# M2 for speedsolving



## jtjogobonito (Jul 3, 2008)

I really think we could make a CF(corners first) method that we can make using M2, or a M-slice moves to solve the edges. if it takes 2-3 seconds to solve corners and a second to solve centers that means that one is already at about 4 seconds. If M2, on a good solve, can be done in 12 seconds that means that it would be a 16 second solve. Now if i thought this through correctly. You could use half as many moves using either different steps, slices, and algorithms.

In case you don't know the steps of the solve:

1. Solve the corners without worrying about centers.(2x2 method is optimal)
2. Solve the centers.(Put the centers in their correct positions judging off of the corners.
3.Solve edges.

Please tell me your thoughts on this idea.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 3, 2008)

I think this is pretty realistic and can see this happening..
But I think E/S/M slice algo's for edges would be nessacery..


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 3, 2008)

jtjogobonito said:


> I really think we could make a CF(corners first) method that we can make using M2, or a M-slice moves to solve the edges. if it takes 2-3 seconds to solve corners and a second to solve centers that means that one is already at about 4 seconds. If M2, on a good solve, can be done in 12 seconds that means that it would be a 16 second solve. Now if i thought this through correctly. You could use half as many moves using either different steps, slices, and algorithms.
> 
> In case you don't know the steps of the solve:
> 
> ...



2-3 seconds? That's VERY fast. And no, I don't think M2 can be executed in 12 seconds unless you get a couple skips.

Take an alg like U R U' M2 U R' U'. Can you do that sub-1? That M2 in the middle offsets it. You also have to take into account look-ahead. For BLD execution, you pretty much have perfect look-ahead, and it'll take quite some practice to get it fluid.


----------



## jtjogobonito (Jul 3, 2008)

I actually can do that sub 1, though the inverse is faster. For the lookahead; it is much easier to spot an edge that goes somewhere else when your corners are finished. Obviously, it will take time to get it fluid. Lastly, for the corners. It is the same as a 2x2. Yes 2-3 seconds is fast, but doable.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 3, 2008)

jtjogobonito said:


> I actually can do that sub 1, though the inverse is faster. For the lookahead; it is much easier to spot an edge that goes somewhere else when your corners are finished. Obviously, it will take time to get it fluid. Lastly, for the corners. It is the same as a 2x2. Yes 2-3 seconds is fast, but doable.



Uh, the alg is its own inverse, but sure. I average 3.5 on 2x2x2, but I definitely cannot do that on a 3x3x3. Try shooting FU, BD, BU in sub-1.

Sample move count:

D U' B' F' L2 B F U2 B' R2 U2 L2 B F2 D' U' R F' R' U2 L R B F' U2

F2 D F L U2 B2 L2 M D2 M' D2 U R2 U' M2 U R' U' M2 U R' U2 L2 U M2 U' L2 U B' R B M2 B' R' B U' L' U M2 U' L U2 R' U' M2 U R U2 L U M2 U' L' U B L' B' M2 B L B' U2 M' U' R' U M U' R U'

70moves STM

Uh, that's with optimal corners and a freestyle last three edges. Ortega uses 55STM average, and it's not even considered that advanced.


----------



## Ton (Jul 3, 2008)

Sure it can , Dave Allen (USA( was/is) a master in the M2 move this, although his official record is bad, I know he could do a 14to16 sec average. Although he did not want to share his method we noticed that his method was not optimal. One this is sure M2 moves requires a other style of speedcubing. Today Gilles Roux is the fastest using a CF method with 14.69 average

My theory , look-ahead requires a lot more training than with F2L, it can be compared to an extended F2L method with many many algorithms. CF is not so easy to learn as F2L. 

So yes CF it is for sure a 14 sec average is possible , it just require training and sharing your method helps to improve it. I gues this is the only reason why not so many CF cubers exist nany more in the 80's this was the most common method


----------



## Dene (Jul 3, 2008)

The point of this is? If you're aiming for a 15 second average, you aren't aiming low enough.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jul 3, 2008)

Dene said:


> The point of this is? If you're aiming for a 15 second average, you aren't aiming low enough.



For once I actually agree with you.


----------



## Kyle™ (Jul 3, 2008)

I don't think a simple method of any sort will yield extraordinary results.


----------



## joey (Jul 3, 2008)

Hmm, Maybe I'll have a go with this.


----------



## FredM (Jul 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> Today Gilles Roux is the fastest using a CF method with 14.69 average



It's not really a Corners First. More of a blockbuilding method.

About M2 in speedsolving, you can't look ahead as much as blindfolded since you don't know what edge will come next.


----------



## Carlos (Jul 3, 2008)

only MK can actually "look" ahead blindfolded. lol


----------



## masterofthebass (Jul 3, 2008)

Guys... also, there are much better Edge methods for CF. M2 uses way to many moves, as it is basically straight commutators, with a lot of set-ups. This is just stupid....


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Jul 3, 2008)

masterofthebass said:


> Guys... also, there are much better Edge methods for CF. M2 uses way to many moves, as it is basically straight commutators, with a lot of set-ups. This is just stupid....



whats you suggest than?


----------



## alexc (Jul 3, 2008)

I agree you could not get 16 second solves doing this. However, I think that 25 second solves are doable. (5s corners, 20s edges.)


----------



## qqwref (Jul 3, 2008)

If you want to learn a good CF method, you should at least use as few moves as you can manage. One way would be to place three pairs of left and right edges and then solve the last 6 edges (much like Roux). Another way would be to build the left face and finish the rest in three steps like in Waterman. I'm sure you could also try an approach like Human Thistlethwaite where you reduce the edges to positions that can be solved with half turns only. All of these methods should be much more efficient than the M2 edges idea.

Remember that these days 15 seconds isn't that fast anymore. If you take a rather low estimate of the amount of time your steps should take, it should add to around 10-12 seconds, not 15, because the estimate is basically the best that someone with a reasonable turnspeed could achieve. So, sure, you can get a 16 second average with around 70 moves; but if you could solve the cube in 50 moves stm then you would be doing closer to 11 seconds.


----------



## patrickpoako (Oct 24, 2008)

I've tried CF solves and I really think it has a good potential. 2x2 method for corners (Guimond would be best). Dont worry about the centers first. Orient them after you solve all corners. Now, like roux/waterman I place 3 edges on both sides much like using M2 for BLD. Since all corners are all oriented and permuted you skip this part and then go directly to orienting edges. Follow it up with a Roux/Waterman final solve.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 24, 2008)

Some critical comments:


patrickpoako said:


> I've tried CF solves and I really think it has a good potential.


Potential for what? Could you set a world record with it? Is it more useful for some situations (say, for big cubes 3x3x3 phase)?



patrickpoako said:


> (Guimond would be best).


Nope. I suggest SS, but Guimond is not unequivocally the best.



patrickpoako said:


> Dont worry about the centers first. Orient them after you solve all corners.


I think you mean permute. But why care about anything but L/R centers?



patrickpoako said:


> Now, like roux/waterman I place 3 edges on both sides much like using M2 for BLD.


Exactly how? There are a few ways to do this, and once you try to be method-specific efficient for this, it will become more like a regular CF method.



patrickpoako said:


> Follow it up with a Roux/Waterman final solve.


Yeah, probably the best thing.

However, feel free to develop this method and show us what you find. It's often beneficial to try thing like this to see if it tells you anything useful, or actually becomes a good idea. How about writing up some example solves?

(Also, I'm trying to be gentle, since you have a post count of 1. You posted in an old thread, not really adding anything new. It's generally a frowned-upon thing upon unless you have a particularly good reason, or a least explain why.)


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Oct 24, 2008)

FredM said:


> It's not really a Corners First. More of a blockbuilding method.
> 
> About M2 in speedsolving, you can't look ahead as much as blindfolded since you don't know what edge will come next.



Even though it is blockbuilding, it still uses some of the same processes as corners first, and still, the general idea is the same. You have to solve the corners, and both sides before solving the middle slice... that is corners first

and anyway... M2 WILL NOT work for speedsolving. I use corners first, and I am 100% sure it won't. I average about 25 seconds (I switched from full fridrich about 3 months ago) and I believe a good cuber could average 12 seconds with corners first, but not using M2 because it requires way too many setup moves, and too many moves in general. Also the recognition sucks. Regular corners first is good because of the recognition, and the moves are mostly URM moves.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Oct 24, 2008)

CF may have WR potential, but people haven't tried to advance it as much as the LBL methods.


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 24, 2008)

I've mentioned this as a possible method that I teach to beginners before. What is there to discuss?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 24, 2008)

somerandomkidmike said:


> CF may have WR potential, but people haven't tried to advance it as much as the LBL methods.


Roux?
(Yes, not CF - but an advancement of CF.)


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Oct 25, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> somerandomkidmike said:
> 
> 
> > CF may have WR potential, but people haven't tried to advance it as much as the LBL methods.
> ...



I guess I don't use CF then... I use an advancement of CF method. I do blockbuilding for the first layer of Waterman...

If you consider that there are pretty much 3 types of methods, (layer by layer, edges first, and corners first) Roux would fit into corners first.

This is a quote from stiff hands' website...

"There are basically 3 different methods of solving the cube that are suitable for use by humans without the use of large lookup tables; corner-first, edges-first and layer-by-layer"

If you consider what's been said here, doesn't Roux sound most like CF?


----------

