# 2x2 Method (BRASS)



## Baian Liu (Jul 30, 2010)

http://sites.google.com/site/devastatingspeed/2x2x2/brass

What do you think?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 30, 2010)

How many algs total, and what is movecount-average?
(Estimated)
Seems like it could be nice.


----------



## Baian Liu (Jul 30, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> How many algs total, and what is movecount-average?
> (Estimated)
> Seems like it could be nice.



18 reduction algs. 4.28 moves on average (with my algorithms).

I don't know about the bar and the 2-gen SS algs.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 30, 2010)

Looks like recog would be a bit silly.

Do you have an easy recog system for this yet? We were talking about it in IRC a few days ago.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 30, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> 18 reduction algs.
> I don't know about the bar and the 2-gen SS algs.


One should not need algs for step '0.' That's just silly, imo. If people can do FL in one look, surely they can do this. I've been able to in my first few tries with this method.


Kirjava said:


> Looks like recog would be a bit silly.
> 
> Do you have an easy recog system for this yet? We were talking about it in IRC a few days ago.


 This was me. He said he had some system where he looked at just 3 or 4 pieces.

And yes, you'd almost have to recog before the x2. :/


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 31, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Looks like recog would be a bit silly.



Totally.

The problem is quite similar to the ZZ-d 'missing link'. Recognising corner permutation, even with 3 solved corners is extremely difficult.

When thinking about this method I spent a while thinking about reduction to RU on 2x2. Even with everything oriented, it's still a total nightmare!


----------



## Baian Liu (Jul 31, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Looks like recog would be a bit silly.
> 
> Do you have an easy recog system for this yet? We were talking about it in IRC a few days ago.



You have inspection time to do recognition though.

For CPLS, you would recognize it by looking at 3 stickers clockwise of 3 U-stickers. I normally look at the sticker clockwise of the U-color sticker on UBR, DFR, and UFL. You then compare it to the order of the centers. If you have green, red, and orange with white on U and the order of the centers going clockwise is red, green, orange, blue. You know that the pieces containing the green and red stickers clockwise of the U-sticker needs to be swapped.



Stachuk1992 said:


> Baian Liu said:
> 
> 
> > 18 reduction algs.
> ...



I meant the move count average for step 0. It's usually 0-3 moves, I believe. So this makes recognition for step 1 possible during inspection.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 31, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> You have inspection time to do recognition though.




The recog issue is for the second step. If you don't have an easy first step, I imagine tracing the recog for the second step might become problematic.


----------



## Baian Liu (Jul 31, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Baian Liu said:
> 
> 
> > You have inspection time to do recognition though.
> ...



You would only have to worry about the orientation of the pieces though...

EDIT: And the permutation of the DFR corner


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 31, 2010)

It optimizes certain scrambles over other scrambles, like a lot of 2x2 methods do.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 31, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> You would only have to worry about the orientation of the pieces though...




You mean permutation?


----------



## Baian Liu (Jul 31, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Baian Liu said:
> 
> 
> > You would only have to worry about the orientation of the pieces though...
> ...



Oh... you mean second the second step as in step 1?

Step 0 should be around 0-3 moves. This isn't meant to be a main method; just something to utilize certain scrambles.


----------



## onionhoney (Jul 31, 2010)

Oops, it seems that the webpage is not available here in China. 

______________
EDIT: page found.
Really a promising method! The average move count, in my opinion, should be 15 or so. 
And most of the time step 0 requires very few moves and is easy to recognize.
As for the recog of Step 1, i guess it may take quite a long time to get used to it. This is the major disadvantage of it somehow.
And, what really attracts me is the last step. It can be definitely faster than CLL and the 2-gen algs are all finger-friendly! 

I'll try to memorize the 24 algs first.


----------



## riffz (Jul 31, 2010)

Given the difficulty of recognition and the time spent learning all of this just for a sub method for certain solves, I still think that simply using CLL here and then expanding to EG would be a better way to go.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 31, 2010)

Charles Tsai uses/used this for 3x3 FMC (Example). Reducing to 2-gen is nice, but the recogniton to get there sucks (it's not even easy to see if you have reduction skip). Reducing to 3-gen is easy and nice (Petrus or ZZ), too bad the 2x2 is already in 3-gen from the start. The scrambles that are nice for this method are probably nice for FL-CLL to, so it seems a bit pointless.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Jul 31, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Charles Tsai uses/used this for 3x3 FMC (Example). Reducing to 2-gen is nice, but the recogniton to get there sucks (it's not even easy to see if you have reduction skip). Reducing to 3-gen is easy and nice (Petrus or ZZ), too bad the 2x2 is already in 3-gen from the start. The scrambles that are nice for this method are probably nice for FL-CLL to, so it seems a bit pointless.



Rather simple if you slot FL corners first. I usually do that while orienting the edges (I have a compiled set of algs for all cases where exactly 4 edges are unoriented). Example:

Scramble: R2 U2 B' D2 L' F2 L D2 U F R U R' U' B F' (16f*)
FLC + EO: R' F R' F2 U' F R'
Recognition: UFL and UBL are correctly permuted, the LL needs an adjacent swap on R, thus
CP: L U' R' U L'
2-gen F2L, 2-gen OLL, 2-gen PLL


----------



## Baian Liu (Jul 31, 2010)

riffz said:


> Given the difficulty of recognition and the time spent learning all of this just for a sub method for certain solves, I still think that simply using CLL here and then expanding to EG would be a better way to go.



I already know CLL and EG-1, and I sometimes have trouble finding a good first layer or face. I know it's a lot of work to learn all the algorithms, but the algorithms for step 1 are very short and the step 2 algorithms can be used for SS, giving even more possibilities to start a solve. For recognition, a person who doesn't use CLL might think it's difficult. It takes time to get used to recognition. And you have inspection to recognize the case.


----------



## Baian Liu (Jul 31, 2010)

Some example solves:

scramble: F2 R F' U2 F' R' F2 R'
Bar+DRB: z' *F'*
Reduce: *F* R F' U' R
2-gen finish: R2 U' R U' R' U2 R U' R' U R' U2 (17-2)

scramble: R' U2 F U' R U R F'
Bar+DRB: x2 y U2 L'
Reduce: F' U' F
2-gen finish: R2 U R' U R' U R U' R' U R2 (16)

scramble: R F' R2 U R2 U R' U2 R
Bar+DRB: x2 U' R2
Reduce: SKIP
2-gen finish: U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U (11)

scramble: U R' F2 U2 R' U' F
Bar+DRB: x' *R*
Reduce: *R2* F R' F'
Finish: U2 F R U R' U' R U R' U' R' U (18-2)


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 14, 2010)

Did you ever think of a way to do recognition or even reduction already when connecting DFL and DBL (inspection would be hard but for the rest just 7 algs - see end of my signature)


----------

