like this. For example OBLBL, 4PB, TSSH.
*This might be a good method but these are just my opinions*
Also a request to anyone. Can anyone do a comparison of the big cube methods which when arriving at 3x3 stage have 223 solved (preferably on dl) just like how @Athefre did for 223 based methods on 3x3?


----------



## Reirto-RRNF (Feb 3, 2022)

Quốc Hưng said:


> LEO4 METHOD​
> Hi, I just had an idea a few days ago, about a 4x4 rubikscube method for LEOR solver.
> 
> Steps :
> ...


It more look like it created for Petrus user than LEOR user because the 3x3x4 block is solved first and then the EOPairing


----------



## jyhjyi (Feb 7, 2022)

JJ_Method (for NxNxN)
No “long” parity algorithm and flipping algorithm
no more complicated last 4 edges pairing

step1: solve 6 centers
step2: pair 8 edges containing white and yellow 
step3: solve white and yellow faces 
step4: solve the lower-semi layers with ”cross layer commutator”
step5: solve the upper-semi layers with “self layer commutator “
step6: adjustment the centers(if necessary)

Examples
#1



#2 



#3 



#4


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 7, 2022)

Could you write a text tutorial? To be quite honest, I don't want to watch 4 10 minute plus videos with no talking to figure out what's actually happening. It could be cool though.


----------



## TGWCubing (Feb 14, 2022)

2x2 Alg Set that does OLL while permuting the bottom layer

May sound bad at first and "just like EG" but really it's not. About 21 algs (not counting solved OLL and if you don't want any non-PLL PBL then try to avoid OLL skips when not having a fully permuted layer.

FAQ (from other places where I talked about this):
Q: Why don't you learn EG?
A: Too many algs for a begginer-brain

Q: Why don't you learn Ortega?
A: Diag-Adj / Adj-Diag is pain

Q: Isn't that like EG?
A: Ortega is too but no-one's complaining

Q: How is Ortega like EG?
A: Well you solve the bottom layer and permute both layers (like a 2-look EG)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 14, 2022)

Ortega algs are pretty good. The OLLs are better than these, and the PBLs are better than PLLs overall. If you're stuck for algs, just use Cyotheking's. They're all pretty good.


----------



## hyn (Feb 14, 2022)

Isn't that just LBL with a bit more freedom in making the first side and having to learn 21 algs? If you're able and willing to learn 21 algs, just learn CLL since its just 40 algs.


----------



## TGWCubing (Feb 14, 2022)

hydynn said:


> Isn't that just LBL with a bit more freedom in making the first side and having to learn 21 algs? If you're able and willing to learn 21 algs, just learn CLL since its just 40 algs.


well I was thinking of an alternate way which was CLL then permute D layer


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 14, 2022)

This is not worth it for sure. Just use normal LBL if you don’t like Ortega and learning algs. I’m able to get sub4 avgs using white bottom only lol


----------



## GenTheThief (Feb 14, 2022)

TGWCubing said:


> May sound bad at first and "just like EG" but really it's not.


It really is.



TGWCubing said:


> FAQ (from other places where I talked about this):
> Q: Why don't you learn EG?
> A: Too many algs for a begginer-brain


LBL has like 9 algs. Sub3 potential ez
CLL has 40 algs and is 2 look. Sub2 potential if you can turn fast. And what's the point of 2x2 if you're not turning fast.
This is 20 algs and still 3 look. It also leaves you with adj and diag, which are both long algs.



TGWCubing said:


> Q: Why don't you learn Ortega?
> A: Diag-Adj / Adj-Diag is pain


I will give this to you. I hate those algs. adj-adj is cracked though.
However, I will say that it's really just a


Spoiler



Skill Issue





TGWCubing said:


> Q: Isn't that like EG?
> A: Ortega is too but no-one's complaining


The difference is that Ortega predates EG by like 25 years. And even when it was rediscovered, that was still 6 years before EG was developed.



TGWCubing said:


> Q: How is Ortega like EG?
> A: Well you solve the bottom layer and permute both layers (like a 2-look EG)


You also need to orient the top face, so EG is 2 look (if you don't predict anything). Ortega is is 3 look (if you don't predict anything).


I would:
1. Just stick with LBL if you're really adverse to learning algs.
2. Learn CLL if you want to be fast without learning 100+ algs.
3. But I get it, it's fun to come up with methods and get clout for being a method inventor. I'll try not to clown on someone if they recognize the downsides of their method. But if you're gonna try to tout this as a legitimate beginner/intermediate/advanced method, you're gonna have to show why it's better than other methods.

Even so, 2x2 mostly comes down to having good inspection/planning, a good pickup, fast recognition, and good turning. Your method or how many algs you know isn't super super important. Lucas Etter set the 1.51 2x2 WR average without knowing full EG because he was also cracked at planning and had stupid good turning.


----------



## fabdabs1234 (Feb 14, 2022)

Really not viable, 3 look and you get diag/adj swap 5/6 solves = average 20+ moves
Ortega is much better as there are fewer and faster algs. Im not sure what you have against adj/diag diag/adj, but the algs are very fast (faster than pure diag).


----------



## TGWCubing (Feb 14, 2022)

GenTheThief said:


> It really is.
> 
> 
> LBL has like 9 algs. Sub3 potential ez
> ...


I'd rather die that stick with LBL.



OreKehStrah said:


> This is not worth it for sure. Just use normal LBL if you don’t like Ortega and learning algs. I’m able to get sub4 avgs using white bottom only lol


I'd rather die that stick with LBL.


----------



## Sajwo (Feb 14, 2022)

Or you could just use Guimond method 

23 algs and average movecount of 16


----------



## fabdabs1234 (Feb 15, 2022)

TGWCubing said:


> I'd rather die that stick with LBL.
> 
> 
> I'd rather die that stick with LBL.


Then use ortega.


----------



## GenTheThief (Feb 15, 2022)

Sajwo said:


> Or you could just use Guimond method
> 
> 23 algs and average movecount of 16


I think the goal was to avoid pbl adj-diag swaps, which Guimond also has.



TGWCubing said:


> I'd rather die that stick with LBL.


Then my final suggestion would be to learn and use CLL. It's not too many algs and they're all short and fast. You can pick your favorite from this sheet.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Feb 15, 2022)

Otherwise, just get good XD


----------



## TGWCubing (Feb 15, 2022)

GenTheThief said:


> I think the goal was to avoid pbl adj-diag swaps, which Guimond also has.
> 
> 
> Then my final suggestion would be to learn and use CLL. It's not to many algs and they're all short and fast. You can pick your favorite from this sheet.


you know what, deal.


----------



## Burrito (Mar 15, 2022)

New Mehta Variant — Rhetta

The only difference is that you solve a Roux like block and then solve the DM slice and then continue into EO.

Roux + Mehta = Rehta (sounds better to say Rhetta)


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Mar 15, 2022)

Or you could just use Petrus.


----------



## Burrito (Mar 15, 2022)

Petrus is outdated

This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Mar 15, 2022)

GenZ Cubing said:


> Petrus is outdated
> 
> This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block


Petrus is a timeless method.

You are literally building a 223 block the same way many APB users do (Which is based on Petrus and both solve 223 the same way) and then doing EO (i:e 223>>EO). That sounds likes Petrus with a possible Mehta-style algorithmic ending (Which would still be Petrus).


----------



## Burrito (Mar 15, 2022)

Yeah but I don’t want to say it’s Petrus because I don’t like petrus

Doesn’t mean it’s bad I just don’t like it


----------



## abunickabhi (Mar 15, 2022)

GenZ Cubing said:


> Petrus is outdated
> 
> This is to entice solvers of Roux to Mehta, because it seems faster for a left block


Petrus is never outdated. It is always relevant in the cubing community.


----------



## Swagrid (Mar 15, 2022)

GenZ Cubing said:


> Yeah but I don’t want to say it’s Petrus because I don’t like petrus


> invents Petrus
> changes the name because they don't like Petrus

???


----------



## GenTheThief (Mar 15, 2022)

afaik mehta is largely dead so I don't think you really need to appeal to that group of cubers anymore.

In addition, this sounds like just another way of solving the petrus 223 or actually just doing LEOR (LEOR predates mehta and mehta is just sideways LEOR).


----------



## 1001010101001 (Mar 16, 2022)

Using 5 stickers and AUF to recognise 4c after EOLR








EZ4C+


This recognition method is developed as an extension to EZ4C, to solve all 3-Cycle cases. The letters that correspond to each sticker is shown below, for AUF of U (Simply mirror it for U’ AUF): This flowchart generates the algorithm to solve 4c, and is executed at the end:




docs.google.com




The spreadsheet may look complicated but it's easy to execute quickly after a little practice, with only one extra step compared to ordinary EZ4C.


----------



## Burrito (Mar 16, 2022)

After finding that the spreadsheet for Mehta is terrible for printing, I just went back to Roux.


----------



## voidrx (Mar 16, 2022)

GenZ Cubing said:


> After finding that the spreadsheet for Mehta is terrible for printing, I just went back to Roux.


Good choice. Mehta is sub-optimal anyway. If you want a really good method that isn't roux, then try APB.


----------



## Spriteblood (Mar 23, 2022)

Hi everybody!

I would like to share my idea for a method and hear your thoughts. 
I tried to find something similar but with no results so I hope this wasn't suggested before.

In general, I would describe it as a Roux spinoff.

Here are the steps:

1. You solve 4 columns on the lower 2 layers (like F2L withoug Centers and cross)
2. You extend them to the ceiling. (Roux CMLL)
3. You solve DR and DL edge and prepare a roux LSE-Orientation Case, completely ignoring the centers! The focus here is are *M/M' and u/u' slices*
4. You solve the LSE-Orientation and also the L and R centers (This would be something for ~16 cases to learn. I am bad at inventing algorithms so I only manged to find one XD). Also here you stay on *M/M' and u/u' slices. *where 
5. Solve the rest of the cube with pre-oriented LSE!



I tried to present the idea in a picture!


Example solve.

(best with classic top white, green front)
*D2 F2 R F2 D' B F' D2 B2 D' F2 D' R F' D2 F


X Y* (Turn the cube to this position, Red front, green top)


1. Solving the 4 columns
*u
F' U2 F2
R U' S2 R
U' S F' U F S2 U' R U' R'* (Yeah, far from perfect, but whatever XD)

2. Roux CMLL, maybe here could be found some better algs as all centers are free to move)
*U* + CMLL (*r' U r U2 R2 F R F' R*)

3. Solve DR and DL edge and prepare a roux LSE-Orientation Case 
*u M' u M'* (now FU and DU on top)* u' S2 u' U* (D slots + LSE part preparation)

4. LSE-Orientation + L and R centers
*u' M' u M u M' u' M u' M' u2 M' u' M' *(I had a far shorter algorithm but couldn't reconstruct it, so.. this is clearly something for optimization)

5. Solve pre-oriented LSE
*U M U2 M U M2 U' M U2 M' U2 M2 U2*


Thx for reading!


----------



## 1001010101001 (Mar 24, 2022)

Wouldn't it be better to solve F2B without centres and then do EO/Centres?
It could be a useful roux variant for misoriented centres and lower the movecounts for F2B, especially if solving centres + eolr at the same time (with a lot of algorithms). Wide u moves could be a problem, though.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 24, 2022)

Aka columns. We've all done it at some point.


----------



## V Achyuthan (Mar 28, 2022)

I use this method for L5EP. Can anyone tell if it is good? (I made it by myself so it might probably be bad)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1njb3bQ7ODY5X1TTgM_YTVZ_58aJRA1cRsZQbq2ek4hA/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## PapaSmurf (Mar 28, 2022)

You should be able to do 2 sided recog for L5EP as long as the non-U edge isn't in UF or UR. If it is, peek at UL as well.


----------



## Marijn (Mar 29, 2022)

Has anyone ever seen a 3BLD method where you swap edges and corners at the same time?
In the last couple of days I came up with setup moves to PLLs for all the corners and edges.

I found that the setup moves are not as bad as I thought they would be. I made a spreadsheet with all possible combinations of 1 edge and 1 corner. Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10rt17l8auC-hStzhcCpKKyLxIEOC6OZJJG74DWAXgkU/edit?usp=sharing

I used buffers UBL and UB. 
After you have done the corners (and the same amount of edges), you will be left with either 4 or 6 edges most of the time. You can solve these with any method you like, but it is easy to do with M2 because I used buffer UB. You can not get parity with this method. 

The memo is very different and more difficult than normal memo. Because you need to remember 1 edge and 1 corner for each letter pair. 
Maybe the memo will make this method impossible/ very hard to use, I don't know yet. 

So has anyone seen any method like this? And if can come up with better setup moves for some cases, please let me know! I am interested in your thoughts about this method.


----------



## Halqrius (Apr 1, 2022)

I doubt I'm the first to com up with this, but layer by layer but the layers are solved in 1x1x3 layers and those layers are solved in 1x1x1 layers. Due to the number of pieces on a cube, this method technically has 27 steps but a lot are naturally skipped.

Step 1: Literally just choose a corner and this step is done
Step 2: Form a 1x1x2 with your chosen corner and an edge
Step 3: Turn the 1x1x2 into a 1x1x3 with another corner
Step 4: Add an edge to the 1x1x3
Step 5: Add the centre to the 1x1x3 with edge
Step 6: 1x2x3
Step 7: A layer with a missing edge and a corner
Step 8: A layer missing a corner
Step 9: A layer
Step 10: Add an edge to your layer (note that the centres don't have to be solved
Step 11: Solve the centre
Step 12: Solve the edge on the opposite side of the centre you just solved
Step 13: This step should already be done
Step 14: I wanna make a joke about solving the core, but I can't think of a good one
Step 15: See step 13
Step 16: F2L minus an edge
Step 17: Solve the remaining centre of F2L
Step 18: And in only 17 steps, we have F2L done
Step 19: Solve a corner in the last layer
Step 20: Solve an edge next to the corner
Step 21: Solve a corner next to that edge
Step 22: Solve an edge next to the 1x1x3 you just made
Step 23: This step should hopefully already be finished
Step 24: At this point, a 1x2x3 will be solved on the top layer
Step 25: Solve one of the remaining corners
Step 26: Solve the remaining edge
Step 27: Solve the final corner

Pros
-6 steps are always skipped
-Many more steps are often skipped
-The first few steps can be solved in very few moves
-Many cubers don't need to learn any new algs

Cons
-many


----------



## Aluminum (Apr 2, 2022)

When I solve 4x4, i basically do the centers intuitively. But one day I was solving a 4x4, got the white and yellow centers, partial white cross, and then two middle centers next to each other. Once I get to the last 2 centers, it's pretty hard, beacuse you have to not disturb the other centers. But then I thought, what if there was a way to just do an algorithm to solve those two centers? What if there was a way to recognize a case, then do an algorithm to solve those two centers? For example:

would be r U2 r' U2.
What do you think about it?
Would it speed up your solves?


----------



## Luke Solves Cubes (Apr 3, 2022)

yes it would and for certain cases for the last two centers, there are algorithms that could let you solve them


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Apr 3, 2022)

4x4x4's last two centers are relatively easy to resolve compared to larger cube sizes. I know that there is such a resource available (for more than a decade for sure, probably close to two decades) for the last two centers of 5x5x5. https://cube.garron.us/big_cubes/L2C/

You can just pay attention to the "corner" centers of those images to get algorithms for their corresponding 4x4x4 cases, but the algorithms are almost always going to be longer than if you found the shortest moves for the actual 4x4x4 case.


----------



## Stock_Fish109 (Apr 3, 2022)

is this a joke? 
thats like 
the only way you solve 4x4 centers


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Apr 3, 2022)

To some people, "intuitive" means the use of 3-cycle commutators. So, he probably started with commutators and is learning how to solve them the common way (where it's the reverse order for most people).


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Apr 3, 2022)

This is pretty much how I along with every top 4x4 solvers does l2c. It isn’t necessarily memorizing algs as all the cases are super intuitive, but rather over time you start recognizing the case and then just solving it without having to think.


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 4, 2022)

V Achyuthan said:


> really funny reduction ideas for 3x3
> 1. Reduce the 3x3 to a Cube in a Cube Pattern and apply the alg that solves the pattern to solve the cube
> 2. Reduce the 3x3 to a Cube in a Cube in a Cube Pattern and apply the alg that solves the pattern to solve the cube.


I mean, obviously funny(not haha funny), but

Have you tried that even ONCE?
Didn't we tell you that you don't just post every bad thing that crosses your mind here?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 4, 2022)

Marijn said:


> Has anyone ever seen a 3BLD method where you swap edges and corners at the same time?
> In the last couple of days I came up with setup moves to PLLs for all the corners and edges.
> 
> I found that the setup moves are not as bad as I thought they would be. I made a spreadsheet with all possible combinations of 1 edge and 1 corner. Here's the link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10rt17l8auC-hStzhcCpKKyLxIEOC6OZJJG74DWAXgkU/edit?usp=sharing
> ...


It's a cool idea, but the main problem is that comms are already fast and you're just making life more difficult for yourself in memo (as you pointed out). It's unfortunate because the idea is actually quite fun.


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Jun 3, 2022)

I haven't seen many intuitive / semi-intuitive LSLL methods, and I thought they could be interesting. As long as EO is done, blocks can quite easily be built on the top. So, I tried to make a method out of it - I don't know how practical it actually would be, but it's an idea.

EO
Make 2 pairs on the top face (permuted correctly). This can also be done by building a square and then adding a corner.
Solve the last 3 edges and corners (~250 algs)
Recognition for step 3 (kinda bad)
Orientation of U layer corners
CP
EP

Examples (all of these built two pairs separately, but depending on the case it might be better to build a square)
Scramble: F U' F2 D' L2 F' L' F U2 L2 D F
F' U2 L' U L F // EO
U R U2 R' // Pair
U2 R U2 R' // Pair
R2 U2 R2 D' R U' R' D R2 U' R' U' R' U // Finish
28 STM

Scramble: D B2 U B2 U2 R2 D' F2 U F2 U R' B U2 B' U2 R' U2
F' U' L' U L F // EO
R U2 R' // Pair
U R U2 R' U2 R U R' // Pair
R' F2 R D' R' D F2 D' R D U // Finish
28 STM

Scramble: U R' F2 R F L F D2 L2 U2 L' B2 R B2 L' D2 L'
F' U2 F // EO
U2 R U2 R' // Pair
U2 R U R' U' F2 L' U L U L' U' L F2 // Worst possible second pair case (should make an alg)
U' R2 U2 R2 U2 F R D R2 D' R' F' U2 // Finish
34 STM

// Example with square + corner //
Scramble: F' L2 F2 R B2 R' F2 L2 U2 F2 R' F' L' R2 B' L U' R'
R' F R F' // EO
R U2 R' U R U' R' // Square
U2 R U R' // Corner
U R U' F2 R2 D R2 U R2 D' R U' R F2 R' U' // Finish (bad case)

I'm just putting this out there as a thing, it has some problems that make it not super viable, mainly the difficult recognition in step 3, however building blocks is RU gen regripless, quite ergonomic.


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Jun 4, 2022)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> I haven't seen many intuitive / semi-intuitive LSLL methods, and I thought they could be interesting. As long as EO is done, blocks can quite easily be built on the top. So, I tried to make a method out of it - I don't know how practical it actually would be, but it's an idea.
> 
> EO
> Make 2 pairs on the top face (permuted correctly). This can also be done by building a square and then adding a corner.
> ...


This could work too as a variant, probably better for CFOPers, I basically just combined steps 1 & 2.

EOPair (or EOSquare)
Pair (or corner if square)
Finish
// Example //
Scramble: R2 B2 L2 D2 B' L2 B' L R' F' L' F R' F2 U'
U' r U R' U' M // EOPair (unintentional square)
R U R' U R U R' U2 // Pair
R U R U R2 D' R U R' D R2 U2 R2 // Finish
Edit: also interesting realisation for the final alg, you only need to look at the U layer, as 1 edge and 1 corner are not in the U layer, so are affected by pieces in the U-layer. So you can recognise the corner pattern, then probably the location of the U layer edges
Edit 2: There is actually more like 430 ish algs in the final step. I might work on a way to reduce this alg count.

*// Major Edit - big change //*
The reason for the huge amount of algs is because there are 5 possible configurations of two solved top layer pairs, leading to 5 algsets of ~85 algs each. This is not only impractical for being able to use the method, but one of the sets in particular has very bad cases. So, I decided that having a block with only 1 possible position would fare better for this method.
I have come up with some steps that should work, and the alg reduction is huge! There are three ways to go about it, I don't know which is better.

*Variant A*
- EOPair
- CPSquare (amount of algs is like ZBLS vs VHLS, you can have the pair and edge ready, then do it, or just do it)
- Finish (71 algs, position square at UBL)

*Variant B*
- EO
- CPPair
OR
- EOPair
- CP
OR even
- EOCP

THEN
- Finish (~170 algs) with the algset (variant B1)
OR
- Conjugated 2GLL (84 algs, harder recog) (variant B2)

*Variant C*
- EOPair
- Conjugated ZBLL (~430 algs I forgot how many)

I think variant A could be the best all round, so here's an example for it (I don't have CE with me right now so I cannot gen CP-based algs because the batch solver doesn't do that)
Examples


Spoiler:  variant A



Scramble: R2 B2 D L2 D L2 D2 B2 R2 U' R B U B' R'
F' U F // EOPair
R2 U' L' U R' U' L R' // CPSquare (idrk algs for this)
R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U // Finish


----------



## V Achyuthan (Jun 5, 2022)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> This could work too as a variant, probably better for CFOPers, I basically just combined steps 1 & 2.
> 
> EOPair (or EOSquare)
> Pair (or corner if square)
> ...


Well then I am gonna start generating algs for variant A or if they are already generated gonna start learning them.


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Jun 5, 2022)

V Achyuthan said:


> Well then I am gonna start generating algs for variant A or if they are already generated gonna start learning them.


Trying to learn them may not be the best idea at least yet, as I don't know how worth it this LSLL method is (although I've heard you want to learn a LOT of methods).
I've genned most of the algs so far. I ran a search through the batch solver with rRU gen and 15 move search depth. 2 cases failed (16+ moves rRU), and a few should be regenned with larger depth and/or a different subset (RUD or RUF, or RUFD - so long as the algs are good). I will link the document when it's done, as along with these issues I have not attached images to the algs yet.
*Edit: *These algs require that the DFR corner is at DFR, which should just be a 3 mover if not already skipped after CPSquare, which the algs for (when I get round to them) will do anyway.
*Edit2: *There will be a beginner variant of the final step, where you orient corners, then permute edges. CO will not affect EP, so you could 1 look like this, although it would be slower.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 7, 2022)

objectively optimal L5C?


So I was thinking... Sexy method ends with L5C and it deals with brute forcing sexy moves until last buffer is solved. It may happen "parity" when two corners are permuted correctly but oriented wrong. It may need setup move to make them the same layer and then undoing the setup at end...




www.speedsolving.com





so... I was thinking about this method:

cross
f2l-1 (pretty basic)
eole (solve last edge while orienting remaining edges)
lcep (solve last corner while permuting remaing edges)
l4c (last four corners duh)


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 7, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> objectively optimal L5C?
> 
> 
> So I was thinking... Sexy method ends with L5C and it deals with brute forcing sexy moves until last buffer is solved. It may happen "parity" when two corners are permuted correctly but oriented wrong. It may need setup move to make them the same layer and then undoing the setup at end...
> ...


I am like 87% sure this has existed for at least 10 years, I just can't remember which website I have seen this.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Jun 7, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> objectively optimal L5C?
> 
> 
> So I was thinking... Sexy method ends with L5C and it deals with brute forcing sexy moves until last buffer is solved. It may happen "parity" when two corners are permuted correctly but oriented wrong. It may need setup move to make them the same layer and then undoing the setup at end...
> ...


Ah yes. Another ZZ variant ported to CFOP with extra steps.


----------



## Caden Fisher (Jun 7, 2022)

Hello. I just watched J Perms video again on solving a 4x4 into a 2x2 and then I tried and it was pretty hard. I was wondering if there was a tutorial somewhere for how to do this consistently if not efficiently. Just for something fun and different to learn. Thanks


----------



## V Achyuthan (Jun 8, 2022)

Caden Fisher said:


> Hello. I just watched J Perms video again on solving a 4x4 into a 2x2 and then I tried and it was pretty hard. I was wondering if there was a tutorial somewhere for how to do this consistently if not efficiently. Just for something fun and different to learn. Thanks


yes. There is a method called 2cep.
Here is the video


----------



## Caden Fisher (Jun 8, 2022)

V Achyuthan said:


> yes. There is a method called 2cep.
> Here is the video


Thank you!


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Jun 8, 2022)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> This could work too as a variant, probably better for CFOPers, I basically just combined steps 1 & 2.
> 
> EOPair (or EOSquare)
> Pair (or corner if square)
> ...


Update: I have genned all the algs for variant A (which I believe is the best variant for all round purposes). I also decided on names for the alg sets. CPSquare is CPS (self explanatory), and the final step is TLS, which stands for "triple last slot", because it's basically solving 3 F2L-1s at once. If anyone has a better name let me know.
TLS has 71 algs
CPS has 48 algs (20 more if you wanted to learn the cases with the square formed, although this comes at a minimal benefit as it can be set up in 3 moves to Cw or Ccw pair)

I'll link the doc with the algs, although beware that some (in red) are bad and need a re-gen, and there are no pictures. I have to thank trangium's batch solver, it was incredibly useful as I could gen all the algs from my phone in under 5 minutes! Pictures will take a while.

This is all still very experimental and should be taken with caution, learning these algs may be a waste of your time.

Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zmVdegLnQjD5zMz6cARDM4lOdPTcKQih30KrN7Yt8dw/edit


----------



## Swagrid (Jun 8, 2022)

Caden Fisher said:


> Hello. I just watched J Perms video again on solving a 4x4 into a 2x2 and then I tried and it was pretty hard. I was wondering if there was a tutorial somewhere for how to do this consistently if not efficiently. Just for something fun and different to learn. Thanks


Here is a beginner tutorial for a 4x4 - 2x2 reduction method better than J Perm's (shoutout Rowan Fortier for covering this in his reduction iceberg video lmao)

Edit: I got ninja'd in the time it took for me to find the video but ah well i'm not deleting this post yall can cope


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Jun 19, 2022)

Anti-EG-1 for 2x2

So if you build your side and there is bar on front, like Anti-CLL you recognise the diag corner case, then do the EG-1 for that case but cancel into R2 F2 R2 at the end.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Jun 19, 2022)

That's a fun idea. A good tool for people who keep on forgetting EG-1 because we don't practice 2x2.


----------



## Skewbed (Jun 19, 2022)

NigelTheCuber said:


> Anti-EG-1 for 2x2
> 
> So if you build your side and there is bar on front, like Anti-CLL you recognise the diag corner case, then do the EG-1 for that case but cancel into R2 F2 R2 at the end.


So it basically cuts down on the amount of EG-1 algs you need to learn?


----------



## PiKeeper (Jun 19, 2022)

Skewbed said:


> So it basically cuts down on the amount of EG-1 algs you need to learn?


No but it lets you make the bar in the front instead of the back. It's not really good for speed solving though.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 19, 2022)

or you could just learn petrus eg-1


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Jun 20, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> or you could just learn petrus eg-1


y2 rotations suck.


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Jun 20, 2022)

PapaSmurf said:


> That's a fun idea. A good tool for people who keep on forgetting EG-1 because we don't practice 2x2.


Then start practicing 2x2!


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 20, 2022)

NigelTheCuber said:


> Then start practicing 2x2!


Good one.


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Jun 20, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> Good one.


2x2 is the best event!


----------



## Thom S. (Jun 20, 2022)

NigelTheCuber said:


> 2x2 is the best event!


And other Jokes you can tell yourself.


----------



## Imsoosm (Jun 20, 2022)

NigelTheCuber said:


> Anti-EG-1 for 2x2
> 
> So if you build your side and there is bar on front, like Anti-CLL you recognise the diag corner case, then do the EG-1 for that case but cancel into R2 F2 R2 at the end.


I just happened to come across a solve where this is useful. So @NigelTheCuber you were imitating abunickabhi but putting EG-1 algs in a message, and I decided to learn one of the easier ones (EG-1 T 2).

Generated By csTimer on 2022-06-20
single: 1.884

Time List:
1. 1.884 F U F' R F' R2 U' R' F'

This scramble has a one move yellow face into EG-1 T 1, and T 1 is the opposite case of T 2. So here was my solution:

R2 U y' (basically D) F' R' F R2 U R' U' R U (R F2 R2 U2) [cancelled into PBL]

I did the face and then did the opposite case alg, then did PBL.


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Jun 20, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> I just happened to come across a solve where this is useful. So @NigelTheCuber you were imitating abunickabhi but putting EG-1 algs in a message, and I decided to learn one of the easier ones (EG-1 T 2).
> 
> Generated By csTimer on 2022-06-20
> single: 1.884
> ...


Lol yes. T 1 alg is R U' R2 F R2 U R' U2 R' F R F'


----------



## LukasCubes (Jun 20, 2022)

NigelTheCuber said:


> 2x2 is the best event!


You're smoking crack. Stop it.


----------



## cuberswoop (Jun 20, 2022)

NigelTheCuber said:


> 2x2 is the best event!


People who like 2x2 only like it because they're slow at everything else.


----------



## Silky (Jun 20, 2022)

cuberswoop said:


> People who like 2x2 only like it because they're slow at everything else.


People who like 3x3 only like it because of J-Perm


----------



## Eli Apperson (Jun 20, 2022)

cuberswoop said:


> People who like 2x2 only like it because they're slow at everything else.


In all seriousness, 2x2 is quite easy to improve on, giving people an quick gratification, which is why some find it "addicting".


----------



## Garf (Jun 20, 2022)

Silky said:


> People who like 3x3 only like it because of J-Perm


People who only like big cubes (5, 6, 7) because of Kevin Hays and Feliks Zemdegs.


----------



## Silky (Jun 20, 2022)

Anthony Tindal said:


> People who only like big cubes (5, 6, 7) because of Kevin Hays and Feliks Zemdegs.


People only like 3 Multi-Blind because of Sig. :'(


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Jun 20, 2022)

Might want to stay on-topic guys...

Anyway, (most of the) TLS algs with pictures are now done for the LSLL thingy! You can find them  here  if you wanted to use them for some reason.
Cases with more than one alg have included the MCC for each alg, so you can make a more informed choice (although, sometimes the MCC is very off).
Couldn't get every alg because some failed (>15 moves), and some just weren't genned by the batch solver for no apparent reason (AUF is not the reason), I'll be regenning/genning those, and some bad cases (19+ MCC).


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 20, 2022)

anyway...
2x2 is cool. I used to solve 2x2 on jfly sim using only ortega and it was so much fun
but know I lost my muscle memory. i have to practice again
my uncle watched me solve and he said I could develop depression for doing the same thing over and over again xD


----------



## Garf (Jun 21, 2022)

Silky said:


> People only like 3 Multi-Blind because of Sig. :'(


Sorry, but I have to: people who like 5-style, 4-bld, 5-bld because of @abunickabhi


----------



## abunickabhi (Jun 21, 2022)

Anthony Tindal said:


> Sorry, but I have to: people who like 5-style, 4-bld, 5-bld because of @abunickabhi


I am a big fan of Sig and Rowe. They also like 4bld, 5bld and are curious about 5-style method.


----------



## Xatu (Jun 27, 2022)

Z4 method guide (first ever!)

Step 1: centers
solve center pieces.
Step 2: pair DF+DB dedges
If the dedges are not in the same orientation, pair them as you would in the beginner's method, making sure to restore centers. Then, Place it in it's spot.
If the dedges are in the same oreintation, place them in UBl and FRd and do Lw U' R U Lw2 U' R' U Lw.
Step 3: EOPair remaining dedges
same as step 2. but you don't have to place them in their spots. Make sure The edges are oreinted. To make lookahead easier, Place them in DR, BR, DL, and BL.
step 4: flip remaining bad edges
Flip remaining bad edges you would on 3x3. if you have parity, do the OLL parity alg.
step 5: 3x3 stage
solve like a 3x3!
step 6: you solved it!
you might get PLL Parity though.


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Jul 8, 2022)

Something I thought of while messing around with a square-1, may or may not already exist. This is just for fun really, as it doesn't seem practical for speed.
This method takes advantage of a state a square-1 can be in, where every corner and edge forms a clockwise facing pair. This state can be solved with slice, "U" and "D" moves, without misalignment of the D layer, and heavily reduces the "cube" to a few possible cases (a few in relation to a CS solved square-1).

*Step 1: CS(P)*
Self explanatory, put the puzzle into a cube shape.

*Step 2: 3 pairs*
Here, intuitively make 3 clockwise facing pairs of corners and edges, and put them in the bottom layer. This can be done with M2 moves.

*Step 3: 1 pair*
Complete a pair on the top layer using an algorithm to solve and insert it into the bottom layer

*Step 4: 4 pairs + parity*
Using an alg, position the 4 remaining edges to create the final 4 pairs, and also (if necessary) solve any parity issues.

*Step 5: Solve*
There are a couple ways you could go about this, I will only describe one I thought of here.
*5a. V*
Make a V of solved pairs on the bottom layer
*5b. Solve*
Use an algorithm to finish the cube

If this has been invented before in a better way, I'm curious about it, so let me know!


----------



## LBr (Jul 8, 2022)

NigelTheCuber said:


> y2 rotations suck.


true. But unlike LEG-1, I can't really think of any meaningful purpose of this, especially because of the move addition. Most of the time the side solution can be done into the back to keep the block on the back with no rotations


----------



## trangium (Jul 17, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Where can you download MCC? I can't find it online


The link to the MCC is here. It's an entirely online program; there's nothing to download. You can also find a link in my signature.


----------



## otcami23 (Jul 27, 2022)

I have been practicing a lot of 2x2 and have recently finished learning the EG-1 algorithm set.

Usually, in a 2x2 solve you would start the solve by making a face, and then, you would do an algorithm depending on the permutation of the pieces from the bottom layer and the state of the top layer. If the bottom layers corners are all permuted making a layer at the bottom, you would do a CLL algorithm. If there's an adjacent swap on the bottom, you would put the solved bar at the back and do an EG-1 algorithm. If you have a diagonal corner swap in the bottom, you would either do an EG-2 algorithm, or an Anti-CLL algorithm, forcing a diagonal corner swap on the top layer, and then cancelling into R2 F2 R2, and heres where comes my idea: Anti-EG-1.

If we get an EG-1 case, but the bar made up of the solved pieces is in the front, to save doing D2 or a y2 rotation to put the bar in the back, we could apply the Anti-CLL concept, but with EG-1 algorithms, forcing a diagonal corner swap on the top and bottom layers and doing R2 F2 R2.

Let me know if this is a good concept idea, I'd like to know your opinion on this idea!!


----------



## Imsoosm (Aug 1, 2022)

I came up with this new LSLL method called UPLL - Unoiented Pieces Last Layer:

1. F2L-1
2. Force OLL into:

Line Shapes (OLLs 51, 52, 55, 56)
L Shapes (OLLs 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54)
Square Shapes (OLLs 5, 6)
Knight Move Shapes (OLLs 13, 14, 15, 16)
Fish Shapes (OLLs 9, 10)
Lightning Shapes (OLLs 7, 8, 11, 12)
by using some alg during inserting last pair (sort of like ZBLS, but much easier)
3. 1LLL

*Advantages over ZBLL:*
Much easier recog, and the cases I chose all have 5 unoriented LL pieces, so you only have to look at top colors

For example if you get this case, you don't need to worry about LR edges and corners, you only need to look at the top

Better than ZBLS, greater chance of getting one of the cases mentioned above without forcing insertion, because OCLLs are only 7/56, while this is 18/56

*Disadvantages: *
More algs to learn
Worse algs than ZBLL

*Example Solves:*
Scramble: R2 F' B2 R B' L' F' L2 U L2 D R2 L2 B2 D L2 D R2 D2 B' U2
z2 // inspection
F R' L' B' F' L' U L' U L U' L' u2 // xcross
R U' R' // second pair
y U L U L' // third pair
U F R' F' R // fourth pair
U' F U R U' R' F' r' U' R U' R' U2 r U // 1LLL (40 STM)

Scramble: U2 R2 B L2 B2 R2 F' R2 U2 R2 F' D L' B' D' F' L' U2 F' L2 R'
z2 // inspection
D2 R2 F' L F // cross
U' D' R U R' U' L' U L D // first and second pairs
U2 L U' L' U L' U' L // third pair
y U2 R' U2 R U S' R' U' R S // fourth pair
r U R' U' r' F R F' f R U R' U' f' U' // 1LLL (48 STM)

Note: I'm excluding dot cases because the algs suck

(Ok I'm getting ready to accept tons and tons of criticism)


----------



## CornerTwisted (Aug 1, 2022)

LukasCubes said:


> You're smoking crack. Stop it.


Says the one who mains waterman.


----------



## Thom S. (Aug 1, 2022)

CornerTwisted said:


> Says the one who mains waterman.


Sais the one who likes 2x2.


Imsoosm said:


> I came up with this new LSLL method:
> 
> 1. F2L-1
> 2. Force OLL into:
> ...


Certainly not the worst idea, advantage is that since you reduce to many subsets, OLS Alg count can be way lower than VLS.
Disadvantage is of course bad cases.


----------



## Existential Shrimp (Aug 1, 2022)

idk if this is 100% original, but i came up with this one called square-3 for 3x3. you solve one side, use any method you want to solve the edges on the opposite side, solve the oll, do pll on both sides, solve the middle 4 edges in any way you want.

note: you can get single or double parity when trying to do your plls. do M2 U2 M2 U2 for double parity. if you have single parity, rotate the cube so your - usually top face - is in the front. then do an e-perm but do wide R moves instead of the regular ones. i can record an example solve if you want, bc i suck at explaining things while typing.


----------



## Existential Shrimp (Aug 1, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> I came up with something similar before, solving a cross (edges don't have to be permuted), doing F2L (corners can be in wrong position, edges have to be in the right position), doing OLL, then do PBL.
> 
> Advantages are lower movecount, more freedom during F2L so it could be more efficient, disadvantages are too hard to recognize the PBL case fast.


that actually sounds good. kinda like pseudo-slotting but not really. so like, pseudo-pseudo-slotting, into PBL. also are there actually PBL algs on 3x3?


----------



## Thom S. (Aug 1, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> I came up with something similar before, solving a cross (edges don't have to be permuted), doing F2L (corners can be in wrong position, edges have to be in the right position), doing OLL, then do PBL.
> 
> Advantages are lower movecount, more freedom during F2L so it could be more efficient, disadvantages are too hard to recognize the PBL case fast.


Don't think you are saving a lot of moves. You are essencially using moves to solve the first layer corners twice.


----------



## Existential Shrimp (Aug 2, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Maybe there are, but I didn't find them anywhere (not that I searched a lot)
> I can gen them though, I'm still trying to figure out how to make batch solver generate PBL algs


i tried j/j and it worked

my guess is that anything that only has 3 and -3 moves will work, because its essentially just a quarter turn


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 2, 2022)

Existential Shrimp said:


> idk if this is 100% original, but i came up with this one called square-3 for 3x3. you solve one side, use any method you want to solve the edges on the opposite side, solve the oll, do pll on both sides, solve the middle 4 edges in any way you want.
> 
> note: you can get single or double parity when trying to do your plls. do M2 U2 M2 U2 for double parity. if you have single parity, rotate the cube so your - usually top face - is in the front. then do an e-perm but do wide R moves instead of the regular ones. i can record an example solve if you want, bc i suck at explaining things while typing.


These types of methods are not new or good lol. I have genned random pbls and they are also quite bad


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 5, 2022)

*your favorite EPLLs are Z and H and you simply hate U perms?*

then this is your lucky day!

do phasing at the last pair of a ZZ or petrus solve and use COLL. you are guaranteed to have 1 out of 3 cases: z, h or skip

:3

of course this a joke method


----------



## Thom S. (Aug 5, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> *your favorite EPLLs are Z and H and you simply hate U perms?*
> 
> then this is your lucky day!
> 
> ...


I'll buy 3 of those.


----------



## Existential Shrimp (Aug 5, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> *your favorite EPLLs are Z and H and you simply hate U perms?*
> 
> then this is your lucky day!
> 
> ...


b-but i l-love u perms (((


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Aug 9, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> Sais the one who likes 2x2.


i don't see a problem in that...


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Aug 9, 2022)

Garf said:


> People who only like big cubes (5, 6, 7) because of Kevin Hays and Feliks Zemdegs.


and Max Park


----------



## Hazel (Aug 9, 2022)

Existential Shrimp said:


> idk if this is 100% original, but i came up with this one called square-3 for 3x3. you solve one side, use any method you want to solve the edges on the opposite side, solve the oll, do pll on both sides, solve the middle 4 edges in any way you want.
> 
> note: you can get single or double parity when trying to do your plls. do M2 U2 M2 U2 for double parity. if you have single parity, rotate the cube so your - usually top face - is in the front. then do an e-perm but do wide R moves instead of the regular ones. i can record an example solve if you want, bc i suck at explaining things while typing.


I'll go into more detail as to why this is flawed, to hopefully give you a better understanding of methods if you want to come up with more in the future.

Step 1 is fine, it's even made better if you combine step 1 and 2. There's the possibility of OLL parity, but not if you're careful. The problem comes with PLL on both sides. Doing a PLL followed by a z2 followed by another PLL is slow. Also, due to the nature of the E-slice not yet being solved, you only avoid parity 25% of the time, which is really bad (25% of the time you need an M2 U2 M2, 50% of the time you need an R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 because it can be needed on either side, 25% of the time there's no parity). You can build your first side with special care to bring the odds of parity from 75% to 50%, but still, not great. Then you have the E slice to solve, which isn't great since the edges aren't necessarily oriented. I opened CubeExplorer to take a look at what the solution algs might look like, and they aren't good.

Expanding on what Thom said, solving something incorrectly (e.g. solving a face instead of a layer) is usually a bad idea. Solving a full layer isn't that much slower than solving one side, and it avoids having to do PLL later, but at that point you're just doing a worse version of the beginner's method, so not ideal.

I don't mean to be too negative, if you're interested in method creation then definitely keep at it, and your ideas will become better over time!


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 9, 2022)

I just invented 2 methods in like 20 seconds!

The hope method:

1. hand scramble the cube *hoping it will be solved.*
2. if not solved, go to step 1
3. solved!

The zeroing method:

1. solve the method you want, but be assured to make a mistake that will lead you to an even faster solution
2. solved!


----------



## bulkocuber (Aug 9, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I just invented 2 methods in like 20 seconds!
> 
> The hope method:
> 
> ...


There's already a method called Hope, but it's an OLL parity avoidance method





anyway, your hope method seems really inefficient compared to the zeroing method. 
(Also, doesn't zeroing have to do with inserting the last F2L corner with a commutator getting an LL skip or an easy PLL?)


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Aug 9, 2022)

bulkocuber said:


> There's already a method called Hope, but it's an OLL parity avoidance method
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The z(z)eoring made by @ruffleduck does that, yes. You go up to LS with ZZ, then do OCELL but leave the DFR (assuming FR as last slot) corner misoriented (leaves another corner on top misoriented too, the corner at DFR MUST be an LL corner)
Then you do a variant of twisted TTLL that can just be solved with 2 commutators max every time (because the only cases you can get are pure 3 and 5 cycles). It's a cool method!
Pretty sure zeroing was a joke term for a long time about what feliks did that made his solves so fast, although I don't know the history that well.


----------



## hyn (Aug 10, 2022)

Method: Reduction to RU-gen z2 RU finish a.k.a. RRUz2RU
1. Orient all edges and place the 5 FL, DF, DL, BL and DB edges in the FL, DF, DL, BL and DB slots, in any order(not necessarily solved).
2. Use Old Pochmann corners(or 3-style?) to permute all corners. Other methods to do this can also be used, given they don't unorient edges or move the 5 edges from step 1.
3. Solve the 2x2x3 block from UF to BR using R and U moves. This can be done by moving the UR edge to DR and solving the two slots while phasing
4. z2
5. Solve the rest


----------



## CornerTwisted (Aug 10, 2022)

It is an interesting method I have been developing. I have been told that this method is very bad, but here is the tutorial! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19SgE0Rnjys9ga0w01g7hFER1HhdpK10r05lEA5DcKd4/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 10, 2022)

isn't this just a slightly worse version of petrus?


----------



## Timona (Aug 10, 2022)

CornerTwisted said:


> It is an interesting method I have been developing. I have been told that this method is very bad, but here is the tutorial! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19SgE0Rnjys9ga0w01g7hFER1HhdpK10r05lEA5DcKd4/edit?usp=sharing


This is actually very cool. Just saying...


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 10, 2022)

CornerTwisted said:


> It is an interesting method I have been developing. I have been told that this method is very bad, but here is the tutorial! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19SgE0Rnjys9ga0w01g7hFER1HhdpK10r05lEA5DcKd4/edit?usp=sharing


This seems like slightly worse LEOR


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 11, 2022)

PiKeeper said:


> This seems like slightly worse LEOR


Yeah it's just worse petrus because you loose out on efficiency from following a restricted path to 223, which is part of why mehta also is bad


----------



## CornerTwisted (Aug 11, 2022)

I no longer trust your judgement


OreKehStrah said:


> part of why mehta also is bad


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 11, 2022)

CornerTwisted said:


> I no longer trust your judgement


I thought everyone now agreed that Mehta was objectively worse Petrus?


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Aug 11, 2022)

PiKeeper said:


> I thought everyone now agreed that Mehta was objectively worse Petrus?


Yup we found out that mehta ends up worse in many of the ways it tried to be better...
It's a cool method but just not objectively among the top.


----------



## CornerTwisted (Aug 11, 2022)

People are just not good at Mehta right now. Looking at some statistics, it could be a godly method if somebody decided to speedsolve with it. The first few steps are intuitive and therefore require a lot of look ahead, and looking ahead to EO is really all you need. The rest of the method is highly ergonomic-friendly algorithms, making the solving experience optimised and fast.


----------



## Timona (Aug 11, 2022)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> Yup we found out that mehta ends up worse in many of the ways it tried to be better...
> It's a cool method but just not objectively among the top.


People haven't committed enough time to learning it and becoming world-class with it as with CFOP or Roux or even ZZ. Those methods have been around for more than 7 years, at least. Mehta is not even 3 years old at this point. If the method had been around for longer, it would probably be a different story. It's just gonna take time. 

The end of the method is mostly algorithmic, so people can start learning how to cancel between steps and stuff like that.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Aug 11, 2022)

Timona said:


> People haven't committed enough time to learning it and becoming world-class with it as with CFOP or Roux or even ZZ. Those methods have been around for more than 7 years, at least. Mehta is not even 3 years old at this point. If the method had been around for longer, it would probably be a different story. It's just gonna take time.
> 
> The end of the method is mostly algorithmic, so people can start learning how to cancel between steps and stuff like that.


Mehta-TDR (the best version) was also invented by a French person in 2017 and then abandoned because it sucked, only to be rediscovered and again be found not worth using.


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 11, 2022)

Timona said:


> People haven't committed enough time to learning it and becoming world-class with it as with CFOP or Roux or even ZZ. Those methods have been around for more than 7 years, at least. Mehta is not even 3 years old at this point. If the method had been around for longer, it would probably be a different story. It's just gonna take time


It's not that Mehta is new and that's why it's bad. It's that it has been proven to be worse than Petrus/APB. Athefre did a comparison between Mehta, Petrus, APB, and maybe some other variants and the results conclusively showed Mehta to be worse. Most of the people who initially used Mehta switched methods because of this. People need to accept that Mehta is not ever going to surpass Petrus/APB.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 11, 2022)

PiKeeper said:


> It's not that Mehta is new and that's why it's bad. It's that it has been proven to be worse than Petrus/APB. Athefre did a comparison between Mehta, Petrus, APB, and maybe some other variants and the results conclusively showed Mehta to be worse. Most of the people who initially used Mehta switched methods because of this. People need to accept that Mehta is not ever going to surpass Petrus/APB.


links on petrus/apb please?


----------



## Timona (Aug 11, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> links on petrus/apb please?


APB on the Wiki. Main Site.

Petrus.


----------



## Silky (Aug 12, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> isn't this just a slightly worse version of petrus?


Every method is a worse version of Petrus


----------



## Jouda_209 (Aug 13, 2022)

Hello my friends,
I was just wondering around, trying out stuff with ZZ and i thought about something. You know there is a type of ZZ called portico where instead of EOline you just solve one piece of EOline and ignore the other. Well as many of you know almost nobody now uses EOline, so i thought what if i do EOcross but ignore the DF edge? And than for last slot added winter variation of VLS. Turns out you are left with L5EP and CP. And i thought ok when i solve L5EP there are only 5 cases you can get after and those are Aa perm, Ab perm, H perm, E perm and solved state. But turns out the algs i found said there are 16 cases for L5EP, but it didnt include algs that don't have solved CP. So i did some diging and turns out, I cant find any of the algs I was looking for. If someone does know where to find these algs are, or has these alg please send them to me, i will be very grateful.


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 13, 2022)

L5EP doesn't involve the corners at all, so the algs don't change


----------



## Jouda_209 (Aug 13, 2022)

PiKeeper said:


> L5EP doesn't involve the corners at all, so the algs don't change


Well it doesnt, but you can get some sort of parity, becquse you can have just 2 edges and 2 corners swapped.


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 13, 2022)

Jouda_209 said:


> Well it doesnt, but you can get some sort of parity, becquse you can have just 2 edges and 2 corners swapped.


I guess you could gen them yourself with trangium's batch solver, or you could just solve corners and then do L5EP like everyone else.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 14, 2022)

kinda stupid 3x3x4 method i use

hold cube vertically

corners (dont care how you solve them)
bottom 4 edges (dont care how you solve)
top 4 edges in one look

rotate so the U/D layers are now L/R

Solve and finish one center and put that on D
solve the edges next to said center whilst solving the center above that, one at a time, by now, all centers are done
L4E, ALL IN ONE ALG

woohoo you did my corners first method


----------



## CornerTwisted (Aug 14, 2022)

woww wow


----------



## Xatu (Aug 15, 2022)

i came up with a method called ZZ-ZPL2
step 1: EO222
step 2: F2L-1
step 4: insert last corner while making 2x2x1 block on backright. And CP
step 5: solve with 18 algorithms

i invented a method called ZZ-ZPL2 which is a ZZ variant.
i'm here to say that it is not only very efficient, has a pretty low movecount, RUL gen, and only has 18 algs,
in theory, it’s very good.


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 15, 2022)

Xatu said:


> i came up with a method called ZZ-ZPL2
> step 1: EO222
> step 2: F2L-1
> step 3: CP
> ...


Is this really what you spent all that time harping about as one of the best methods? It's worse zz-d, which is itself worse than zz-a.


----------



## Xatu (Aug 15, 2022)

PiKeeper said:


> Is this really what you spent all that time harping about as one of the best methods? It's worse zz-d, which is itself worse than zz-a.


stop that. its a good method.



Jouda_209 said:


> Hello my friends,
> I was just wondering around, trying out stuff with ZZ and i thought about something. You know there is a type of ZZ called portico where instead of EOline you just solve one piece of EOline and ignore the other. Well as many of you know almost nobody now uses EOline, so i thought what if i do EOcross but ignore the DF edge? And than for last slot added winter variation of VLS. Turns out you are left with L5EP and CP. And i thought ok when i solve L5EP there are only 5 cases you can get after and those are Aa perm, Ab perm, H perm, E perm and solved state. But turns out the algs i found said there are 16 cases for L5EP, but it didnt include algs that don't have solved CP. So i did some diging and turns out, I cant find any of the algs I was looking for. If someone does know where to find these algs are, or has these alg please send them to me, i will be very grateful.


yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 15, 2022)

Xatu said:


> stop that. its a good method.


You can't just say that with no evidence. You can start by proving why it's better than zz-d which is eocross, f2l-1, solve pair and cp, 2gll.
Edit: Actually, you can just compare it to to zz-tripod. That's just your method but better since it doesn't involve cp.


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Aug 15, 2022)

Xatu said:


> yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge


I don't mean to be rude (I don't like doing that), but you really need to accept other peoples' criticism of your method.
If you think it's a good method, you should provide arguments as to _why_ it is a good method, and you should take into account why other people think it is good/bad.
I'll admit, the actual amount of valid criticism other than "this is bad/worse version of x" here is very minimal, so I'll try to explain what I think about the method here, and maybe some others will do the same.

Your first steps are fine, reaching EOF2L-1 is normally a good starting point for a ZZ variant, however EO222 is much more reminiscent of petrus than ZZ, which would solve an EOline/arrow/cross of some sort as its first step. Just doing EO with a block at the start is not really enough to call it a ZZ variant, but it doesn't matter much about how _good _the method actually is.

For step 3, there are a couple issues. Firstly, CP recognition is not the best (although it's not _that_ bad at LSLL), but the main issue is doing CP followed immediately by solving the corners. It would be better to do something at the same time as CP to make the method more move efficient and require less potential pausing, for example, using a technique like conjugated CLL to solve all the corners in one go, or doing CP and the block at the same time, and then solving the corners next.

Finally, for the last step, I don't quite know where you're going, as solving F2L-1, a 2x2x1 block on top, the corners, and EO leaves you with 3 edges to solve, which is only 2 algorithms.
This is a pretty good sign that you could sacrifice something from one of your previous steps, as ending with one of 2 algs shows that you have reduced the cube's state a little too far for less benefit. If, for example, you only solve 1x1x2 block on top, you would have 4 edges left, although that's still not many cases.
If you just did the corners and then finished, you'd have ZZ-zipper L5E (around 20 algs I think), which is better.
However, I think you might possibly mean something else with your steps, I'm not quite sure, but judging from what else you've said about missing one line edge, you could mean missing out an edge in the bottom layer too, in which case having that + an E layer edge unsolved + top edges will yield algs that are mediocre at best.

Right, there's my criticism, it was lengthier than I expected, but I really wanted to try and explain what's holding you back here.
Please take others' opinions into account, otherwise people will not think much of what you're saying if it's not backed up.

Hope I've helped in some way


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 15, 2022)

Just as with any other ZZ variant, this is worse than A. This is also worse than D, which itself is worse than A.

Hey, I've created a new variant. 
EOLine+BL pair.
F2L-DL
COLL
L5EP
This is called ZZ-p. Everyone learn it.

Ok, new variant, new name. It's bad. Let's not use any more letters - A, B, C and D suffice.


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 15, 2022)

Please stop promoting obscure/newly invented methods as godly without any evidence. Here's a quick breakdown of why your method is not godly.
1. First a clarification. Your method is not RUL gen for F2L since you'll have to do at least one F2 to solve the FD edge. 
2. Starting with an EO 2x2x2 is considered worse than eocross because of this. You also have overturning issues since the cross isn't solved.
3. Once you get to F2L-1 your method has three steps to finish the solve. ZZ-D does the exact same thing in two steps since it solves the pair while doing CP. ZZ-A also solves it in two steps and doesn't have annoying CP recog, so it's better than both.


----------



## Xatu (Aug 16, 2022)

PapaSmurf said:


> Just as with any other ZZ variant, this is worse than A. This is also worse than D, which itself is worse than A.
> 
> Hey, I've created a new variant.
> EOLine+BL pair.
> ...


everyone says that people stop saying it's worse than zz-d.



PiKeeper said:


> Please stop promoting obscure/newly invented methods as godly without any evidence. Here's a quick breakdown of why your method is not godly.
> 1. First a clarification. Your method is not RUL gen for F2L since you'll have to do at least one F2 to solve the FD edge.
> 2. Starting with an EO 2x2x2 is considered worse than eocross because of this. You also have overturning issues since the cross isn't solved.
> 3. Once you get to F2L-1 your method has three steps to finish the solve. ZZ-D does the exact same thing in two steps since it solves the pair while doing CP. ZZ-A also solves it in two steps and doesn't have annoying CP recog, so it's better than both.


it's 2 gen which is better


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 16, 2022)

Xatu said:


> everyone says that people stop saying it's worse than zz-d.


If you don't want people to say that, prove why it's not. I already gave an explanation of why zz-d is better, and you simply replied that it's 2 gen, which is also true for zz-d.


----------



## CornerTwisted (Aug 16, 2022)

Xatu said:


> yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge


Wording this in the nicest way possible: Your ZZ variants are trash.


----------



## Hazel (Aug 16, 2022)

From my understanding, recognizing CP mid-solve is pretty slow—might be wrong on this though.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Aug 16, 2022)

How can you make claims about move count if you haven't even generated algs? I think it's good to experiment with solving the cube in different ways and to always be open about ideas for new methods, but look at it objectively. Having an EO 2x2x2 block creates more problems than it solves with the FB edge not being solved. Plus it seems that the recognition is quite bad, and having only 18 algs makes me believe that too much of the solve is pure intuitive, which is good for beginners, but not not much beyond that


----------



## ruffleduck (Aug 16, 2022)

Xatu said:


> yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge


yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-A that theoretically and in practice is the best variant by a significant margin

This 3-look-LSLL CP-tripod hybrid variant was so inspirational I went on study the algorithms for _"solve the rest"_ myself...

Much to my disappointment, I discovered that there are actually 27 cases. Already down in the dumps I attempted to cheer myself up by giving Trang's batch solver a whirl. Surely the algs for such a brilliant variant would be excellent.

After a few minutes of computation, the batch solver spat out as one of the first algs... R2 U R' U R U2 R' U2 R2 U' R' U' R2 U R U R. The best alg for the case, but considerably worse than your average 2GLL. In agony I watched the computer struggle to crank out the other algs. No better. Only the three edge 3-cycle cases were decent.

The idea dawned on me that maybe... just maybe... we reduce down to 2GLL instead. I realized that 2GLL on average is better than these _"solve the rest"_ cases. Furthermore, it only takes 1 algorithmic step rather than 2 intuitive ones.

I am distraught by my findings but now have come to understand the truth. I hope these discoveries would have a similar effect on other ZZ theorycrafting enthusiasts.


----------



## Imsoosm (Aug 16, 2022)

Xatu said:


> yaeh i invented a better zz variant called ZZ-ZPL2 That ignores one line edge


You can't say that your method is better than others just because you think so. You have to take in consideration other people's thoughts on your method as well as their criticism. How would your method get better if all you said to people's advice/criticism is "blah blah blah"?


----------



## Xatu (Aug 16, 2022)

the method is good because:
1) low movecount (about 42)
2) low alg count (18)
3) mostly RUL and LU gen.
4) EO222. it's better than eocross but worse than eoline.



Imsoosm said:


> You can't say that your method is better than others just because you think so. You have to take in consideration other people's thoughts on your method as well as their criticism. How would your method get better if all you said to people's advice/criticism is "blah blah blah"?


look at my reply.



CornerTwisted said:


> Wording this in the nicest way possible: Your ZZ variants are trash.


how dare you


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Aug 16, 2022)

Xatu said:


> the method is good because:
> 1) low movecount (about 42)
> 2) low alg count (18)
> 3) mostly RUL and LU gen.
> 4) EO222. it's better than eocross but worse than eoline.


1) if the movecount is that low, provide some example solves (on average scrambles) that give that movecount.
2) This is fine, but 18 algs, as I said before, could mean a better, more efficient method if you sacrificed having an extremely low alg count for just having say, ~40 algs instead.
3) Same goes for normal ZZ variants.
4) EO222 leaves you with worse lookahead because of the bottom layer, something which EOcross is amazing at preventing. EOline/arrow/cross will be better in the case of a ZZ variant here.
Also, EOcross is better than EOline anyway, so how could it be better than EOcross but worse than EOline?

I know you have good intentions, but please accept criticism of your method. Good methods are really hard to come by and this is probably a good learning experience to help you make better methods in the future. Rather than trying to brute force your way through ZZ-ZPL2, consider trying something new that might end up working out better.
Providing some better arguments would probably also help people see you in a better way here, as someone appearing very stubborn doesn't give a great first impression.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 17, 2022)

No one is insulting you (and if they are, they shouldn't be). The criticism is simply directed at your method, then your stubborness is making it so that people are getting frustrated. I know it may seeem weird that literally everyone is saying your method is worse than ZZ-D or that the algs are trash or whatever, but there's a good reason for that - it's because they're both true.

EO2x2x2 - objectively a worse start than EOCross for speedsolving most of the time, as you get regrips and gripshifts everywhere. Also DF isn't solved, which doesn't help. (There are ways to make this work, but that's by solving FL and solving the rest RUD, which you're not proposing.)
F2L-1 - why don't you just do this the normal way? There's a reason people (generally) do EOCross->F2L-1 and that is because it's fast.
CP - why do this, other than case reduction? You'd be better off not doing this and just having 6 times more algs tbh.
Corner+1x2x2 - you're better off doing an edge, but you're better off just solving a pair normally and having ZBLL.
Solve - can't say for sure whether the algs are bad, but generally, having just an edge to solve into FR has bad algs (this is why ZZ-CT doesn't solve the corner, rather the edge in TSLE - CT tried both approaches).

I can't exactly say what the movecount is, but assuming all variants are the same up to F2L-1, you have 7+16=23 for ZZ-A and 6+7+solve (at least 13)=26. And that's me being nice. It's just objectively worse than ZZ-A (and ZZ-D). Don't get angry at me or annoyed because people have bad ideas. I have bad ideas. If someone criticises my idea, they're not criticising me because I'm not my idea. Just accept the criticism, see if there's anything you can do to use it, then if there isn't, move on. You'll have more ideas, I'm sure of it!

Happy cubing!


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 17, 2022)

I'm publishing a 4LLL in the order EO/EP/CO/CP

https://filipeteixeira.com.br/4lll-eo-ep-co-cp/

Pros:
It's fun to solve this way
it standardizes EPLL recognition
Uses sunes to solve EPLL, which can be fast
can be used as a stepping stone to full L4C (84 algs)
can maybe be used to teach beginners
roughly 13 algs (1 - sexy move, 1 - sune, 7 - oclls-epp, 4 - cpll)

Cons:
need to use two sunes to solve epll "parity"
EPLL recognition is counter-intuitive
4 CP cases (3 cp + hperm) at the end instead of 3
solving ocll while preserving edges permutation is a hassle and has bad algs comparing to traditional 4lll
it's pointless
the lists goes on...


----------



## CornerTwisted (Aug 17, 2022)

Isn’t that just jperm’s tutorial but with CFOP algs?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 17, 2022)

CornerTwisted said:


> Isn’t that just jperm’s tutorial but with CFOP algs?


I checked Jperm's tutorial after you posted, it has different order of solving (you permute corners before orienting) and different way of recognizing epll (basically you hope for the best) I think my solution to the epll recognition is really elegant :3


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 17, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I'm publishing a 4LLL in the order EO/EP/CO/CP
> 
> https://filipeteixeira.com.br/4lll-eo-ep-co-cp/
> 
> ...


This is nice and all, but isn't really new.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 17, 2022)

PapaSmurf said:


> This is nice and all, but isn't really new.


Show me where this epll recognition system were used before?


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 17, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Show me where this epll recognition system were used before?


I'm pretty sure it's just the no-brainer way of doing it. I have friends who can barely solve a 3x3 with the beginners method and they use this system. I didn't learn how to do the beginners method until after a year of cubing and I automatically used this system as it made the most logical sense.


----------



## Thom S. (Aug 18, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Show me where this epll recognition system were used before?


Didn't MMAP use this system in their earliest videos?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 18, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> I'm pretty sure it's just the no-brainer way of doing it. I have friends who can barely solve a 3x3 with the beginners method and they use this system. I didn't learn how to do the beginners method until after a year of cubing and I automatically used this system as it made the most logical sense.


except it's not a "no-brainer"
you solve the UL and recognize case

but wathever I don't expect no one to care anymore anyway

I wanted to develop a megaminx version of it but don't feel like it anymore


----------



## Thom S. (Aug 18, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> except it's not a "no-brainer"
> you solve the UL and recognize case
> 
> but wathever I don't expect no one to care anymore anyway
> ...


In the last few weeks it seems like nobody can take criticism anymore.
But i mean, that is kind of how I recognise the Edges for my ZBLLs so I don't expect nobody else has come up with this.


----------



## DynaXT (Aug 18, 2022)

I don't know if this is new or good, but on occasion I've implemented a pseudo center thing into my 4x4 solves. Basically when you make a center it has one white bar and one yellow bar (this can obviously change to red/orange and blue/green), then you do the same thing to the opposite center and before moving onto the rest, adjust the U and D layers if necessary and do Rw2 to finish F2C. It can be helpful if there isn't a good way to make a full center, but I don't know if it's efficient or not.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 18, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> In the last few weeks it seems like nobody can take criticism anymore.
> But i mean, that is kind of how I recognise the Edges for my ZBLLs so I don't expect nobody else has come up with this.


It's kinda hard to accept criticism when you have to deal with depression and anxiety
but yeah I think I'll just stay away from the forum for a while again
cya


----------



## Panagiotis Christopoulos (Sep 8, 2022)

So i found a method that requires the following steps
1. Solve the fastest tips (1-4 tip rotations)
2. Create one bar and make a cross (at most 8-9 moves)
3. do R U R' to put edges on the top layer into their correct place
3a. remove if a corner is in its wrong position, skipping a bad last layer case
4, Do last layer cases (if 3 is done correctly, then the horrible last layer cases are not gonna happen, only 2-flips and headlights

This method i think has potential to become a good speed beginner method since alg count is the exact same with LBL, since R U R' isnt really an alg.

What do you guys think? 
If you want to improve something ofcourse then!


----------



## the_chad (Sep 8, 2022)

This method already exist


----------



## cuberonio (Sep 10, 2022)

So I would like to create a new zb variant called zb platform , it is inspired by platform method ( check the platform method on speedsolving wiki ) , so the steps in platform are the cross , f2l, and instead of doing oll and then pll you create a line and then you do a 1lll but the creation of the line is confusing , so what I propose is that in the last slot you create a line and do the 1lll ( just 70 algs ) but I need help because I am not good for creating algs so I need someone to help me creating algs and yea , thats preety much it .
pros : less algs than normal zb 
low movecount
cons: some 1lll bad algs
still lots of algs ( probablly)


----------



## Imsoosm (Sep 10, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> So I would like to create a new zb variant called zb platform , it is inspired by platform method ( check the platform method on speedsolving wiki ) , so the steps in platform are the cross , f2l, and instead of doing oll and then pll you create a line and then you do a 1lll but the creation of the line is confusing , so what I propose is that in the last slot you create a line and do the 1lll ( just 70 algs ) but I need help because I am not good for creating algs so I need someone to help me creating algs and yea , thats preety much it .
> pros : less algs than normal zb
> low movecount
> cons: some 1lll bad algs
> still lots of algs ( probablly)


lol I came up with almost the exact same thing, except instead of ZBLL, it does into any of the 5+ unoriented pieces OLLs. Easier to force, but more algs.








The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread


Anti-EG-1 for 2x2 So if you build your side and there is bar on front, like Anti-CLL you recognise the diag corner case, then do the EG-1 for that case but cancel into R2 F2 R2 at the end. I just happened to come across a solve where this is useful. So @NigelTheCuber you were imitating...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## cuberonio (Sep 10, 2022)

lol


----------



## cuberonio (Sep 14, 2022)

So, this method is called EO1155.
The Sove starts by you doing Edge orientation and solving the f2l -1.
then you do like 8355 where you orient your Yellow cross pieces.
And then you do L5C.
Improvements : maybe creating algs for the second step.
This method is inspired by 8355.


----------



## OreKehStrah (Sep 14, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> So, this method is called EO1155.
> The Sove starts by you doing Edge orientation and solving the f2l -1.
> then you do like 8355 where you orient your Yellow cross pieces.
> And then you do L5C.
> ...


This is in fact not new by any means


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Sep 14, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> So, this method is called EO1155.


Cool. Love the name, just rrrrrolls off the tongue.


cuberonio said:


> The Sove starts by you doing Edge orientation and solving the f2l -1.


Sounds very easy, a great first step since that can consistently be planned out in inspection! No skill needed. 


cuberonio said:


> then you do like 8355 where you orient your Yellow cross pieces.


I always fancied orientating edges after I already have them orientated from doing it in the beginning of the solve. Also, down with CN, white cross FTW!


cuberonio said:


> And then you do L5C.


Super feasible. Love to see it. Great set with reasonable amount of case and amazing recognition.


cuberonio said:


> Improvements : maybe creating algs for the second step.


If your edges are already orientated then it's pretty intuitive and anyone could simply find all the cases in under ten minutes.


cuberonio said:


> This method is inspired by 8355.


One of the greatest.


----------



## Steve860315 (Sep 16, 2022)

1.
Make the cross on all sides of the Rubik's cube. It means make the Edge pieces locate in the right place.

You can use old former formulas and also you can use other new formula I found and I'll explain this formula later.


2.
Make the Corner pieces locatw in the right place with right color sides.

This process needs two similar formulas actually in my opinion those two formulas are based on same principle.

A= RF'R'FU(1/2/3)F'RFR'U(1/2/3)
A'= L'FLF'U(1/2/3)FL'F'LU(1/2/3)

You can make at most 6 Corner pieces locate in right place with these two similar formulas.

And In this process you have to remian only two Corner pieces each from top side(white side) and bottom side(yellow side)


3.
Then we can see the rest two corner pieces not locates rightly. There are three different cases, but actually they can be converged into one case.

The last one case is discerned with the relations of blocks and colors and the relative location of blocks at one side.

And in certain way and direction, you can make blocks finish with the same A&A' formulas, which I mentioned above.

I'll upload and show you this process and making cube with this new method in instruction video.

Or you can check this one case with Picture No.1,2,3

No.1



No.2.



No.3.



●Appendix●

The making cross all sides in other words making Edge pieces in right place process can be solved with new formula similar with A&A' formulas I found.

M'FDF'D'(×)MD(3-×)R'DR

And it also needs certain state before adapting this new cross formula, ans I'll also explain it with video.

Or you can check this process with Picture No.4.

No.4




This new easy way to solve 3×3×3 Rubik's cube has three features comparing with other former formulas.

*1. the making cross on all sides is the first step in this new way.

*2. The making Corner pieces formulas are based on the same principle that is not changing the Edge pieces and switching the Corner pieces.

*3. This new way could be accepted as non-formula ways like french Roux method to somebody who are very farmillar with solving cubes and finding cube formulas.

CLICK VIDEO LINK


----------



## abunickabhi (Sep 16, 2022)

This is a similar beginner's method that I use to solve a ghost cube.


----------



## Steve860315 (Sep 16, 2022)

File version of this formula.


----------



## abunickabhi (Sep 17, 2022)

Can you make a video so that it is easier to follow through all the steps?


----------



## Steve860315 (Sep 17, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> Can you make a video so that it is easier to follow through all the steps?


Sure I'll make a video tomorrow and upload soon.


----------



## S1neWav_ (Sep 17, 2022)

My brother in Christ, with all due respect, what are you on about?


----------



## Thom S. (Sep 17, 2022)

S1neWav_ said:


> My brother in Christ, with all due respect, what are you on about?


From how I understand
Step1 solve all Edges
Step2 solve all corners

Also they call both Method and Algorithm a Formula.


----------



## Panagiotis Christopoulos (Sep 17, 2022)

Ive created an OLL method where its like 2-look oll but instead of orienting edges then corners, but then you do corners and then edges.
There are 8 algoriithms. 
Step 1) You look at the corner orientation of the OLL, and use one of the 2x2 OLL Algorithms to orient the edges
Step 2) You use only 2 algorithms for the 2 cases that exist to orient the edges
Step 3) Oriented!

For step 2 the 2 cases are: 
1. 2 opposite edges unoriented
2, 2 adjacent edges unoriented.


----------



## the_chad (Sep 17, 2022)

There are three cases with misoriented edges


----------



## LBr (Sep 17, 2022)

Eo is simpler as it only requires f sexy f’ triggers and co isn’t much worse except the u case. Eo is slightly worse when you need to preserve co so it’s not worth it. The originality of this is very questionable as well


----------



## abunickabhi (Sep 17, 2022)

Panagiotis Christopoulos said:


> Ive created an OLL method where its like 2-look oll but instead of orienting edges then corners, but then you do corners and then edges.
> There are 8 algoriithms.
> Step 1) You look at the corner orientation of the OLL, and use one of the 2x2 OLL Algorithms to orient the edges
> Step 2) You use only 2 algorithms for the 2 cases that exist to orient the edges
> Step 3) Oriented!


Sounds interesting. I find doing edges first to be good as we get some good EO cases.

Your order of 2 look OLL has some merit as well, as we can do EPLLs after doing the corners.


----------



## Panagiotis Christopoulos (Sep 17, 2022)

the_chad said:


> There are three cases with misoriented edges


yeah i forgot about it im sorry


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 17, 2022)

Panagiotis Christopoulos said:


> Ive created an OLL method where its like 2-look oll but instead of orienting edges then corners, but then you do corners and then edges.
> There are 8 algoriithms.
> Step 1) You look at the corner orientation of the OLL, and use one of the 2x2 OLL Algorithms to orient the edges
> Step 2) You use only 2 algorithms for the 2 cases that exist to orient the edges
> Step 3) Oriented!


This isn't new.


----------



## Steve860315 (Sep 18, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> From how I understand
> Step1 solve all Edges
> Step2 solve all corners
> 
> Also they call both Method and Algorithm a Formula.


Exactly right. I'll upload video soon.


----------



## cuberonio (Oct 1, 2022)

Weird zz

Step 1 - eoline
Step 2 left block
Step 3 - right block with the opposite colour
Step 4- ocll
Step 5 weird pll
Step 6 put the opposite colour line that is on top um the bottom to solve the cube


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 1, 2022)

Non Matching Blocks

Known Technique
Used mostly with Roux and ZZ Variants. Less commonly seen with Petrus and CFOP.


----------



## ruffleduck (Oct 1, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> Step 1 - eoline
> Step 2 left block
> Step 3 - right block with the opposite colour
> Step 4- ocll
> ...


a worse variant of zz-4c


----------



## Spriteblood (Oct 1, 2022)

Hello,

I wanted to share a method I designed some months ago and make it open for discussion.
It is a column-first method that mixes some elements from Roux and also adds an unseen part based on uM-Moves.

The core idea is to solve all centers in the last step and let them open during the first parts of the solve to give access to some l/r/S/E/M based improvements.

The method has 4 parts:
1: column building on first 2 layers. (very well known and easy to do for both CFOP and Roux solvers)
2: CMLL (With the case that DL/DR-edges and R/L-centers are not solved, so I guess here is some space for improved algs, but I haven't worked on that yet)
3: DL/DR edge solve (intuitive): Easy to do, good lookahead, normally <6 moves. (It can also be DF/DB which can be completed with an additional d/d' move or whole cube twist)
4: CLSE: (corners & last six edges,): The signature part of this method which gives it it's name: 
You solve the R & L centers and orient all 6 remaining edges in one uM-based algorithm! This results in a pre-oriented LSE case that can be solved in just some more moves (known from Roux)

See the slow example solve






And a real-life example solve:






I also want to submit the (unfinished) list of uM-algs for the last step (with some visuals to make them easier to memorize)


Another example solve

Scramble: R2 F' B2 R' U2 D' B U' L' R' B' R' L2 D2 R L B' L' F2 U' B2 F2 R D U'

R u' L' U L U' M2 U2 R' U R M U' M2 F U2 F' //Columns
U2 L' U2 L U2’ L F' L' F //CMLL
U M U2 M' D' M' E' //D(RL)-Slotting
M' u M2 u' M U2 M2 U M U2 M U2 M2 //CLSE 

Thank you for listening!


----------



## EvanCuber (Oct 2, 2022)

EvanCuber


----------



## cuberonio (Oct 2, 2022)

Spriteblood said:


> Hello,
> 
> I wanted to share a method I designed some months ago and make it open for discussion.
> It is a column-first method that mixes some elements from Roux and also adds an unseen part based on uM-Moves.
> ...


It is a pretty cool method


----------



## cuberonio (Oct 5, 2022)

Beguinner method :
1-cross
2-f2l
3-ocll- like cfce but you do not need to do cmll , just ocll
4-finish with 134 algs(1lll)
Intermidiante method:
1 cross
2 f2l-1
3 wv to orient corners
4 finish with 134 algs
Advanced method :
1 cross
2 f2l-1
3 zz Ols - see corner orientation and preform 1of 501 algs to Orient the corneta
4- finish with 134 algs


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Oct 5, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> Beguinner method :
> 1-cross
> 2-f2l
> 3-ocll- like cfce but you do not need to do cmll , just ocll
> 4-finish with 134 algs(1lll)



Never though I'd hear of a "beginner" method that requires 134 algs, as well as full f2l. My concern with this technique, aside from large alg counts for a beginner method, is the ergonomics. If I'm understanding this correct, you wish to solve CP, EP, and EO in one alg, and I would imagine there would be lots of awkward turns required to orient the edges. 

Also, are you sure that 134 is the correct number of algs? Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but that number seems quite low.


----------



## cuberonio (Oct 5, 2022)

Mastermind2368 said:


> Never though I'd hear of a "beginner" method that requires 134 algs, as well as full f2l. My concern with this technique, aside from large alg counts for a beginner method, is the ergonomics. If I'm understanding this correct, you wish to solve CP, EP, and EO in one alg, and I would imagine there would be lots of awkward turns required to orient the edges.
> 
> Also, are you sure that 134 is the correct number of algs? Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but that number seems quite low.


Yes , I am sure , they are the rarest , só they can not have that many algs , but I am sure


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 5, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> Beguinner method :
> 1-cross
> 2-f2l
> 3-ocll- like cfce but you do not need to do cmll , just ocll
> ...


I’m gonna set aside the slightly incorrect number of LL algs for a sec.
You can’t use just ZZ OLS since it requires EO of the last F2L edge. Because you do not state eo to enable this you actually have around 1000 algs for LS. The total alg count is 72+40+22+21 for LL.


----------



## cuberonio (Oct 5, 2022)

OreKehStrah said:


> I’m gonna set aside the slightly incorrect number of LL algs for a sec.
> You can’t use just ZZ OLS since it requires EO of the last F2L edge. Because you do not state eo to enable this you actually have around 1000 algs for LS. The total alg count is 72+40+22+21 for LL.


No , but you ONLY need to see the corners , and if that so , how can you preform WV when the edges are not oriented ?


----------



## hyn (Oct 5, 2022)

Mastermind2368 said:


> Also, are you sure that 134 is the correct number of algs? Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but that number seems quite low.


Forgive me if I'm wrong
4x21(for the adj unprinted edges) - (3+2+2+3+3)(for H,Z,E,Ns symmetry) + 2x21(opp unoriented) - (1+1+1)(H,N symmetry) + 21 + 21 = 152


----------



## cuberonio (Oct 5, 2022)

hyn said:


> Forgive me if I'm wrong
> 4x21(for the adj unprinted edges) - (3+2+2+3+3)(for H,Z,E,Ns symmetry) + 2x21(opp unoriented) - (1+1+1)(H,N symmetry) + 21 + 21 = 152


You are right . It is not 134 cases because I did not Counted Pll Soo , it is 155 algs


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 5, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> No , but you ONLY need to see the corners , and if that so , how can you preform WV when the edges are not oriented ?


That's what I'm asking YOU. You said to use ZZ OLS but that requires the F2L edge to be oriented. You need double the algs to orient LL corners with CFOP F2L-1 as there are more LS cases due to not having EO


----------



## hyn (Oct 6, 2022)

OreKehStrah said:


> That's what I'm asking YOU. You said to use ZZ OLS but that requires the F2L edge to be oriented. You need double the algs to orient LL corners with CFOP F2L-1 as there are more LS cases due to not having EO


I agree with the f2l edge stuff, but there'll still be less cases since u don't need to care about whether the last layer edges end up oriented or not, so it would probably be less by a factor of 8(since there are 8 ols cases for each different corner case)


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 6, 2022)

hyn said:


> I agree with the f2l edge stuff, but there'll still be less cases since u don't need to care about whether the last layer edges end up oriented or not, so it would probably be less by a factor of 8(since there are 8 ols cases for each different corner case)


uhhhhhhh, you have no idea what you are talking about. For any given COLS case (excluding cases where the edge and corner are in the slot), there are 27 cases for EACH LS case. There are 42 LS cases for CFOP. You will ALWAYS have more cases to orient corners due to not always having the F2L edge solved. LL EO has NOTHING to do with CO


----------



## hyn (Oct 6, 2022)

OreKehStrah said:


> uhhhhhhh, you have no idea what you are talking about. For any given COLS case (excluding cases where the edge and corner are in the slot), there are 27 cases for EACH LS case. There are 42 LS cases for CFOP. You will ALWAYS have more cases to orient corners due to not always having the F2L edge solved. LL EO has NOTHING to do with CO


Oh ok, I must have incorrectly assumed that u didn't account for that and used the raw ols figure or smthing
I meant OLS / 8, which still seems to be wrong?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 6, 2022)

hyn said:


> Oh ok, I must have incorrectly assumed that u didn't account for that and used the raw ols figure or smthing
> I meant OLS / 8, which still seems to be wrong?


These are the possible COs
Oriented - 1

H - 2 angles

PTULSA -4 angles each 

1 + 2 + 6*4 = 27 cases for CO an inverse of an F2L case can be applied to. 

EO of LL edges has nothing to do with an algset that only cares about last slot and LL CO. 
ZZ has 20 LS cases. CFOP has 42. Naturally you now have double the cases to solve CO+LS. 
I have no clue why you are dividing OLS by 8


----------



## hyn (Oct 6, 2022)

OreKehStrah said:


> I have no clue why you are dividing OLS by 8


I thought OLS / 8(which is the number of edge orientations per corner case) would give COLS, just like how OLL without aufs (216) / OCLL without aufs (27) would give EOLL without auf = 8


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 6, 2022)

Over the past month or so, this thread has been mostly not new (second word in the title). The only really new thing (from what I can tell) was the cool EO+centres thing for Columns. People don't care about Platform because it's not good, people don't want 134 alg beginner methods, people don't want to do edges first. Think and do research before you just post on this thread, even if it's just for 5 minutes. Just because you had an idea doesn't make it good. There's a reason why people don't do something that took you 15 minutes to discover and that's probably because it's bad. Don't spam this thread with terrible ideas please, it's not a dump for your ideas. 

I know that some people are new to this, and that's alright, ask away! You'll learn faster. If you're not new to this (Mr Platform Guy, I'm looking at you), try to learn somewhat from past ideas and criticism of the ideas - it will help everyone.


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Oct 19, 2022)

Working on something called "SFOP", I'm not sure if anyone had also thought of this but this is basically "Beginner Ortega" or something.

Here's how it works:

1. Learn either 2-look OLL and PLL or Full OLL and PLL, you don't have to learn them all just the ones without M slices but since most of us have already memorized these, then just use the ones without M slices

2. Make the First Layer, you should know how to do this since you need to learn the 2x2 Beginner's Method before this.

3. Orient and Permute the last layer with the OLL and PLL algs.

And it's solved.

I know its not fast but definitely something you should practice before Ortega.

Imagine 2x2 Roux.. in an alternate dimension..


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 19, 2022)

lucazdoescubingstuff said:


> Working on something called "SFOP", I'm not sure if anyone had also thought of this but this is basically "Beginner Ortega" or something.
> 
> Here's how it works:
> 
> ...


Isn't this literally LBL/Beginner Method for 2x2?
I mean, you do a Layer, OLL and PLL. That's what LBL does.

Roux 2x2. Theoretically, that is CLL/EG0.
If you are really inclined you could even do your Layer in 2 Steps to get that Roux Feeling


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Oct 19, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> Isn't this literally LBL/Beginner Method for 2x2?
> I mean, you do a Layer, OLL and PLL. That's what LBL does.
> 
> Roux 2x2. Theoretically, that is CLL/EG0.
> If you are really inclined you could even do your Layer in 2 Steps to get that Roux Feeling


welp, im dumb, i basically just renamed lbl.. sorry for the bad idea.. and after i learn ortega i'll check out CLL


----------



## LBr (Oct 19, 2022)

2x2 roux is legit just CLL


----------



## cuberonio (Oct 23, 2022)

So, the first method it is a variant of zz d :
1 Eoline
2 Left block
3 CP+BR square
4 1llsll
The second method is :
1 2x2x3 block at the back
2 insert the FDR and FDL corners and the FD Edge
3 CMLL
4 Finish with One alg permuting the last 6 pieces

Other alternative is after you make the 2x2x3 you do Edge orientation and then you do step 2 , 3 and 4


----------



## GodCubing (Oct 23, 2022)

You can't use CMLL when DF is solved


----------



## Z perm (Oct 23, 2022)

waht is 1llsll


----------



## LBr (Oct 23, 2022)

1 look last slot last layer


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 23, 2022)

cuberonio said:


> So, the first method it is a variant of zz d :
> 1 Eoline
> 2 Left block
> 3 CP+BR square
> ...


Neither of these ideas are new. This should have been posted in the new ideas thread as well. As for the ZZ-D thing, this has already been looked into and as it would turn out, the speed optimal solutions are often just do LS into 2GLL.


----------



## G DA CUBER (Oct 29, 2022)

I just came up with a new method!

1. the F2BOSPLL method:

1) make a bar at DL (first Bar).
2)make the bar at UR (second Bar).
3) Do R2 and Oll with both colors.
4) Separate (if there is a checkered pattern, put it on top and do U' R2 F2 R U R' F2 R F' R'.
5) PBL (usually PLL just from different angles).

Reply here for any questions.

The name is First 2 Bars (F2B), Oll+seperation (OS) and PLL.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Oct 29, 2022)

What is a bar? 1x2x3, 1x1x3?
Why would you not just do CFOP?
Why would you force yourself to do PLL twice?

I would presume that it would be slower than any of the big 4 (and other methods beside them).


----------



## G DA CUBER (Oct 29, 2022)

PapaSmurf said:


> What is a bar? 1x2x3, 1x1x3?
> Why would you not just do CFOP?
> Why would you force yourself to do PLL twice?
> 
> I would presume that it would be slower than any of the big 4 (and other methods beside them).


This was originally in a thread called New 2x2 Method. They moved it here while I was offline.

sorry.


----------



## levi.m (Oct 29, 2022)

hello this is a new method called the Marrs method and it's made by me
1.Solve a 1x2x3 on the back-left.
2.do a z rotation then you start solving the middle edges while solving the bottom layer corners.
3.orient the top layer corners.
4.solve the top layer corners using one algorithm.
5.L5E
6.(optional)adjust U and D faces.

you can do steps four and five simultaneously
if you want the best cases where the top corners are solved you can learn CMLL from roux


----------



## Abram Grimsley (Oct 29, 2022)

levi.m said:


> hello this is a new method called the Marrs method and it's made by me
> 1.Solve a 1x2x3 on the back-left.
> 2.do a z rotation then you start solving the middle edges while solving the bottom layer corners.
> 3.orient the top layer corners.
> ...


Pretty cool!


----------



## fdskljgrie (Oct 29, 2022)

Nice! What do you average using it?


----------



## levi.m (Oct 29, 2022)

fdskljgrie said:


> Nice! What do you average using it?


30-35


----------



## levi.m (Oct 30, 2022)

thinking about this add on the cfop a while


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Nov 1, 2022)

hey i thought about making a 4x4 method like meyer but instead of pairing edges like in yau, its like in hoya (cause i use hoya and wondered if it could work)

solve u/d centers 
solve ur block center+ adj center (i usually do b center) 
solve block edges like in hoya cross (and insert the block corners)
solve DR edge in the remaining slot 
solve the 2 remaining centers (alternatively u could insert the block corners after this step for more freedom on this step)
pair edges (3-2-3)
put block on left, U2 R2 (solve DR edge) + 3x3 stage (roux)

is this a good method or could there be improvement?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 2, 2022)

It's about as good as Meyer and Hoya on 4x4 and therefore suffers from the drawbacks they both have, and it's also not new (unfortunate, but is kinda expected with two common methods).


----------



## Xnightslayer99 (Nov 2, 2022)

Funni Method might not be viable.
1. Make a Roux block
2. Turn it into a Petrus block
3. Do Petrus untill F2L-1 and do ZB For the rest
4. Alternatively finish F2L and do a ZBLL


----------



## Thom S. (Nov 2, 2022)

Xnightslayer99 said:


> Do Petrus untill F2L-1 and do ZB For the rest
> 4. Alternatively finish F2L and do a ZBLL


In Petrus you always do EO then F2L. There's no need for ZBLS


Xnightslayer99 said:


> Funni Method might not be viable


And also not new.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Nov 2, 2022)

Xnightslayer99 said:


> Funni Method might not be viable.
> 1. Make a Roux block
> 2. Turn it into a Petrus block
> 3. Do Petrus untill F2L-1 and do ZB For the rest
> 4. Alternatively finish F2L and do a ZBLL


This is literally Petrus. Roux FB turning into "Petrus Block" is a 223. Petrus calls for building a 223, just like APB and Mehta. You get to that stage through the fastest way possible, your proposal is actually the recommended way for 223.

Also 3 and 4 don't make sense. If you do Petrus until F2L-1 then you don't need to do ZBLS (part of ZB) because EO is already done. 

Very viable method, but it's not funny or original.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Nov 11, 2022)

Hazel said:


> So, here's another method idea:
> 1) Standard Roux FB on left
> 1.5) Solve the BR/BDR F2L pair.
> 2) Use keyhole to solve the rest of the first layer, minus DF and DFR pieces
> ...


Very cool idea, I think it's worth bumping. Have algorithms for CPLE been created?


----------



## mkt (Nov 17, 2022)

New choice for CFOP from JAPAN.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FhXBe2qJ6i_iN5vzaLNvx02CmZNxQzlJ/view

Read with Google Translate.


----------



## Skewbed (Nov 17, 2022)

mkt said:


> New choice for CFOP from JAPAN.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FhXBe2qJ6i_iN5vzaLNvx02CmZNxQzlJ/view
> 
> Read with Google Translate.


Seems like a similar idea to ZZ-Blah. I like the idea.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Nov 17, 2022)

mkt said:


> New choice for CFOP from JAPAN.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FhXBe2qJ6i_iN5vzaLNvx02CmZNxQzlJ/view
> 
> Read with Google Translate.


Neat idea; however, why force that case in particular? To me it seems like you came up with the name first and then built a method around it. Generally forcing an Anti-ZBLL is suboptimal.


----------



## mkt (Nov 17, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> Neat idea; however, why force that case in particular? To me it seems like you came up with the name first and then built a method around it. Generally forcing an Anti-ZBLL is suboptimal.


thank you!
The main focus of this technique is the simplification of dot OLL.
It also has the potential to make your hated OLL a simple procedure.

Otherwise, choice OLL PLL.

You made a sharp point.
This method is choice, not force.


----------



## levi.m (Nov 19, 2022)

here's the tutorial on my Rubik's cube method if you want speed solve it:


----------



## Skewbed (Nov 22, 2022)

I don't know if this has been proposed before, but if the recognition is worth it, you can conjugate OLL and PLL in CFOP.

Steps:
1. Cross
2. F2L-1
3. 1x1x2 in the U-layer (less moves than last pair)
4. Do an R/R' (depending on the location of the corner and the edge in the pair)
5. OLL
6. PLL
7. Undo the R/R'

Example Solve (regular CFOP would be faster for this one, but just an example):
alg.cubing.net link
L2 D' B2 F2 R2 D U2 R2 F2 U' B2 U R F2 U F' L' D2 R2 F U'

z2 // inspection
F' (R L) (B F2) // cross
R' U' R L' U2 L // 1st pair
y R U2 R2' U' R2 U R' U2 L' U' L // 2nd+3rd pair
U2 R' F R F' y' R' // setup psuedo-LL
M R U R' U R U2 R' U M' // OLL
U R' U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R' // PLL with cancellation


----------



## OreKehStrah (Nov 22, 2022)

Skewbed said:


> I don't know if this has been proposed before, but if the recognition is worth it, you can conjugate OLL and PLL in CFOP.
> 
> Steps:
> 1. Cross
> ...


This is a very old concept called many things such as transformation/non-matching F2L, etc


----------



## Hazel (Dec 1, 2022)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> Very cool idea, I think it's worth bumping. Have algorithms for CPLE been created?


Completely forgot about this method lol, I don't think it's a method worth pursuing though, it's kinda just Roux but with extra steps that don't make the solve faster


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Dec 1, 2022)

Hazel said:


> Completely forgot about this method lol, I don't think it's a method worth pursuing though, it's kinda just Roux but with extra steps that don't make the solve faster


I suppose it could be compared with Roux though I think it's more similar to MI1. I do agree that it's inferior to Roux but I just think that CPLE sounds like a really cool algset.


----------



## PulseVo1d (Dec 1, 2022)

Really dumb idea:

Make Roux F2B
Orient UF and UB edges
do an M2
Solve CFOP OLL + PLL
M2 to solve cube

Edit: Step 4 can be broken into 2, and you can put the final M2 in between OLL and PLL to give an easier to recognize PLL case.


----------



## G DA CUBER (Dec 4, 2022)

I came up with a last slot method for 3x3. I call it GLS

1.F2l-1
2. Insert corner.
3. insert the edge while orienting all LL edges.
4.LL 

I will start genning algs for this.
If this has already been invented, just tell me.


----------



## Findnf (Dec 4, 2022)

Weird method I made for a JOKE bc everybody hates N-perms


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 4, 2022)

G DA CUBER said:


> I came up with a last slot method for 3x3. I call it GLS
> 
> 1.F2l-1
> 2. Insert corner.
> ...


there is MGLS by @Lucas Garron where you insert edge orienting edges, inser corner orienting corners, and do PLL


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 4, 2022)

G DA CUBER said:


> 1.F2l-1


That is one big step



G DA CUBER said:


> If this has already been invented, just tell me.


It has


----------



## G DA CUBER (Dec 4, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> here is MGLS by @Lucas Garron where you insert edge orienting edges, inser corner orienting corners, and do PLL


In this substep, you do the corner first then you do the edge.

Also, I am aware of MGLS


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 4, 2022)

G DA CUBER said:


> In this substep, you do the corner first then you do the edge.


and what's the advantage?

also MGLS ends in PLL, 21 algs, and your method ends with ZBLL which is a lot more


----------



## G DA CUBER (Dec 4, 2022)

The 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 4, 2022)

G DA CUBER said:


> The 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.


1. Get out.
2. It does, however ask you to think about your method for more that 6 Minutes, which you clearly didn't do.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 4, 2022)

G DA CUBER said:


> The 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.


bruh, no one specified to me that I have to breath to stay alive. I'm just not plain dumb


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Dec 4, 2022)

G DA CUBER said:


> The 'please read before posting' at the start does not specify that the method has to be good.


So then why are you proposing a method that's not good or original? APB is a great method proposal, RUBAR is an original method. Yours is a method anyone can think up. This thread already has enough method dumps. If you're going to chide people for criticizing your method at least make the method good.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Dec 5, 2022)

G DA CUBER said:


> I came up with a last slot method for 3x3. I call it GLS
> 
> 1.F2l-1
> 2. Insert corner.
> ...


It is just ZB with more steps.


----------



## levi.m (Dec 8, 2022)

random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 8, 2022)

levi.m said:


> random Rubik's cube method


I'm telling you guys, if the first line of a post reads like this, the method was made in 5 minutes.


levi.m said:


> random Rubik's cube method
> 1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
> 2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
> 3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
> ...


You didn't solve the M Centers. 
BLS should exist somewhere. The algs are better that ELSOLL, but are longer than VLS.


----------



## levi.m (Dec 8, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> I'm telling you guys, if the first line of a post reads like this, the method was made in 5 minutes.
> 
> You didn't solve the M Centers.
> BLS should exist somewhere. The algs are better that ELSOLL, but are longer than VLS.


i made it in five days


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 8, 2022)

levi.m said:


> i made it in five days


1 min a day


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Dec 9, 2022)

levi.m said:


> random Rubik's cube method
> 1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
> 2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
> 3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
> ...


Another way you can say it is:
1. xxcross
2. Do BdR really bad so LS can be good
3. nvm make LS bad so you can get an OLL skip (Literally VLS)
4. PLL

Not the worst method in the world but it's still not great. At all.


----------



## sDLfj (Tuesday at 2:02 PM)

I thought of a fast way to solve the last layer. I'm sure it's already been thought of, but I'm just wondering how fast it is compared to CFOP 3lll (which I currently know). Solve the corners (orient and permutate) with 2x2 cll. Then use <M,U> algorithms to solve the cube.

These averages assume all cases have an equal probability of appearing
The average moves for CLL(10.02) + <M,U> Perms (7.5) is 17.5 moves
The average moves for PLL are 13.4

OLL is likely slower than CLL, and <M,U> perms are faster than the average PLL. So solving the corners, then edges, should be faster than solving OLL, then PLL.


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Tuesday at 2:14 PM)

sDLfj said:


> I thought of a fast way to solve the last layer. I'm sure it's already been thought of, but I'm just wondering how fast it is compared to CFOP 3lll (which I currently know). Solve the corners (orient and permutate) with 2x2 cll. Then use <M,U> algorithms to solve the cube.
> 
> These averages assume all cases have an equal probability of appearing
> The average moves for CLL(10.02) + <M,U> Perms (7.5) is 17.5 moves
> ...


that's cll+ell and many people know what it is. it is slower than normal oll+pll


----------



## sDLfj (Tuesday at 3:46 PM)

NigelTheCuber said:


> that's cll+ell and many people know what it is. it is slower than normal oll+pll


Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?

Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Tuesday at 4:13 PM)

sDLfj said:


> Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?
> 
> Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.



CLL





CxLL - Speedsolving.com Wiki







www.speedsolving.com




ELL


https://sarah.cubing.net/3x3x3/ell.pdf


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Tuesday at 6:01 PM)

sDLfj said:


> Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?
> 
> Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.


For a lot of ELL cases <MU> isn't optimal, <S,R,U,M> would be better (Though obviously, you won't have all of that in very many algs.)

The method you proposed is called CFCE. The reason it isn't as popular is due to many reasons but it is often considered inferior because recognition is worse and the algorithms are trickier. It's certainly not an invalid method, it's just few cubers want to take the risk.


Filipe Teixeira said:


> ELL
> 
> 
> https://sarah.cubing.net/3x3x3/ell.pdf


Don't even bother.



ELL algorithms



These are much better.


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Wednesday at 6:51 AM)

so i thought of a 3x3 method that i think would be very useful

1. You first make 2 1x2x3 blocks like in Roux
2. Solve CMLL
3. insert the remaining edge of the face that you made the 1x2x3 blocks with
4. you get less OLLs if you know full OLL


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Wednesday at 9:41 AM)

lucazdoescubingstuff said:


> so i thought of a 3x3 method that i think would be very useful
> 
> 1. You first make 2 1x2x3 blocks like in Roux
> 2. Solve CMLL
> ...


This method has been proposed before as the ski method of I'm not mistaken


----------



## PapaSmurf (Wednesday at 10:10 AM)

That isn't skis, but it's not good. This is a variant of the method that has been proposed a bajillion times (Roux F2B, finish F2L, OLL, PLL). Use Roux or CFOP (or ZZ ), but don't use this.


----------



## Thom S. (Wednesday at 10:55 AM)

Essentially the same Roux-CFOP hybrid that gets proposed over and over again. This time WITH CMLL


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Wednesday at 11:09 AM)

oh sorry I misread the 1x2x3 part


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Wednesday at 11:09 AM)

PapaSmurf said:


> That isn't skis, but it's not good. This is a variant of the method that has been proposed a bajillion times (Roux F2B, finish F2L, OLL, PLL). Use Roux or CFOP (or ZZ ), but don't use this.


ohh okay.. i thought this time i finally made a method..


----------



## V Achyuthan (Wednesday at 11:11 AM)

DuckubingCuber347 said:


> So then why are you proposing a method that's not good or original? APB is a great method proposal, RUBAR is an original method. Yours is a method anyone can think up. This thread already has enough method dumps. If you're going to chide people for criticizing your method at least make the method good.


What is RUBAR?


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Wednesday at 12:18 PM)

Thom S. said:


> This time WITH CMLL


so i DID come up with something different.. ig


----------



## Swagrid (Wednesday at 1:49 PM)

V Achyuthan said:


> What is RUBAR?


One of few bandage reduction methods for 3x3.


----------



## Thom S. (Wednesday at 2:31 PM)

lucazdoescubingstuff said:


> so i DID come up with something different.. ig


Maybe, but you add a step to essentially make 2 look OLL with 
42 Cases(CMLL) for Step 1
29 Cases(ELL) for Step 2


----------



## Cuber.Hello.com(: (Wednesday at 2:33 PM)

Doesn't two look OLL have only have like, 4 algorithms?


----------



## Arcanist (Wednesday at 3:21 PM)

Cuber.Hello.com(: said:


> Doesn't two look OLL have only have like, 4 algorithms?


i don't think that's what he means and also https://jperm.net/algs/2look/oll


----------



## Thom S. (Wednesday at 4:39 PM)

Cuber.Hello.com(: said:


> Doesn't two look OLL have only have like, 4 algorithms?


1. No
2. That's not what I meant. Read my post while actually paying attention


----------



## Cuber.Hello.com(: (Wednesday at 4:43 PM)

Thom S. said:


> 1. No
> 2. That's not what I meant. Read my post while actually paying attention


oh. sorry.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Wednesday at 8:24 PM)

Cuber.Hello.com(: said:


> oh. sorry.


you're sorried


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Wednesday at 11:21 PM)

Thom S. said:


> Maybe, but you add a step to essentially make 2 look OLL with
> 42 Cases(CMLL) for Step 1
> 29 Cases(ELL) for Step 2


ohh, so instead of OLL, you use ELL, makes sense!


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Yesterday at 12:18 AM)

Thom S. said:


> Maybe, but you add a step to essentially make 2 look OLL with
> 42 Cases(CMLL) for Step 1
> 29 Cases(ELL) for Step 2


so can i claim ownership of this method?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Yesterday at 12:23 AM)

lucazdoescubingstuff said:


> so can i claim ownership of this method?


No because it's not new


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Yesterday at 12:27 AM)

OreKehStrah said:


> No because it's not new


so Roux FB SB, CMLL, Last 2 Cross Edges, ELL (or OLL and PLL) has been proposed as a method now?


----------



## OreKehStrah (Yesterday at 12:52 AM)

lucazdoescubingstuff said:


> so Roux FB SB, CMLL, Last 2 Cross Edges, ELL (or OLL and PLL) has been proposed as a method now?


Yes this has been around over a decade. Just combining a couple random steps isn’t gonna produce a new method. The obvious things have been thought of over and over.
You need to find new steps/states and or new ways to reach them (that aren’t bad)


----------



## hyn (Yesterday at 1:47 AM)

lucazdoescubingstuff said:


> so can i claim ownership of this method?


dont forget to patent it


----------



## Athefre (Yesterday at 2:20 AM)

lucazdoescubingstuff said:


> so can i claim ownership of this method?


You proposed but everyone said no. It may be heartbreaking, but it's time to find another.

It's a method not even a mother could love.


----------

