# 2x2 method



## csdoplr (Jul 12, 2009)

please comment and tell me what you think thanks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpjGu_SHptA&feature=channel_page


----------



## byu (Jul 12, 2009)

You shouldn't create 3 identical threads on this topic, you know...

Oh, and isn't this method (just by looking at the algs) just Corners-Only Fridrich (or LBL).


----------



## csdoplr (Jul 12, 2009)

lol probably its fast though


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 12, 2009)

You call it an "advanced" method.

That's definitely not advanced.
Advanced would be SS, G-FASST, CxLL and perhaps even Guimond and Ortega.


----------



## Paul Wagner (Jul 12, 2009)

Don't make so many useless threads, you have 8 threads and 16 posts I hate newcomers who make threads that are useless.


----------



## csdoplr (Jul 12, 2009)

how is it useless


----------



## byu (Jul 12, 2009)

This is "useless" because EVERYONE who can solve a 3x3 (which is probably 99% if not 100% on this forum) ALREADY knows this almost exact method, if not, then something similar. And you can't say this is an a "advanced method" because it's quite simple. "advanced", as said before, would be CxLL, or Guimond or something along those lines.


----------



## Kian (Jul 12, 2009)

I kept waiting for some ingenuity. This is just LBL.


----------



## csdoplr (Jul 12, 2009)

but when i use it its fast i got 1.61 lucky and 3.90 un lucky. its ortega but i am orenting the last layer instead


----------



## byu (Jul 12, 2009)

csdoplr said:


> but when i use it its fast i got 1.61 lucky and 3.90 un lucky. its ortega but i am *orenting the last layer instead*



Let's get something straight, you orient the LL in Ortega too:

LBL (your so called, "advanced" method)
-First Layer (Oriented and Permuted)
-Orient Last Layer
-Permute Last Layer

Ortega
-First Layer (Oriented only)
-Orient Last Layer
-Permute Both Layers


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 12, 2009)

very advanced indeed

[/sarcasm]

gotta love LBL


----------



## ThatGuy (Jul 12, 2009)

this is true


----------



## qqwref (Jul 12, 2009)

Not only is this nothing new, but you've clearly just inserted in your nub 3x3 algorithms - you don't seem to realize that many of them can be optimized by a huge amount. For instance: you say F [R U R' U']3 F' (14 moves), but I can do it as R2 U2 R U2 R2 (5 moves). This isn't an advanced method, but actually the most simple and obvious method there is, and you haven't even taken the time to look up or figure out faster algorithms.

By the way, single solves on the 2x2 don't mean anything... what do you average?


----------



## csdoplr (Jul 13, 2009)

*avg*



qqwref said:


> Not only is this nothing new, but you've clearly just inserted in your nub 3x3 algorithms - you don't seem to realize that many of them can be optimized by a huge amount. For instance: you say F [R U R' U']3 F' (14 moves), but I can do it as R2 U2 R U2 R2 (5 moves). This isn't an advanced method, but actually the most simple and obvious method there is, and you haven't even taken the time to look up or figure out faster algorithms.
> 
> By the way, single solves on the 2x2 don't mean anything... what do you average?



ok its advanced i no it is i learned it from oretga and i used to avg 5-6 seconds i dont play with it anymore cause my 2x2 is bad


----------



## royzabeast (Jul 13, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Not only is this nothing new, but you've clearly just inserted in your nub 3x3 algorithms - you don't seem to realize that many of them can be optimized by a huge amount. For instance: you say F [R U R' U']3 F' (14 moves), but I can do it as R2 U2 R U2 R2 (5 moves). This isn't an advanced method, but actually the most simple and obvious method there is, and you haven't even taken the time to look up or figure out faster algorithms.
> 
> By the way, single solves on the 2x2 don't mean anything... what do you average?



I was about to be like "Dude, no way thanks " and then I realized it was only for the 2x2.


----------



## imaghost (Jul 13, 2009)

royzabeast said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Not only is this nothing new, but you've clearly just inserted in your nub 3x3 algorithms - you don't seem to realize that many of them can be optimized by a huge amount. For instance: you say F [R U R' U']3 F' (14 moves), but I can do it as R2 U2 R U2 R2 (5 moves). This isn't an advanced method, but actually the most simple and obvious method there is, and you haven't even taken the time to look up or figure out faster algorithms.
> ...


Ya I did the same thing lol... The moment came and went.


----------

