# ECE - New 3x3 Solving Method



## crafto22 (Nov 17, 2015)

ECE, or *E*-slice edges, *C*orners, *Edges* is a solving method that focuses on many things that make a method great:
- ergonomics
- low movecount
- good lookahead
- quick execution

There are many variants of the ECE solving style. I will go over these variants and give my thoughts on each one and which one is better suited for different solvers.

The Original Variant:



Spoiler



Steps:

1. Solve 3 E-slice edges whilst simultaneously placing 3 oriented corners in the D layer
Moves: 5-9
Execution time: 2-3 seconds

2. Pair up the last E-slice edge with a corner and insert the pair whilst orienting the remaining corners on the cube through a CO method (WV, MGLS, etc)
Moves: 9-11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds

3. Separate corners into their layers and then permute them using 5 square-1 algorithms
Moves: 11
Execution time: 2-3 seconds

4. Solve the D layer edges whilst orienting the remaining edges
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 3-4 seconds

5. Permute the remaining edges trough EPLL
Moves: 7
Execution time: 1 second

Total moves: ~47 STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-15 seconds

*Pros*:
- Easy to learn
- Low movecount
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- Low algorithm count
- Effecient use of inspection time
- Placing D layer edge placement is tedious
- Lookahead from one step to the next is good

*Cons*:
- Bad recognition for second step
- Semi-difficult first step
- D layer edge placement is tedious



The L6E Variant:


Spoiler



This variant is simple and only slightly changes the last steps. This variant is better suited for Roux solvers.

Steps:

Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds

4. Place two opposite D layer edges whilst optimizing edge orientation for the following step (L6E)
Moves: 8
Execution time: 1-2 seconds

5. L6E with optimized edge orientation
Moves: 10-12
Execution time: 2-4 seconds

Total moves: ~45 STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-14 seconds

*Pros*:
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- L6E finish is more effecient than the Original Variant's EPLL finish
- Lower movecount than the Original Variant
- Good lookahead
- L6E is very fast when edges are pre-oriented/easily orientable

*Cons*:
- L6E is occasionally slow despite being effecient
- This strategy requires more "looks" than the Original Variant



Broken Variant



Spoiler



The Broken Variant solves the first two layers quite differently and results in a PLL finish. This variant is better suited for ZZ solvers.

*Steps*:

1. The first step resembles EOLine, but the line is built on the left of the cube using the appropriate E-slice edges
Moves: 6-7
Execution time: 1-2 seconds

2. This step is identical to the first and second step of the Original Variant, but it will be significantly easier due to their being half of the E-slice pre-built
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 2-3 seconds

3. Place the FD and BD edges
Moves: 3-4 moves
Execution time: 1 second

4. Finish the first two layers using R2, L2 or U moves.
Moves: 15-18
Execution time: 4-6 seconds

5. Permute the last layer
Moves: 11
Execution time: 1-2 seconds

Total moves: ~50 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-14 seconds

*Pros*:
- Orienting edges at the beginning premotes effeciency
- Individual steps are faster than in the Original Variant
- Pre-oriented edges creates a faster first two layers

*Cons*:
- Higher movecount than the Original Variant
- First two layer strategy lacks freedom
- PLL is substantially slower than EPLL



The Permute-Last Variant



Spoiler



The Permute-Last Variant focuses on rapid turning that makes up for a higher movecount. CFOP users will enjoy this variant most.

Steps:

Steps 1 and 2 are identical to those of the Original Variant
Moves: 14-16
Execution time: 3-5 seconds

2. Build the first two layers without caring for corner permutation or D layer edge permutation. Do note that corner orientation does matter. Do note that it may be necessary to use slice moves to orient some D-layer edges, although this only occurs on certain occasions.
Moves: 12-15
Execution time: 2-4 seconds

3. Orient the remaining edges and separate them into their respective layers.
Moves: 6-9 moves
Execution time: 2-4 seconds

4. Permute the remaining layers in a two step system (Recognize both PLL cases, execute PLL, rotate, execute PLL)
Moves: 20-22
Execution time: 2-4 seconds

Total moves: ~55 STM
Theoretical execution time: 9-17 seconds

*Pros*:
- Ignoring initial permutation promotes fast turning and fluid execution
- The permutation step can be done in one look allowing for continuous movement

*Cons*:
- Reliance on fast turning ruins effeciency
- Permuting both layers requires a rotation unless one learns a new set of PLLs



EZD (Easy D-layer) Variant



Spoiler



This variant brings a slight change to the last steps that improves execution time for the lengthiest step of the Original Variant.

*Steps*:

Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds

4. Place the D-layer edges whilst orienting all edges without caring for edge permutation.
Moves: 8-12
Execution time: 2-3 seconds

5. Permute edges from both layers through a special set of algorithms I will generate.
Moves: 7-9
Execution time: 1-2 seconds

Total moves: ~43 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-13 seconds

*Pros*:
- This variation is the most effecient
- Permuting multiple pieces at once can be done far more quickly
- Mostly ergonomic movesets
- Quicker D layer edges allows for better lookahead
- Permuting the edges of layers i surprisingly fast and using nice <UMD> algorithms

*Cons*:
- Admittingly EPLL is definetely faster than this variant's multi-edge permutation



The NoEO Variant



Spoiler



The NoEO Variant is once again a slight modification on the Original Variant's last two steps.

Steps:

Steps 1 through 3 are identical to the Original Variant
Moves: 25-27
Execution time: 5-8 seconds

4. Place the D layer edges.
Moves: 8-12
Execution time: 2-3 seconds

5. Solve the 4 remaining edges.
Moves: 10-11
Execution time: 1 second

Total moves: 44 moves STM
Theoretical execution time: 8-12 seconds

*Pros*:
- ELL is more effecient than an EO + EPLL strategy
- ELL uses faster algorithms than EZD's final step algorithms
- This variant is more effecient than every other variant apart from the EZD variant

*Cons*:
- ELL recognition may be even worse than that of EZD's last step strategy



*Which variant is the best?*

According to the statistics, the EZD, NoEO or L6E variants should be the best with theoretical optimal execution times of 8 seconds and an average movecount of around 44. I do believe these are the best variants for me, specifically the EZD variant. I have achieved a sub-15 average of 12 with the EZD variant and am sub-18 with ALL variants. I think you should choose the method that suits you best. ZZ solvers will prefer the Broken Variant, Roux solvers will lean towards the L6E variant and CFOP solvers will go for the Permute-Last variant. Despite all this, the Original method is the simplest and can be very fast, considering I have gotten a 15.91 average of 12 using it.


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 17, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> 3. Separate corners into their layers and then permute them using 5 square-1 algorithms
> Moves: 11
> Execution time: 2-3 seconds



R2 U’ R2 U D R2 D’ R2


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 17, 2015)

I'm still dubious about your movecount for step 3. Seems more like 9 moves for CP and 5 moves for corners to layers.



Spoiler: Also, from the SSC thread (SSC-M)






> So, basic variation of the SSC method I'm going to call SSC-M (SSC-Misoriented- the original will be refered to as SSC-Oriented). It will use a different, slightly less restricted subset of SLS which does not have to preserve edge orientation (although it will have the same required number of algs) which I will henceforth refer to as SLS-M.
> 
> NOTE: bear in mind that this is still just an idea and has not been fully fleshed out yet.
> 
> ...





> I realize it may not be as efficient, but what about finishing F2L and performing EPLL? More algs, but faster ( I think anyway)





> It's a nice idea that I looked at one point (when I was transitioning from Beginners to Roux) but I eventually came to the conclusion that it would take more moves to place all the D-edges than to place RU/LU and RD/LD. In addition, the EPLL takes more moves than the L4E used in roux
> 
> So I would conclude that while less efficient it could be a good alternative for a CFCE, CFOP or ZZ/ZB user who is a much faster turner when doing an alg and ends up faster with the higher move count than the lower move count intuitive LSE/LEE approach.


So i would say that the method is more of a variant of SSC (specifically SSC-M)


----------



## LostGent (Nov 17, 2015)

Can someone please clarify what an E-slice is?


----------



## stoic (Nov 17, 2015)

The middle Equator of the cube, from left to right


----------



## LostGent (Nov 17, 2015)

Many thanks friend


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 17, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm still dubious about your movecount for step 3. Seems more like 9 moves for CP and 5 moves for corners to layers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Separating corners is occasionally 1-2 moves, so when you account for that the average moves drops drastically.

Referring to your SSC-M, now that I read it over I'm amazed I just worked about an hour on a method that has already been invented... Oh well, at least I've... Developed it a little


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 17, 2015)

Or you could just use Salvia.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 17, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> Or you could just use Salvia.



I think this method is a bit more versatile and useful than Salvia. It also has a smoother execution IMO.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 17, 2015)

crafto22 said:


> Separating corners is occasionally 1-2 moves, so when you account for that the average moves drops drastically.
> 
> Referring to your SSC-M, now that I read it over I'm amazed I just worked about an hour on a method that has already been invented... Oh well, at least I've... Developed it a little



No, don't worry I'm sure that every method developer has done that at some point- I once spent a while developing a megaminx method which just turned out to be Yu Da Hyun's S2L style and developed what eventually turned out to be Roux.

Considering your times I would definitely encourage you to go with this method further as I am not yet fast enough to prove it's worth yet.


----------



## crafto22 (Nov 17, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> No, don't worry I'm sure that every method developer has done that at some point- I once spent a while developing a megaminx method which just turned out to be Yu Da Hyun's S2L style and developed what eventually turned out to be Roux.
> 
> Considering your times I would definitely encourage you to go with this method further as I am not yet fast enough to prove it's worth yet.



Yeah. As I mentioned in the intitial post, I have achieved sub-15 with the EZD variant and am extremely close with the L6E, NoEO and Original variants. I am currently working on a better system for this method that resembles the EZD variant/Broken variant and uses a special set of algorithms I will have to generate.


----------



## crafto22 (Jan 15, 2016)

Don't know if anyone will care, but I got my first sub-9 with ECE! I think this method actually has great potential! The solve's lookahead was easy, especially since the first step was three moves. My global average with ECE, specifically EZD is around mid-14 seconds. Hopefully someone else will see this solve as proof of this method's potential.

This solve was done with the EZD variant of this method. I know all WV, CO, CP and EPBL algs (56 algs) for anyone wondering. You can find CO and CP algs in any Square-1 tutorial.

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

Solution:

y' U2 D R' // 3 Edges + 3 oriented corners
y' D r U r' d' U2 // Setup for CO
R U' L' U R' U2 L // CO
U' R2 U' R2 U D R2 D' R2 // CP
U D' M' U2 M U D' M' U M // EO + Edge seperation
x M U' D L U2 D2 L' U' D M' x' U' D2 // Edge permutation of both layers

I'm counting this as 42 moves since U D or U D' gets executed as one move, since I execute both moves at the same time.
42 moves / 8.97 = 4.68 turns per second

I'm very pleased with this method's low movecount!


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 1, 2016)

this method... can you come up with an alg list? do you have them? i believe in this method... lets let it shine!


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 1, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> this method... can you come up with an alg list? do you have them? i believe in this method... lets let it shine!



The algs are the same as in SSC (ie SLS with mirrors) it is almost the same as SSC-M. Still cool though.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 1, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> The algs are the same as in SSC (ie SLS with mirrors) it is almost the same as SSC-M. Still cool though.



and the corner perm algs are the same for square-one right? But i dont get the turns interpretations, i guess.
also, this method is different. for example, it has been proven to be a sub-15 or at least sub-20 method.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 2, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> and the corner perm algs are the same for square-one right? But i dont get the turns interpretations, i guess.
> also, this method is different. for example, it has been proven to be a sub-15 or at least sub-20 method.



No this method is the same as SSC-M (with a little bit of extra development). SSC-O has been proven to be sub-20 as well. The corner perms and stuff are also the same as SQ-1 though you can see better optimised 3x3 versions on the SSC thread.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 2, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> ECE, or *E*-slice edges, *C*orners, *Edges* is a solving method that focuses on many things that make a method great:
> - ergonomics
> - low movecount
> - good lookahead
> ...



what are the EZD algorithms? youve said that you got pretty low with it, so what is that algset?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 3, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> what are the EZD algorithms? youve said that you got pretty low with it, so what is that algset?



I just have them all memorized, so I would have to re-generate all the algs. There are only 16, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to find some good algs with Cube Explored.


----------



## IQubic (Apr 3, 2016)

This is just belt method, is it not? https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Belt_Method
EDIT: No wait, this method does Corners then Edges. SO this is more like CFCE, rather the actual Belt Method.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 3, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> I just have them all memorized, so I would have to re-generate all the algs. There are only 16, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to find some good algs with Cube Explored.



just execute the algorithms, but write down what you do. It'd be great.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 4, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Don't know if anyone will care, but I got my first sub-9 with ECE! I think this method actually has great potential! The solve's lookahead was easy, especially since the first step was three moves. My global average with ECE, specifically EZD is around mid-14 seconds. Hopefully someone else will see this solve as proof of this method's potential.
> 
> This solve was done with the EZD variant of this method. I know all WV, CO, CP and EPBL algs (56 algs) for anyone wondering. You can find CO and CP algs in any Square-1 tutorial.
> 
> ...



thats actually really awesome!!!
yeah I'm making a youtube video overviewing the method.
this is how I teach it:
1.e-slice edges+corner orientation
2.insert pair+OCLL(7 cases, easy to remember)
3.seperate into layers w the 5 square-1 algs and then permute with T-perm and Y-perm on both sides(or use square-1 algs, I said u could use both)
4.solve d-layer and then use EOLL algs that preserve corners(found on speedsolving.com wiki)
5.EPLL


thats the beginner way to that method, after they master this way they can learn the corner perms then finally full winter variation.
The algorithm count on this method is insane! Even after you learn the full-fledged method, it takes something like 40 algorithms, wheras a full-fledged Fridrich takes about 78 algorithms(and that's only the OLL and PLL)
I believe in this method! 
GO CRAFTO22!!!


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> thats actually really awesome!!!
> yeah I'm making a youtube video overviewing the method.
> this is how I teach it:
> 1.e-slice edges+corner orientation
> ...



Thanks man! I'll keep practising with this method so long as it interests me. Right now I average about 14 seconds, so I definitely think this method has serious potential!


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 5, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> I just have them all memorized, so I would have to re-generate all the algs. There are only 16, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to find some good algs with Cube Explored.



what are the cases? at the start, it seems like it's just the EPLL cases on both sides, but inserting edges gets you really wierd cases. Can you at least tell me what the cases are? Ill gen the algs myself, but finding all the cases are beyond me.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> what are the cases? at the start, it seems like it's just the EPLL cases on both sides, but inserting edges gets you really wierd cases. Can you at least tell me what the cases are? Ill gen the algs myself, but finding all the cases are beyond me.



You have all the standard double EPLLs (ie U/U U/Z U/H Z/H) then all the cases where two sides are swapped by something like an M2 U2 M2


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> what are the cases? at the start, it seems like it's just the EPLL cases on both sides, but inserting edges gets you really wierd cases. Can you at least tell me what the cases are? Ill gen the algs myself, but finding all the cases are beyond me.



The edges are separated into their own respective layers. There are only 16 cases which are just combinations of standard EPLLs.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 6, 2016)

i know, i tried that. but you get wierd cases still, even seperated into their own layers


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> i know, i tried that. but you get wierd cases still, even seperated into their own layers



Yeah, there are parity cases, M2 U2 M2, then do the alg


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 6, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Yeah, there are parity cases, M2 U2 M2, then do the alg



theres two parity cases: ones M2 U2 M2, the other one is when edges are swapped like in a J or Y-perm(without the corner swap of course)
I think the best course of action for those are maybe just bring them to the U layer and but them back in and do an alg???


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 6, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> theres two parity cases: ones M2 U2 M2, the other one is when edges are swapped like in a J or Y-perm(without the corner swap of course)
> I think the best course of action for those are maybe just bring them to the U layer and but them back in and do an alg???



No there is only one parity case: M2 U2 M2. It works for all just like 4x4 PLL parity works.

Also, did you not read my previous post on the alg cases?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 6, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> No there is only one parity case: M2 U2 M2. It works for all just like 4x4 PLL parity works.
> 
> Also, did you not read my previous post on the alg cases?



yes, I did. I guess I can see how it works thank you for clarifying.
BTW I taught my sister the classic 3x3 LBL method, and as her speedsolving method I'm teaching her ECE. She loves this method, and told me to say thank you Crafto22


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 7, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yes, I did. I guess I can see how it works thank you for clarifying.
> BTW I taught my sister the classic 3x3 LBL method, and as her speedsolving method I'm teaching her ECE. She loves this method, and told me to say thank you Crafto22


Cool! I would love to hear about her progress with the method. I'm confident she can be sub-15 with this method as I am at the moment. This method definetely has great potential and I think with better lookahead and EZD execution somebody could be sub-10!


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 7, 2016)

Hey Crafto, I Genned an algorithm set here for EPBL
Turns out if you don't care about which face , U or D, is on top, you only get 10 cases, plus U2 M2 U2 for parity.
Its a really crappy alg set, with a lot of b moves and hard to do movesets. this is only meant as a base for other algsets for this method.


----------



## efattah (Apr 8, 2016)

During the last couple of months of searching for new methods, I too (independently) came across this method (which I suppose is called ECE, and SSC...) This is now three people that have come up with it, furthering evidence that it has huge potential. However, I did not generate the algs for it, and I am still moving forward with my LMCF method, but I am very eager to monitor the progress of the growing ECE crowd.

I really look forward to the day when the final round at Worlds is comprised of four or more totally different methods instead of just 2...

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 8, 2016)

efattah said:


> During the last couple of months of searching for new methods, I too (independently) came across this method (which I suppose is called ECE, and SSC...) This is now three people that have come up with it, furthering evidence that it has huge potential. However, I did not generate the algs for it, and I am still moving forward with my LMCF method, but I am very eager to monitor the progress of the growing ECE crowd.
> 
> I really look forward to the day when the final round at Worlds is comprised of four or more totally different methods instead of just 2...
> 
> ...



Yes, there is no variation in the cubing world anymore. That's what made me switch to first ZZ for a few days, then now roux from CFOP.
I believe that this method may be the method that wins competitions.
Crafto, can you show us a solve? maybe a video of you speedcubing with it?
I can't get past about 30 secs with any method, so I want to see how someone fast does this method.

Plus if you use MGLS instead of WV, you only need to learn the I cases(7 algs with mirrors), waaay easier to learn than 27 cases. This is because if you insert the last e-slice edge, the corner under it has only 3 possible orientations: oriented, I cases or Im cases. for all 3, there is only about 7 cases(OCLL, CLS I-cases, and CLS Im cases)


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Plus if you use MGLS instead of WV, you only need to learn the I cases(7 algs with mirrors), waaay easier to learn than 27 cases. This is because if you insert the last e-slice edge, the corner under it has only 3 possible orientations: oriented, I cases or Im cases. for all 3, there is only about 7 cases(OCLL, CLS I-cases, and CLS Im cases)



I would say that you can learn the MGLS if you like but in general the algs for that aren't as nice. Especially not if you use SLS which averages ~5 moves IIRC and the WV is also nicer algs than MGLS though it could be ok in some situations such as on the off-chance that it happens to be solved.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 8, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I would say that you can learn the MGLS if you like but in general the algs for that aren't as nice. Especially not if you use SLS which averages ~5 moves IIRC and the WV is also nicer algs than MGLS though it could be ok in some situations such as on the off-chance that it happens to be solved.


the thing is, for roux solvers like me who abhor large algsets, MGLS is a lot easier. Its EJF2l, you don't need to worry about the corner, just insert the edge and do the alg. and theres only 14 algs. I think that deserves some credit.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> the thing is, for roux solvers like me who abhor large algsets, MGLS is a lot easier. Its EJF2l, you don't need to worry about the corner, just insert the edge and do the alg. and theres only 14 algs. I think that deserves some credit.


I'm a roux user. And I agree that smaller alg sets are nicer. However, I also believe Ergonomics+Efficiency>smaller alg sets. Plus SLS is only ~20 algs anyway and a few of them are just insert and do standard OCLL while others are just cancelled OCLL inserts and stuff.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 8, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm a roux user. And I agree that smaller alg sets are nicer. However, I also believe Ergonomics+Efficiency>smaller alg sets. Plus SLS is only ~20 algs anyway and a few of them are just insert and do standard OCLL while others are just cancelled OCLL inserts and stuff.


yes, but if I want to learn an algorithm set I want it to be useful in more than one case.


----------



## efattah (Apr 8, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yes, but if I want to learn an algorithm set I want it to be useful in more than one case.





shadowslice e said:


> I'm a roux user. And I agree that smaller alg sets are nicer. However, I also believe Ergonomics+Efficiency>smaller alg sets. Plus SLS is only ~20 algs anyway and a few of them are just insert and do standard OCLL while others are just cancelled OCLL inserts and stuff.



If we are talking about the future of speedcubing (as in the fastest/newest methods) I think there is no way around large algorithm sets. During algorithm execution you can move the cube way faster than any system where you need to track pieces and make decisions while the pieces are moving. Roux is probably as fast as we will ever get for a 'low' alg set (which isn't even that low). The method I am currently working on has 200+ algs and I believe most new (good) methods will be at least 50 algs...

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 8, 2016)

efattah said:


> If we are talking about the future of speedcubing (as in the fastest/newest methods) I think there is no way around large algorithm sets. During algorithm execution you can move the cube way faster than any system where you need to track pieces and make decisions while the pieces are moving. Roux is probably as fast as we will ever get for a 'low' alg set (which isn't even that low). The method I am currently working on has 200+ algs and I believe most new (good) methods will be at least 50 algs...
> 
> Eric Fattah
> Vancouver, BC



I'm not sure I entirely agree with this... You can reach almost as high tps in intuitve without the pause needed to recognise an alg case. There may not be anything wrong with learning large alg sets per se though I'm not sure it offers a significant advantage over less alg heavy methods. It just depends how good the lookahead for that part of the solve is. For example, people can sometimes reach 8+ tps in F2L for CFOP and that is almost as fast as the alg tps.

To be more succinct, larger alg sets may be nice as they solve more of the cube though at the price of recognition being worse. The only time I would say it is good to have a large alg set is at the very end of the solve unless we can easily predict what will happen next (such as CMLL-LSE in Roux).

My thoughts are that methods will move towards a lot of small steps with excellent lookahead where only a few easily identifiable will need to be tracked (I think LSE is likely the best example of this) and the steps will almost blend into each other ( I tried to do this with SSC and will explain how that works if I ever get around to the video but I think F2L and LSE are good examples of this)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 9, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm not sure I entirely agree with this... You can reach almost as high tps in intuitve without the pause needed to recognise an alg case. There may not be anything wrong with learning large alg sets per se though I'm not sure it offers a significant advantage over less alg heavy methods. It just depends how good the lookahead for that part of the solve is. For example, people can sometimes reach 8+ tps in F2L for CFOP and that is almost as fast as the alg tps.
> 
> To be more succinct, larger alg sets may be nice as they solve more of the cube though at the price of recognition being worse. The only time I would say it is good to have a large alg set is at the very end of the solve unless we can easily predict what will happen next (such as CMLL-LSE in Roux).
> 
> My thoughts are that methods will move towards a lot of small steps with excellent lookahead where only a few easily identifiable will need to be tracked (I think LSE is likely the best example of this) and the steps will almost blend into each other ( I tried to do this with SSC and will explain how that works if I ever get around to the video but I think F2L and LSE are good examples of this)


I absolutely agree.
Also, this method has been independently created by 3 People, and who knows how many more. So this method has potential. I think what we need to kick this method off to starhood is someone using ECE as their main method, which means we probably have to find a beginner-friendly version of the method to teach to other people, and have a trail to the advanced method, like CFOP does, so this method takes off.
I believe in this method, and the fact that this method has been pushed to sub-10 proves it.


----------



## efattah (Apr 9, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> To be more succinct, larger alg sets may be nice as they solve more of the cube though at the price of recognition being worse.



This is true, unless of course you design your method so the huge alg set happens right off the bat and the cuber can use the 15 second inspection time to identify and 'fetch' the algorithm from memory. That's the essence of what I'm working on now. Huge algorithm sets like ZBLL fetched in 'real time' during the solve are a lot more challenging. Theoretically recognition time could drop to near zero but we haven't really seen anyone accomplish this yet for ZBLL (or have we?) The best analogy is EG for the 2x2. Either the cuber can 1-look the whole solve (and fetch 1 of 126 algs from memory during the inspection), or else he cannot see the solve and his time suffers dramatically due to the recognition time required mid-solve. I think CFOP OLL is probably an exception as recognition is so easy (Friedrich designed it specifically for easy recognition, she knew what she was doing...)

Right now ECE/SSC is my #2 favorite method and if my current method doesn't pan out over the next few months I will switch to ECE/SSC as my main method. My only concern with ECE/SSC is recognition on the double-permute steps.

With so many people coming up with 'new' methods, I really think any method needs at least one person to land a single sub-10 solve (even if slightly lucky) to show the potential. Crafto22 already did that.

Also I think we need to agree upon one name for this method. I think probably EPBL is a good option (E-slice, permute both layers). Thoughts on unifying the name?

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 9, 2016)

efattah said:


> This is true, unless of course you design your method so the huge alg set happens right off the bat and the cuber can use the 15 second inspection time to identify and 'fetch' the algorithm from memory. That's the essence of what I'm working on now. Huge algorithm sets like ZBLL fetched in 'real time' during the solve are a lot more challenging. Theoretically recognition time could drop to near zero but we haven't really seen anyone accomplish this yet for ZBLL (or have we?) The best analogy is EG for the 2x2. Either the cuber can 1-look the whole solve (and fetch 1 of 126 algs from memory during the inspection), or else he cannot see the solve and his time suffers dramatically due to the recognition time required mid-solve. I think CFOP OLL is probably an exception as recognition is so easy (Friedrich designed it specifically for easy recognition, she knew what she was doing...)
> 
> Right now ECE/SSC is my #2 favorite method and if my current method doesn't pan out over the next few months I will switch to ECE/SSC as my main method. My only concern with ECE/SSC is recognition on the double-permute steps.
> 
> ...



I think the ECE name is best, due to the fact that it is the real steps: e-slice edges corners edges


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 9, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I think the ECE name is best, due to the fact that it is the real steps: e-slice edges corners edges



Well, it can basically be like Fridrich/CFOP. Either is fine and they can be interchangable (although ECE is more specific and corresponds to SSC-M rather than SSC-O which is where I would draw the distinction).


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 9, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Well, it can basically be like Fridrich/CFOP. Either is fine and they can be interchangable (although ECE is more specific and corresponds to SSC-M rather than SSC-O which is where I would draw the distinction).



If we could find out crafto22's last name, we could call it the Crafto-Briggs method, or whatever part of Crafto's name he's willing to tell us(kinda like the ZB method, or VH method)

Weve got enough figured out for the method figured out I suggest making a Wiki page. There would already be one except there seems no way to create a new page on the wiki.

Also, The first time a method like this was derived was in the 80's. (look at 10 second cube's post on the new method/substep/concept ideas thread)


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 9, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> If we could find out crafto22's last name, we could call it the Crafto-Briggs method, or whatever part of Crafto's name he's willing to tell us(kinda like the ZB method, or VH method)
> 
> Weve got enough figured out for the method figured out I suggest making a Wiki page. There would already be one except there seems no way to create a new page on the wiki.
> 
> Also, The first time a method like this was derived was in the 80's. (look at 10 second cube's post on the new method/substep/concept ideas thread)




I'm up for renaming it.

There is also a wiki page ([wiki=SSC (Shadowslice Snow Columns)]this one[/wiki]). I've already run it past crafto and he seems ok with all the stuff.

Regarding the 80s stuff, the earliest form of this method I can find is the Thistlethwaite method (though neither crafto or I took inspiration from it). I'm not really sure about the 10 second cube thing as I can't find anything on it other than post (I tried when I first saw it) though I'll admit it does bear a resemblance to it.


----------



## efattah (Apr 9, 2016)

I think we need a single page that describes the approach in detail, with a list (preferably with graphics of the cases) for each algorithm. Also I think the page should focus on the best variant. Crafto has so many variants I think this is not only confusing, but to make progress here we should (in general) be focusing on the same method. Only with an 'easy to follow' page will we get other people working on the method together, which is what we need to make real progress and develop it.

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 9, 2016)

efattah said:


> I think we need a single page that describes the approach in detail, with a list (preferably with graphics of the cases) for each algorithm. Also I think the page should focus on the best variant. Crafto has so many variants I think this is not only confusing, but to make progress here we should (in general) be focusing on the same method. Only with an 'easy to follow' page will we get other people working on the method together, which is what we need to make real progress and develop it.
> 
> Eric Fattah
> Vancouver, BC



Basic structure:
1) 3/4 e-slice and orient 3 corners on D
2) Place final e-slice edge and orient remaining corners
3) permute corners
4) finish edges.

I find the best ways to do this for speed are EZD and SSC-O
SSC-Domino is the best for FMC
The one thing I feel need to be improved in any of the methods is the final phase after domino reduction. Atm, the best we have are LEE->LSE and EZD. Both are fairly good but I feel we can do much better.

Other thoughts I put on the wiki page.

I think these are the most useful methods/variants atm. I also have a beginners variant which could go like this:
1) 3/4 e-slice edges (coukd eo or not. Depends)
2) orient 3 corners by inserting corners in the slot like in keyhole
3) pseudopair and insert
4) OCLL
5) separate corners
6) permute corners
7) edges however you want
This needs 7 OCLL+ 4 CP and can be sub-20- I've tried


----------



## efattah (Apr 9, 2016)

I suppose my question is in the 'main' variant of this method are we forcing corners to the same face color?
Therefore when we permute the corners we are doing Ortega PBL style algs or do we allow the much harder situation where all the corners are oriented but may be on opposite/mixed sides? In that case recognition is really hard.
Same question on the edges. 

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2016)

efattah said:


> I suppose my question is in the 'main' variant of this method are we forcing corners to the same face color?
> Therefore when we permute the corners we are doing Ortega PBL style algs or do we allow the much harder situation where all the corners are oriented but may be on opposite/mixed sides? In that case recognition is really hard.
> Same question on the edges.
> 
> ...


no, we use square-1 algorithms to first seperate into their respective layers, then permute all the corners(like 10 algs altogether.)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm up for renaming it.
> Regarding the 80s stuff, the earliest form of this method I can find is the Thistlethwaite method (though neither crafto or I took inspiration from it). I'm not really sure about the 10 second cube thing as I can't find anything on it other than post (I tried when I first saw it) though I'll admit it does bear a resemblance to it.



remember the 10 second cube guy? I know you saw it, you replied to it he went into detail about how he got sub-20 with a method similar to this one.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 10, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> remember the 10 second cube guy? I know you saw it, you replied to it he went into detail about how he got sub-20 with a method similar to this one.



Yeah I know. I actually said it looked like a belt method sort of thing/thistlethwaiteish. However, I meant I could not find any intonation on it at all no matter how hard I looked. I realise this was before the internet but I would've though that it would at least have a small mention somewhere (I would've been happier if he went into more detail on how each of the steps did the stuff he said it did but it seems he's not planning on coming back to speedsolving) Also, I think thistlethwaite's algorithm may have preceded it and that bears a more similar resembalance to SSC-O at least.

On another note, SSC could stand for ShadowSlice-Crafto 

(But actual names would be better I admit)


----------



## Rouxkie (Apr 10, 2016)

I'm also interested in this method. As the only methods I ever looked closer at are CFOP (a bit) and Roux (mainly, avg. ~35s), many concepts are hard to grasp for me, but I think I basically got the idea. Only when I reach LEE I feel quite at home 
Here are some thoughts/questions:

Is the idea to plan step 1 completely during inspection? Getting the 3 edges in place is easy of course, but controlling corner orientation while doing it is much harder. But there are tons of freedom, so maybe it's just a matter of wrapping your head around it, just as with blockbuilding.
Instead of using WV I just slot the pair in and orient the top layer with CMLL I already know. This costs me an additional 3 moves. Is learning WV or SLS really worth it, or does it have other aspects?
I'm most concerned with step 3. Separating the corners to the layers takes an insane amount of moves for me. An example would be DU2R2D2R2 == 9 moves QTM, and there are even harder cases. In the SSC-thread it is mentioned that there are many simple cases that only take 1-2 moves. I don't see how that should be possible. Can someone maybe give me an example of such a simple case?
The following algs for corner perm are also all very long (>15 moves QTM). This is in contrast to the 11 moves (HTM?) the OP mentioned. Maybe he does this in one step?
All in all, does this method really give a lower move count than Roux?

Sorry for those beginner-level questions...


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 10, 2016)

Rouxkie said:


> I'm also interested in this method. As the only methods I ever looked closer at are CFOP (a bit) and Roux (mainly, avg. ~35s), many concepts are hard to grasp for me, but I think I basically got the idea. Only when I reach LEE I feel quite at home
> Here are some thoughts/questions:
> [*]Is the idea to plan step 1 completely during inspection? Getting the 3 edges in place is easy of course, but controlling corner orientation while doing it is much harder. But there are tons of freedom, so maybe it's just a matter of wrapping your head around it, just as with blockbuilding.


This one is basically like making a load of pseudopairs at the most basic level. It gets harder one you do Eo as well but it isn't too hard once you get used to it


> [*]Instead of using WV I just slot the pair in and orient the top layer with CMLL I already know. This costs me an additional 3 moves. Is learning WV or SLS really worth it, or does it have other aspects?


That's the beginner's variant I described in an eariler post. If you really want to get fast, you should probably learn the others (though in the SSC thread an interesting alternative has been created)


> [*]I'm most concerned with step 3. Separating the corners to the layers takes an insane amount of moves for me. An example would be DU2R2D2R2 == 9 moves QTM, and there are even harder cases. In the SSC-thread it is mentioned that there are many simple cases that only take 1-2 moves. I don't see how that should be possible. Can someone maybe give me an example of such a simple case?


Here we are measuring things in ATM rather than QTM as (U D) only takes 1 motion (though most use HTM/STM, that is because they don't have free motion in the D layer)


> [*]The following algs for corner perm are also all very long (>15 moves QTM). This is in contrast to the 11 moves (HTM?) the OP mentioned. Maybe he does this in one step?


Yes, again we are using ATM.


> All in all, does this method really give a lower move count than Roux?


Potentially, and quite possibly yes with the modifications though it depends how good you are at blockbuilding and how used to this method you are. I believe it may be a fair bit lower once all the developments are complete and better algs created for certian steps.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2016)

He


Rouxkie said:


> I'm also interested in this method. As the only methods I ever looked closer at are CFOP (a bit) and Roux (mainly, avg. ~35s), many concepts are hard to grasp for me, but I think I basically got the idea. Only when I reach LEE I feel quite at home
> Here are some thoughts/questions:
> 
> Is the idea to plan step 1 completely during inspection? Getting the 3 edges in place is easy of course, but controlling corner orientation while doing it is much harder. But there are tons of freedom, so maybe it's just a matter of wrapping your head around it, just as with blockbuilding.
> ...


Hey, you are pretty much exactly like me! I average a crappy time(35 secs w roux) and I didnt get this method at first... But just keep trying, and this method will become your favorite!
also, for the first step the easiest way to learn it is actually solve the e-slice edges then work about corner orientation


And also, crafto22, What's your name, so we can actually give this method a real name!


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 10, 2016)

UPDATE:
I just generated some algorithms using cube explorer instead of rubiks-cube-solver.com and I got some decently short algs, I made another alg list here.

Note: it does involve s-slice moves, but I suggest doing a Y' move then doing the S moves as M moves.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 11, 2016)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just belt with several variations?


----------



## sqAree (Apr 11, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just belt with several variations?



Belt is more a general idea how to solve the cube than a specific method ; in this respect you are right and wrong at the same time. So it's a belt method but belt methods are meant to have several variations etc.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

sqAree said:


> Belt is more a general idea how to solve the cube than a specific method ; in this respect you are right and wrong at the same time. So it's a belt method but belt methods are meant to have several variations etc.


In the same facet, it it way more of a columns first/Human thistlewaite algorithm/orient first method than a belt method. also, you think you could really push a belt method to sub-10 like this method?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> In the same facet, it it way more of a columns first/Human thistlewaite algorithm/orient first method than a belt method. also, you think you could really push a belt method to sub-10 like this method?


So it's kind of a mix? 3/4 belt then columns?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

Its more of a mix of human thistlewaite and columns than belt and columns. You just construct the columns middle first, and you orient them all
Belt method Is when you solve the belt without any orientation. Belt methods are less efficient than CFOP. ECE is more efficient than _roux._


----------



## sqAree (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Its more of a mix of human thistlewaite and columns than belt and columns. You just construct the columns middle first, and you orient them all
> Belt method Is when you solve the belt without any orientation. Belt methods are less efficient than CFOP. ECE is more efficient than _roux._



That sounds quite fanboyish. 
I personally think that as ECE builds a belt we can consider it a belt method. Your reason for this not being belt is basically that belt is not efficient while ECE is ; I tend to think of it like ECE is finally an efficient belt method.
The wiki page about belt suggests orienting edges before the belt for example, so I think the concept is free enough to delay the belt a bit and still call it like that.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

lets please not call it a belt, call it what its really called. you dont just call CFOP "variant on the layer by layer method". You call it CFOP. Please do the same with this method.

Im not trying to be mean, Im just a little defensive of this method.


----------



## sqAree (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> lets please not call it a belt, call it what its really called. you dont just call CFOP "variant on the layer by layer method". You call it CFOP. Please do the same with this method.
> 
> Im not trying to be mean, Im just a little defensive of this method.



You are not mean, no worries, and feel free to defend this method as much as you want; after all it's a great method!
It's just that calling it a belt method is not an insult towards the method.
Let's do a comparison: Calling ECE a belt method is similar to calling CFOP a method that builds the cross first (and likewise that doesn't say CFOP is inefficient just because beginner's also builds a cross).


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

This method is almost like destiny to become a popular method: it has been independently invented by at least 5 people, and it is more efficient than roux. It has also gotten sub-10, and tell me how many of those "new 3x3 speedsolving method" can do that? Especially if you soup this method up as much as you can, you get about 50 max. algorithms, compared to CFOP's 78 minimum.
You've got Roux's alg count mixed with CFOP's consistency and ZZ's "everything is a lucky case". Who else thinks that this thing is gonna be big?


----------



## sqAree (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> This method is almost like destiny to become a popular method: it has been independently invented by at least 5 people, and it is more efficient than roux. It has also gotten sub-10, and tell me how many of those "new 3x3 speedsolving method" can do that? Especially if you soup this method up as much as you can, you get about 50 max. algorithms, compared to CFOP's 78 minimum.
> You've got Roux's alg count mixed with CFOP's consistency and ZZ's "everything is a lucky case". Who else thinks that this thing is gonna be big?





sqAree said:


> That sounds quite fanboyish.



5 people, really?
But yeah, agreed about this method being good, although I rather root for SSC-O.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

The Eoline makes it not as good. Also, Shadowslice is collaborating with us on this method, and agrees that this one is probably better. 
Even he admits that EZD is maybe the fastest way to do a method like SSC and ECE.
they are pretty much exactly the same, except for the Eoline in the first steps of SSC


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

sqAree said:


> 5 people, really?
> But yeah, agreed about this method being good, although I rather root for SSC-O.


Yes, actually 4 known people have made methods around this principle:
Shadowslice E
Crafto22
10 second cube
Morwen Thistlewaite


----------



## sqAree (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> The Eoline makes it not as good. Also, Shadowslice is collaborating with us on this method, and agrees that this one is probably better.
> Even he admits that EZD is maybe the fastest way to do a method like SSC and ECE.
> they are pretty much exactly the same, except for the Eoline in the first steps of SSC





shadowslice e said:


> I find the best ways to do this for speed are EZD and SSC-O



But yep, those methods are similar to an extent that we can call them "essentially the same". I think as for now both SSC and ECE are just a huge set of possible variations on essentially the same method we'll soon know which one will be the most promising and develope it further.


----------



## efattah (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> This method is almost like destiny to become a popular method: it has been independently invented by at least 5 people, and it is more efficient than roux. It has also gotten sub-10, and tell me how many of those "new 3x3 speedsolving method" can do that? Especially if you soup this method up as much as you can, you get about 50 max. algorithms, compared to CFOP's 78 minimum.
> You've got Roux's alg count mixed with CFOP's consistency and ZZ's "everything is a lucky case". Who else thinks that this thing is gonna be big?



Well yesterday I got a slightly lucky 9.90 with my LMCF method (typical move count is 34-57 with an average of about 41) but it requires at least 220 algorithms and has a steep learning curve that would deter most people. I think ECE will have a far easier learning curve, far less algorithms, and get people fast much quicker, making it (in the future), really popular and effective; however, as it does start with the E-slice, and follows the general pattern of belt methods, I still consider it an advanced belt method. Another reason I consider it that is because when I came across it independently (even before I even heard of 'belt' methods), I 're-discovered' the original 'belt' method(s) and found them inefficient and realized we needed to orient corners of at least 1 layer while we solved the E-slice, so at least when I (partially) developed it, it came about as an advanced variant to the older belt method. However, I don't like the term 'belt' method anyway, as the belt has little to do with the method. The idea of any belt method is not to solve a belt but rather to separate the top and bottom layers into pieces of opposing colors, 'getting rid' of the E-slice pieces so they don't interfere. By means of this separation, we essentially execute a reduction or a reduction algorithm, reducing the possible combinations of the cube dramatically and allowing layer based operations such as orientation to be performed. I would call them reduction or layer separation methods (i.. LSM or something like that).

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Even he admits that EZD is maybe the fastest way to do a method like SSC and ECE.



Some clarification: I think that the last phase of EZD is the nicest way to do the last stage of either ECE or SSC though I still prefer the EoLine first as it is more efficient.

Also, for the last phase, I think for another SSC (ie Eo first) we can separate the edges while solving the corners which would need 48 algs if i calculated correctly though many of these would be inverses of each other so we would need maybe 30 algs for the whole set. It could also lead straight to the easy D algs and from what I've genned, the algs look only very slightly longer than normal.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 11, 2016)

Are the any videos of anyone solving with this method or SSC? There are a few people talking it up and claiming to have got fast solves, but it would be good to actually see some solves with it. I especially want to know what the sq1 step looks like fast .


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Are the any videos of anyone solving with this method or SSC? There are a few people talking it up and claiming to have got fast solves, but it would be good to actually see some solves with it. I especially want to know what the sq1 step looks like fast .


Ive been asking for one of these for a while. Amen!


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 11, 2016)

Hey guys, I'm currently working on speed-optimal algs for EZD and another secret alg set that will make ECE EVEN faster and move-optimal. I've been getting 37 or 39 moves with this new alg set, and I'm super excited to share it once it is done. All it requires is the memo of 49 algs and it makes the first step easier and eliminates an entire step! I'm almost finished, I'll share the google sheets doc soon!


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Ive been asking for one of these for a while. Amen!


I'll record some solves soon, I'll try to get a sub-13 ao5.


----------



## Rouxkie (Apr 11, 2016)

Another stupid question... wouldn't it be easier to separate the corners already in step 1 instead? This would save the move-intensive step 3a. At least one could make sure not to have more than 2 wrong corners in D-layer to keep 3a short.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 11, 2016)

Rouxkie said:


> Another stupid question... wouldn't it be easier to separate the corners already in step 1 instead? This would save the move-intensive step 3a. At least one could make sure not to have more than 2 wrong corners in D-layer to keep 3a short.


I'm currently developping algs that will eliminte this issue. I'm going to modify this thread soon, the ECE method is going to be changing pretty drastically.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> I'm currently developping algs that will eliminte this issue. I'm going to modify this thread soon, the ECE method is going to be changing pretty drastically.


woah woah woah, wasn't the best part about ECE the low alg count?
also the corners are pretty easy to track once you get used to it.
we dont want this to be like the triangular francisco method, where its efficient but nobody uses it because it uses 100+ algs


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> woah woah woah, wasn't the best part about ECE the low alg count?
> also the corners are pretty easy to track once you get used to it.
> we dont want this to be like the triangular francisco method, where its efficient but nobody uses it because it uses 100+ algs



I think it's fine to add a few algs but keep it less than 50.

If we can work out a nice pattern, step 2 could also be intuitive. What we need is a tool which does a certian set of tasks in a low movecount way.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I think it's fine to add a few algs but keep it less than 50.
> 
> If we can work out a nice pattern, step 2 could also be intuitive. What we need is a tool which does a certian set of tasks in a low movecount way.





crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, I'm currently working on speed-optimal algs for EZD and another secret alg set that will make ECE EVEN faster and move-optimal. I've been getting 37 or 39 moves with this new alg set, and I'm super excited to share it once it is done. All it requires is the memo of 49 algs and it makes the first step easier and eliminates an entire step! I'm almost finished, I'll share the google sheets doc soon!


Please, don't add all those algorithms. It may just be like 1-look LSE: no one uses it because it can be solved just as fast intuitively and the algorithm count is fairly high.
One of the main lures to this method is the total alg count even when you max the algorithms you need to learn is still much less than CFOP, enough to make a large difference in the time spent on algorithm memorization vs time spent actually lowering your time.
Please don't make it essential to the solution, or people will be turned off by the algorithm count.
Im not saying don't make it, I'm saying keep the original ECE method, its very useful and maybe the best new method ive learned, due to the low alg count yet I can still get within 10 seconds of my main method times.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Please, don't add all those algorithms. It may just be like 1-look LSE: no one uses it because it can be solved just as fast intuitively and the algorithm count is fairly high.
> One of the main lures to this method is the total alg count even when you max the algorithms you need to learn is still much less than CFOP, enough to make a large difference in the time spent on algorithm memorization vs time spent actually lowering your time.
> Please don't make it essential to the solution, or people will be turned off by the algorithm count.
> Im not saying don't make it, I'm saying keep the original ECE method, its very useful and maybe the best new method ive learned, due to the low alg count yet I can still get within 10 seconds of my main method times.


You don't have to learn the algs, but I STRONGLY recommend you do. With the algs, lookahead is undisputably better, the movecount goes way down and the overall speed of the method is greater. This isn't anything like 1-look LSE, this is combining multiple steps with only a few algs. If you think 49 algs is a lot you don't know what a lot is.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> You don't have to learn the algs, but I STRONGLY recommend you do. With the algs, lookahead is undisputably better, the movecount goes way down and the overall speed of the method is greater. This isn't anything like 1-look LSE, this is combining multiple steps with only a few algs. If you think 49 algs is a lot you don't know what a lot is.


for a roux solver, anything more than CMLL is a lot of algs.
But yes, I agree, maybe I should learn them, but please keep the original variation of it.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> for a roux solver, anything more than CMLL is a lot of algs.
> But yes, I agree, maybe I should learn them, but please keep the original variation of it.


How exactly would this affect people wanting to do the normal version? And 49 algs doesn't sound bad, that's less than full OLL! I'm curious about what the alg set does.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 11, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> How exactly would this affect people wanting to do the normal version? And 49 algs doesn't sound bad, that's less than full OLL! I'm curious about what the alg set does.


yes, And also how many other algorithm sets does it cut out? lets try to keep this method under 60 algorithms


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 11, 2016)

I say let's try and generate algs as necessary and see how far we can push this method. Consistently sub-40 sounds pretty insane.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 12, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I say let's try and generate algs as necessary and see how far we can push this method. Consistently sub-40 sounds pretty insane.


Consistently sub-40? I'm consistently sub-14 with this method XD



bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> How exactly would this affect people wanting to do the normal version? And 49 algs doesn't sound bad, that's less than full OLL! I'm curious about what the alg set does.


What is does is a secret for now, but it doesn't cut out any other alg sets. The total alg count for the most move optimal and fast method is 76, less than CFOP but I will concede it is still quite a few.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

I am currently trying to look for a new method that could potentially be a speedsolving method averaging around 40 moves or less. I am thinking of trying either a Petrus variation or ECE(SSC). What do you guys think the limits are for the ECE(SSC) method.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 12, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Consistently sub-40? I'm consistently sub-14 with this method XD
> 
> 
> What is does is a secret for now, but it doesn't cut out any other alg sets. The total alg count for the most move optimal and fast method is 76, less than CFOP but I will concede it is still quite a few.



I was thinking move count, not times  but yes, it seems potentially very good


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

yes, this method is INSANELY efficient. 

Hey regulars to this thread:
I wrote a promotion for this method with a link to here on the new method/concept/substep/ideas forum so we will likely get more visitors to this thread.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yes, this method is INSANELY efficient.
> 
> Hey regulars to this thread:
> I wrote a promotion for this method with a link to here on the new method/concept/substep/ideas forum so we will likely get more visitors to this thread.


I agree, very similar to the average move count of Hawaiian Kociemba (40 or less garunteed if used correctly), check out the thread or wiki page. Would a combination be viable, and is one even possible? They are very different methods. This could either work so unbelievably well that CFOP disappears, or just fails.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I agree, very similar to the average move count of Hawaiian Kociemba (40 or less garunteed if used correctly), check out the thread or wiki page. Would a combination be viable, and is one even possible? They are very different methods. This could either work so unbelievably well that CFOP disappears, or just fails.


the difference between it suceeding or failing is publicity. Tell all your cubing friends about it! we gotta get word of this method around!


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> the difference between it suceeding or failing is publicity. Tell all your cubing friends about it! we gotta get word of this method around!


No I'm talking about ECE combined with HK, probably the two most efficient methods in this thread.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

yes, but ECE as a whole was what I was talking about. More algorithm and move-efficient than CFOP??? i mean who wouldn't want to switch?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yes, but ECE as a whole was what I was talking about. More algorithm and move-efficient than CFOP??? i mean who wouldn't want to switch?


Lol you are ignoring HK...
Constant high 20s is possible with HK after practice, but most example solves are 30-40, like ECE...
Again, you are ignoring HK in everything I say...
Some people are switching to HK as well


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

thats because Im focusing on this method at this moment, and I think that a marriage of the two would be premature, ECE has just been practically born.


----------



## PurpleBanana (Apr 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yes, but ECE as a whole was what I was talking about. More algorithm and move-efficient than CFOP??? i mean who wouldn't want to switch?


Anyone who already uses CFOP.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

PurpleBanana said:


> Anyone who already uses CFOP.


anyone who uses decked-out CFOP yes, but anyone who has just learned CFOP will want to switch. I learned full PLL and I still switched to Roux.


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 12, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Consistently sub-40? I'm consistently sub-14 with this method XD


Video then, please!


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

I am wanting to switch methods, even after learning full OLL and PLL, some COLL, VHLS, WV, and VLS. Most people don't want to switch because of the speed at which you can achieve and being able to just recognize and perform quickly.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 12, 2016)

Guys, here is an example of a "fast" solve (12.42). I would like to film an ao12, but I'm just a bit too busy to do anything more.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

Is it possible you have the scramble?
I will try to reconstruct the solve to see how efficient it is currently when speedsolving.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 12, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Lol you are ignoring HK...
> Constant high 20s is possible with HK after practice, but most example solves are 30-40, like ECE...
> Again, you are ignoring HK in everything I say...
> Some people are switching to HK as well



I personally dislike HK, and I am already getting great times with just ECE. I don't think a combination of HK and ECE is a good idea tbh. I'm not saying ECE is better than HK, but if you take a look at the top ECE solvers (aka me lol) vs the top HK solvers, ECE is undoubtedly the better method, unless you can provide us with a video of an HK solve that is faster than my video of ECE.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 12, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Is it possible you have the scramble?
> I will try to reconstruct the solve to see how efficient it is currently when speedsolving.


I don't think it's visible in the vid, and otherwise, I didn't save it  Maybe try reverse-reconstructing to find the scramble? EDIT: After watching in slo-mo, I'm guessing that was around 45-47 moves, but I'm not sure.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

Finished Reconstructing the Example Solve.

U F R2 D' R U' //Partial EO+1, Orient Some Corners
D L' U2 R U R' U2 L //SLS/WV Setup
U' R U R' D2 //SLS/WV
R2 U' R2 //Seperate Corners
y' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U R2 U2' R2 //Permute Corners
y M' U M2 U' M' //BR + BL Edges
y' M' U' M U M' U' M D' //EO + 2 More Edges
R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U2 //EPLL

58 STM
4.67 TPS


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Guys, here is an example of a "fast" solve (12.42). I would like to film an ao12, but I'm just a bit too busy to do anything more.


AWESOME MATE!!!
for a sub 15 solve, it looked like very low tps, but I guess that you need to do half as many moves as you would need to do for a sub-15 CFOP solve.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

Finished reconstructing. 58 STM... That's surprising, might be because it's a speedsolve, but still about 15 moves off from the theoretical average moves for the EZD Variant.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 12, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> I personally dislike HK, and I am already getting great times with just ECE. I don't think a combination of HK and ECE is a good idea tbh. I'm not saying ECE is better than HK, but if you take a look at the top ECE solvers (aka me lol) vs the top HK solvers, ECE is undoubtedly the better method, unless you can provide us with a video of an HK solve that is faster than my video of ECE.


Alex Maass got some awesome times on an HK variant after he learned it just a few minutes before. He has a video, compare this to his other times.
You are a much faster solver than any of the HK users (and just an amazingly fast Cuber in general), so judging it on time is quite unfair. 

Also I would like to point something out...


> I'm not saying ECE is better than HK





> ECE is undoubtedly the better method,


Hmmm, I'm thinking your statements are slightly lacking in evidence and your views on either method are a little biasedand influenced by opinion rather than truth... What exactly is your honest opinion? Look through the HK thread and point out any flaws that make it worse than ECE or anything that makes it better.
These methods are dead equal, and I at least think it is worth experimenting with a hybrid.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

I think it would help if there were some random solve reconstructions when there is more time to inspect the cube to see if the move count can drop a lot.


----------



## adimare (Apr 12, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> This could either work so unbelievably well that CFOP disappears, or just fails.


Lol


----------



## Rouxkie (Apr 12, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Finished reconstructing. 58 STM... That's surprising, might be because it's a speedsolve, but still about 15 moves off from the theoretical average moves for the EZD Variant.



Thanks for the reconstruction, JTWong71. I have to admit this solve does nothing to convince me, that's 73 moves in SQTM. Even with my basic Roux knowledge this scramble took only 65 moves...


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 12, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> ECE is undoubtedly the better method, unless you can provide us with a video of an HK solve that is faster than my video of ECE.


Thanks for posting the video, but one solve isn't enough. It's silly to point to one solve as evidence of anything, whether it's a fast time or a high move count. With all the effort you're putting in here, I don't believe you're too busy to do more than one solve.

I'm not trying to catch you out, or conclude the merits of the method from one video. I don't care if it's a slow average or higher move count, and that wouldn't prove those things can't be improved. It would just be interesting to see the method being used, and it would enable discussion of things like recognition, ergonomics, etc. based on some input other than theorising and speculation. 

It's great to see some method innovation on here actually getting some popular support, as so many ideas are just shot down, but for wider credibility you're going to have to demonstrate it not just talk about it.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 12, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Finished Reconstructing the Example Solve.
> 
> U F R2 D' R U' //Partial EO+1, Orient Some Corners
> D L' U2 R U R' U2 L //SLS/WV Setup
> ...


That isn't what I did. What you said was the SLS setup was part of the SV alg. This reconstruction is incorrect, sorry to say 



mark49152 said:


> Thanks for posting the video, but one solve isn't enough. It's silly to point to one solve as evidence of anything, whether it's a fast time or a high move count. With all the effort you're putting in here, I don't believe you're too busy to do more than one solve.
> 
> I'm not trying to catch you out, or conclude the merits of the method from one video. I don't care if it's a slow average or higher move count, and that wouldn't prove those things can't be improved. It would just be interesting to see the method being used, and it would enable discussion of things like recognition, ergonomics, etc. based on some input other than theorising and speculation.
> 
> It's great to see some method innovation on here actually getting some popular support, as so many ideas are just shot down, but for wider credibility you're going to have to demonstrate it not just talk about it.





mark49152 said:


> Thanks for posting the video, but one solve isn't enough. It's silly to point to one solve as evidence of anything, whether it's a fast time or a high move count. With all the effort you're putting in here, I don't believe you're too busy to do more than one solve.
> 
> I'm not trying to catch you out, or conclude the merits of the method from one video. I don't care if it's a slow average or higher move count, and that wouldn't prove those things can't be improved. It would just be interesting to see the method being used, and it would enable discussion of things like recognition, ergonomics, etc. based on some input other than theorising and speculation.
> 
> It's great to see some method innovation on here actually getting some popular support, as so many ideas are just shot down, but for wider credibility you're going to have to demonstrate it not just talk about it.


Im mainly just too lazy to upload an average, I'll try to get around to it at some point. In the meantime, I'd like to say I didn't quite express myself properly in some previous posts. I don't think ECE is a revolutionary method, I don't think ECE is better than any other methods and I don't really enjoy having to deal with this thread everyday. Although it may not seem like it, I actually don't have that much time to do all this forum stuff, and it's taking up too much time. I'm going to have to drop development of this method for a while, it has become too great if a task to deal with. I encourage others to learn this method and hopefully have as much success as I did.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 12, 2016)

hey guys, if Shadowslice, crafto22, or anyone who knows enough wants to help fill out the ECE method wiki page here than it would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Rouxkie (Apr 12, 2016)

crafto22,

It would be nice if you could share your ideas to work around the step3 / layer separation issue. Maybe someone can pick up on them in the meantime.

Thanks!


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> That isn't what I did. What you said was the SLS setup was part of the SV alg. This reconstruction is incorrect, sorry to say



I was going to change it once I realized, I was rushing the naming part because it was already late for me and I had school the next day. Other than the naming of what the reconstructed steps had, it was still your solve. If you still don't believe me, you can check the video and see if the moves matched what you did.

Fixed Version:
U F R2 D' R U' //Partial EO+1, Orient Some Corners
D L' U2 R U R' U2 L U' R U R' D2 //Summer Variation
R2 U' R2 //Seperate Corners
y' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U R2 U2' R2 //Permute Corners
y M' U M2 U' M' //BR + BL Edges
y' M' U' M U M' U' M D' //EO + 2 More Edges
R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U2 //EPLL


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 12, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hey guys, if Shadowslice, crafto22, or anyone who knows enough wants to help fill out the ECE method wiki page here than it would be greatly appreciated!



https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/SSC_(Shadowslice_Snow_Columns)


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 13, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I agree, very similar to the average move count of Hawaiian Kociemba (40 or less garunteed if used correctly), check out the thread or wiki page. Would a combination be viable, and is one even possible? They are very different methods. This could either work so unbelievably well that CFOP disappears, or just fails.



Tried combined the 2 methods somewhat, got the STM down to around 30.

y2 //Inspection
R2 U2 R2 D F' r' //First Block
B D' R' D L F2 B U' B' L' //EO+Some Edges
U' R2 U R2 U' F2 D' L2 D' L2 D2 F2 //CP+EP

28 STM, if somehow someone learns all the final permutations for the last step.

y2 //Inspection
R2 U2 R2 D F' r' //First Block
B D' R' D L F2 B U' B' L' //EO+Some Edges
U F2 D' L2 U L2 U F2 D //CP + BR Edge Placement Skip
M2 U M U2 M' U M2 //EPLL

32 STM, Seperating CP and then doing EP.

Not sure if this was just lucky, although I combined the E-Slice Edges with the Orientation step, while also placing a couple edges for a 2x2x3.

Did the same scramble using ECE:

x //Inspection
F R' L d' B //EOLine
R' U R' U' B2 R U' R //E-Slice Edges + CO
U2 D' L U2 L D L D' L D L' D' L2 U2 L' //CP
D' M S' D' M D2 M U' S' M U //L8E

39 STM, it could've dropped to 28 STM but that is only if someone learns CP+EP combined when only 4 pieces are solves as a minimum.

Same scramble using HK:

y //Inspection
D' F' R2 B' L D2 F2 D2 //2x2x3
F' U F U' F' U2 F //EO+F2L-1C
R' F R F' R' F R F' R F R' F' R //AB3C
F' U' f R F R' B' R //L3C

36 STM


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 13, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Tried combined the 2 methods somewhat, got the STM down to around 30.
> 
> y2 //Inspection
> R2 U2 R2 D F' r' //First Block
> ...



Eyy nice work, should definitely be tested on more scrambles before any wide generalizations are made, but I think this does at least prove that this should be tested more. Thanks for this 
Can you explain what the steps are as well? I would like to test this too.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 13, 2016)

The steps will probably be slightly altered later if it works well.
I used a hybrid Petrus HK Variant by building part of the 2x2x3, then finishing the 2x2x3.
Then, in more specified steps, orient the edges, corners, and solve the E-Slice. The steps can be combined by using algorithms such as the usual WV, SV, CLS, SLS. Then solve CP, and then EP.
I just thought of some quick things that I thought would reduce the move count from Petrus HK.
I still think the steps can be improved if it works out.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 13, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I was going to change it once I realized, I was rushing the naming part because it was already late for me and I had school the next day. Other than the naming of what the reconstructed steps had, it was still your solve. If you still don't believe me, you can check the video and see if the moves matched what you did.
> 
> Fixed Version:
> U F R2 D' R U' //Partial EO+1, Orient Some Corners
> ...


Yes that is correct nice job!


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 13, 2016)

Hey guys I would like you all to know that shadowslice e is the creator of the method, I simply developped his SSC idea a bit further. Although I did come up with this on my own, shadowslice e should receive credit as the creator of this method.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 13, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys I would like you all to know that shadowslice e is the creator of the method, I simply developped his SSC idea a bit further. Although I did come up with this on my own, shadowslice e should receive credit as the creator of this method.



I appreciate the gesture but considering the developments you made I think you should rightly be considered a creator/proposer of it as well, at least when it comes to SSC-M/ECE but not SSC-O perhaps


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 13, 2016)

Yes, Crafto22, this method you developed leagues more than Shadowslice ever did, and this method could be big!


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 13, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Yes, Crafto22, this method you developed *leagues more than Shadowslice ever did*, and this method could be big!



^^ this I'm not sure about. He may have a few more LEE styles than I did though the EoEdge+1, WV/SLS, LEE->LSE, CTL & CP SQ-1 style, Misaligned RF, RB and EoEdge cases (R2/L2 off respectively) for CTL/CP, genning and conceptualising SLS and pseudopair WV, actually noting misoriented SSC-M variants first (for somewhat better lookahead), switching of centres using r2 during CTL for shorter cases and flexibility, tracking of certain pieces for future steps, FMC variants such as SSC-Domino and working on L2L variants that built on crafto's work such as CPETL and CETL or opposite edges in LEE as the first step were mine.

In addition, refering to the first post I made in this thread,


shadowslice e said:


> Spoiler: Also, from the SSC thread (SSC-M)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


, you get a (series of) quotes which outline ECE-L6E, original ECE and the EPLL variation. I didn't include the "Broken variant" as this boils down to exactly what the Belt method is.

This is not to say crafto did not make some important contribututions, which he certianly did with the EZD variant ( and also especially helping to popularise it with his times and progress), but I don't think he developed it "leagues more than Shadowslice ever did", even when only considering SSC-M/ECE.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 14, 2016)

Hey guys, my last name is Adam, I'd be willing to rename this method to Adam-Briggs, or the AB Method if that is fine with shadowslice.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 14, 2016)

yes the AB method
or BA, which one should we do?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 14, 2016)

BA sounds better, let's call it the BA method. Is that alright with you, shadowslice?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 14, 2016)

hes in britain, probably wait a little before you expect him to reply


----------



## DoctorKilgrave (Apr 14, 2016)

Haven't read the entire thread yet. Forgive me if this has been mentioned already. Any chance of a video series demonstrating the BA method?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 14, 2016)

DoctorKilgrave said:


> Haven't read the entire thread yet. Forgive me if this has been mentioned already. Any chance of a video series demonstrating the BA method?
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


There's a video of Crafto22 doing a 12-second solve


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 14, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Hey guys, my last name is Adam, I'd be willing to rename this method to Adam-Briggs, or the AB Method if that is fine with shadowslice.





Shiv3r said:


> yes the AB method
> or BA, which one should we do?





crafto22 said:


> BA sounds better, let's call it the BA method. Is that alright with you, shadowslice?



Yeah that's great


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 14, 2016)

Most methods really only have one Acronym and one nickname, like old pochmann/OP, CFOP/Fridrich.
So for just an "Oh, what method do you use?" lets say Briggs-Adam
because "BA method" has about as many syllables as "Briggs-Adam", and ECE has even more. Lets call it ECE like people call fridrich CFOP, and like people call CFOP fridrich lets call it Briggs-Adam, ok?
what do you think?


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 15, 2016)

I just read this whole thread 
And I am specifically trying to find algs for EZD

So this is what I know so far about it(EZD)
1. E slice -1, while simultaneously placing 3 oriented corners(same opposite) on one side
2. Orient and place last corner, with last edge of the e slice while simultaneously orienting all corners in top layer using WV and something
3. Corner splitting and permutation using square one algs(that I can't find)
4.orient all edges, and then place all the bottom edges, but they don't have to be permuted
5. Permute all edges at the same time using algs that we don't know yet

Can you guys give links?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

theradhaxor said:


> I just read this whole thread
> And I am specifically trying to find algs for EZD
> 
> So this is what I know so far about it(EZD)
> ...


I made some algorithms for EzD, look around pages 4-5 i think
theyre a link to a google drive probably a little hard to spot

and for square-1 algorithms just look for the square-1 solution guide by lars vandenbergh


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

the algorithms for EZD are here: link to EPBL version 2.0
you can comment on the paper if you want to suggest changes or modifications.

and for square 1 algorithms: 
->the / in between the parentheses is an R2 move
ignore any 1 or -1's in the parentheses:
for the instance (a,b): 
-If a is equal to 3, do a U face move. if a is equal to -3, do a U' face move.

for any algorithm where there is an odd number of /'s, you need to tweak it because the e-slice edges on the R face will be switched, if you really are out of ideas ill find my tweaked algorithms and PM them to you.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> the algorithms for EZD are here: link to EPBL version 2.0
> you can comment on the paper if you want to suggest changes or modifications.
> 
> and for square 1 algorithms:
> ...


Too many S moves. I have some better algs on a doc, I'll try to finish it and then give you guys the link here.


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Most methods really only have one Acronym and one nickname, like old pochmann/OP, CFOP/Fridrich.
> So for just an "Oh, what method do you use?" lets say Briggs-Adam
> because "BA method" has about as many syllables as "Briggs-Adam", and ECE has even more. Lets call it ECE like people call fridrich CFOP, and like people call CFOP fridrich lets call it Briggs-Adam, ok?
> what do you think?


Ya ok sure


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Too many S moves. I have some better algs on a doc, I'll try to finish it and then give you guys the link here.


YES.
my algorithms are always subpar and I cant install Acube to let me restrict the movesets so I'm stuck with "allow slice moves" with cube explorer.
for the double H perms though, I like this algorithm:
(x') E2 M2 F2 E2 M2 F2(x<-or do I really need one? the cubes solved anyway.)
the story behind this:
being able to make 2 H's(the pattern/Roux case, not the permutation) opposite each other on the cube predates my ability to solve it. When I generated this case the first time I recognizes it as that and tried to solve 4 H's simultaneously using the same idea, and this is what I got.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

also, someone needs to add the variants onto the speedsolving wiki page.


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 15, 2016)

So we're stuck with efficiency without ergonomics for the last step. Hmm I wish I could download cube explorer, but I have a Mac


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

theradhaxor said:


> So we're stuck with efficiency without ergonomics for the last step. Hmm I wish I could download cube explorer, but I have a Mac


All you need to do is a y' move and then M/M'


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 15, 2016)

Also I took a screenshot for the corner permutation both layers algs on a SSC thread, but there a re 10 cases, not 5.


----------



## sqAree (Apr 15, 2016)

No one wants y moves or S moves in the last alg. ^^
Cube Explorer is really not the best choice as you can either use all different kinds of slice moves or none.


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 15, 2016)

What about square one algs for the edges?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2016)

theradhaxor said:


> What about square one algs for the edges?


Read again there is no step where square-one algs are used for edges


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> YES.
> my algorithms are always subpar and I cant install Acube to let me restrict the movesets so I'm stuck with "allow slice moves" with cube explorer.
> for the double H perms though, I like this algorithm:
> (x') E2 M2 F2 E2 M2 F2(x<-or do I really need one? the cubes solved anyway.)
> ...


My algs are very nice (mostly MUD moves) and I used Cube Explorer. You need to know how to tweak the alg so that the S moves become D/D' or U/U' with cancellations into an M


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 15, 2016)

I read the details, but I'm saying that it might be logical to square one algs for edges.

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit rude, it's hard to express emotions online


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 15, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> My algs are very nice (mostly MUD moves) and I used Cube Explorer. You need to know how to tweak the alg so that the S moves become D/D' or U/U' with cancellations into an M


So we treat U and D as one move? I understand what t does as I do that my self in solves, but that algs start to get really long, and D moved in solves aren't the most ergonomic if followed my M moves. Maybe, if you perform M' with right ring finder, you could force the cases to mostly have D moves as opposed to D' moves?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 15, 2016)

I vote we call the method ABC or Adam-Briggs Columns. Just because I like the acronym.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

please no. Briggs-adam. And also, its not really columns first... its kinda a little of everything. please, we need just an inventor name. Im calline it Briggs-adam. It falls off the tongue easier and is easier to say I think.


----------



## sqAree (Apr 15, 2016)

To be honest I like the idea of "ABC" and at least for me "AB" flows more nicely than "BA" anyway (maybe because I'm not a native spaker?).


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

sqAree said:


> To be honest I like the idea of "ABC" and at least for me "AB" flows more nicely than "BA" anyway (maybe because I'm not a native spaker?).


not even BA just briggs-adam. BA sounds like crap and its the same amount of syllables.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> not even BA just briggs-adam. BA sounds like crap and its the same amount of syllables.


but yeah maybe ABC, but Columns first isnt its real name


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 15, 2016)

Dude, you didn't even make the method... let's just let the creators decide what they want to name it. Let crafto22 weigh in and we'll see what happens


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 15, 2016)

fine


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 15, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I vote we call the method ABC or Adam-Briggs Columns. Just because I like the acronym.


Yes that is perfect. ABC it is


----------



## Okboyyyy (Apr 16, 2016)

Hello
I really think we you guys have to work on EBPL algs rather than having a naming dispute as that is a reason this method is still considered "experimental"


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 16, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Yes that is perfect. ABC it is


Well, other people may not agree.
Try a straw pole.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 16, 2016)

A


Okboyyyy said:


> Hello
> I really think we you guys have to work on EBPL algs rather than having a naming dispute as that is a reason this method is still considered "experimental"


agreed. Lets just call it ECE for now and be done with it. No dumb acronyms please, just ECE or briggs-adam(like CFOP/Fridrich)
but seriously if you said you used ABC method, who'd take you seriously?

anyway, Ive tried my best on algorithms. Crafto, its your turn.


----------



## Renox (Apr 17, 2016)

tfw guy who was making name dispute complains about name dispute

Also, I would start using this method because it seems pretty cool but there are no algerinos and I'm not good at generating them


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 17, 2016)

Renox said:


> tfw guy who was making name dispute complains about name dispute
> 
> Also, I would start using this method because it seems pretty cool but there are no algerinos and I'm not good at generating them


me and Crafto are generating the algorithms. besides that you need to know some algorithms that are fairly easy to find and some adapted square-2 algorithms(look at lars vendenbergh's cubezone for that)
theres no algorithms you really need to gen unless ur looking at EZD


----------



## theradhaxor (Apr 17, 2016)

EZD is the most efficient so people would want algs for those. Btw square one algs are good for corners but not the most efficient. After generating efficient algs for EPBL and CPBL, you guys should post a wiki article that holds these algs in a set called 3PBL(sounds cool?), as regular PBL is for 2x2. Also, why don't square on algs work for the edges?


----------



## efattah (Apr 18, 2016)

A few people asked me to post example solves and reconstructions of the LMCF method I mentioned in this thread, here's a link to my post in the other thread including a 10.6 solve using LMCF:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...oncept-idea-thread.40975/page-91#post-1167223

Eric Fattah
Vancouver, BC


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 18, 2016)

Guys, I've had a pretty good idea recently and I think it is even better than ABC. It is a sort of combination of ABC and Roux and the result is pretty intriguing. I would appreciate it if you guys would go check out the thread and tell me what you think!


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 18, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> Guys, I've had a pretty good idea recently and I think it is even better than ABC. It is a sort of combination of ABC and Roux and the result is pretty intriguing. I would appreciate it if you guys would go check out the thread and tell me what you think!


where? I want to see.

I like all new methods, but for now I think the variants of Briggs-Adams will be big, so Im focusing on them now.

Also, crafto22, when are you going to post the EBPL algorithms?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 18, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> where? I want to see.
> 
> I like all new methods, but for now I think the variants of Briggs-Adams will be big, so Im focusing on them now.
> 
> Also, crafto22, when are you going to post the EBPL algorithms?


It's like right under ECE, you'll spot it if you look. I am trying to finish the EPBL algs, they'll be up soon


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 20, 2016)

How many Algorithms would you need to combine two of the steps with the corners? lemme think:
orientation+seperation: at least 7*5 algs=35 algs(this is if you insert the pair and then only use COLL cases). Thas isn't too bad really, but recognition might be hell
what about seperation+permutation: 5*3 cases(where both layers need perms)=15 cases(seperation and permutation may be better for just plain old single-layer perms)
say, that's not too bad! but recognition will probably be hell.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 20, 2016)

If you separate and permute corners at the same time, you get around 8!/16/2/2=630 algs. A little bit more than 15...

Also, if you want CPETL, I'm currently generating those algs. There are something like 48 algs I'll look it back up in a bit. I've almost finished with them though.

There is also an improved CO step created by SqAree and myself over on the SSC thread if anyone is interested.


----------



## JensRenders (Apr 25, 2016)

From the wiki

"This method has been independently invented by at least 3 people, but the person that has developed it the most, crafto22, is the official inventor of this method."

That seems like a ridiculous statement to make. What is an official inventor? Who wrote this? himself?


"The method is one of the most move-efficient method to ever have a sub-10 second solve"

How do you know that?


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 25, 2016)

JensRenders said:


> From the wiki
> 
> "This method has been independently invented by at least 3 people, but the person that has developed it the most, crafto22, is the official inventor of this method."
> 
> ...


I have no connection whatsoever to the wiki, whoever wrote it is responsible for their words


----------



## JensRenders (Apr 25, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> I have no connection whatsoever to the wiki, whoever wrote it is responsible for their words



I wonder who...


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

JensRenders said:


> I wonder who...


Lol
(No I am not saying me)


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 25, 2016)

JensRenders said:


> I wonder who...


I believe it was Shiv3r. I only did the SSC page but that was a while ago so it's not quite up to date (though it did exist before the other page and I think is more balanced and detailed)- I need to add the bit about the new CO stuff though.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2016)

I wrote the wiki page in order to provide a basis of the method and to point people towards this thread. anyone who wants to fix it is welcome to.


----------



## adimare (Apr 27, 2016)

I'm a ZZ solver and I thought about giving this a shot, but I'm having trouble understanding the broken variant:



> 1. The first step resembles EOLine, but the line is built on the left of the cube using the appropriate E-slice edges


Ok



> 2. This step is identical to the first and second step of the Original Variant, but it will be significantly easier due to their being half of the E-slice pre-built


After steps 1 and 2 of the original variant are done the E slice is solved and all corners are oriented, so I guess that's what I'm meant to do in this step.



> 3. Place the FD and BD edges


Can do, but not in 3 moves.



> 4. Finish the first two layers using R2, L2 or U moves.


I can do this using domino cube algs, but not in 15 moves.



> 5. Permute the last layer


Ok.

So either I'm misunderstanding something or this variant is not very good. An example solve would be appreciated.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 27, 2016)

adimare said:


> So either I'm misunderstanding something or this variant is not very good. An example solve would be appreciated.



It's not really tbh (it's basically a very slightly better variant of pure belt though it's still not really very good for speedsolving due to the higher movecount, worse ergonomics and not quite as nice lookahead). there are much better variants out there such as LEE->LSE or EZD. You could also try some style a bit more like the last few phases of pure HTA


----------



## adimare (Apr 27, 2016)

Good to know. Thanks, I'll look into those.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2016)

adimare said:


> Good to know. Thanks, I'll look into those.


I would suggest EZD, the algorithms are fast if you know how to do it.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> ECE, or *E*-slice edges, *C*orners, *Edges* is a solving method that focuses on many things that make a method great:
> - ergonomics
> - low movecount
> - good lookahead
> ...


crafto22, I would suggest sharing the EZD algorithms, please. None of us can gen good algs, and you supposedly have a god ergonomic algset. please? I will switch over to this method myself, I just need the EZD algs.


----------



## crafto22 (May 5, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> crafto22, I would suggest sharing the EZD algorithms, please. None of us can gen good algs, and you supposedly have a god ergonomic algset. please? I will switch over to this method myself, I just need the EZD algs.


I posted the algs I have in the SSC thread


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

thank you!


----------



## Shiv3r (May 5, 2016)

here it is:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EHGcr92ksjRZflXDwgBwhA8o04mrGoJShV3bYLzY-gI/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Shiv3r (May 27, 2016)

Hey, so for the Corner permutation of both layers PEBL (similar naming scheme to CxLL, Permute both layers with regards to the E-slice) ACube spit out some good algorithms.
T=adjacent swap in front(headlights/bar on back)
Y=Diagonal swap(cannot find headlights, works on any AUF)

T+T= same as Square-1 algorithm (See lars vandenbergh's cubezone for that)
T+Y= L U2 F' L' D2 L F U2 L'
Y+Y=R2 U2 F2 U2 F2 U2 R2


----------



## Cool Frog (May 28, 2016)

If the theoretical best time for this method is 9 seconds, how is it "the future?" That wouldn't place you top 100. How did you come up with those figures (move counts, avg time per step, avg time per method)? 

Also, 47 STM isn't more efficient than Roux if you look at what the best Roux users are doing in speedsolves.


----------



## Shiv3r (May 28, 2016)

Cool Frog said:


> If the theoretical best time for this method is 9 seconds, how is it "the future?" That wouldn't place you top 100. How did you come up with those figures (move counts, avg time per step, avg time per method)?
> 
> Also, 47 STM isn't more efficient than Roux if you look at what the best Roux users are doing in speedsolves.


CFOP's estimated time by this route is around 8 seconds. its just because of good lookahead and high TPS that sub8 is possible.


----------



## Teoidus (May 28, 2016)

I'm not sure we can say, but it'd be cool to see people learn this method in an attempt to demonstrate it's potential


----------



## Cool Frog (May 28, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> CFOP's estimated time by this route is around 8 seconds.



Again:


Cool Frog said:


> How did you come up with those figures (move counts, avg time per step, avg time per method)?



What is the "route?"



Shiv3r said:


> its just because of good lookahead and high TPS that sub8 is possible.



Is good lookahead & high TPS not possible with this method? Why wouldn't the possibility for these things be included in the so-called route to determine the "theoretical time?"


----------



## Shiv3r (May 29, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> I'm not sure we can say, but it'd be cool to see people learn this method in an attempt to demonstrate it's potential



Amen.


----------



## Hammer (Jan 19, 2017)

Hey I am learning this method but I was wondering if the people who are very good at this method solve the 3 e slice edges and D layer corner orientation at the same time, or first solve the 3 edges and then do corner orientation?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 19, 2017)

I solve both at same time


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 19, 2017)

Hammer said:


> Hey I am learning this method but I was wondering if the people who are very good at this method solve the 3 e slice edges and D layer corner orientation at the same time, or first solve the 3 edges and then do corner orientation?


I personally try to use this though admittedly I could be a lot better at this method.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 19, 2017)

wait there are people good at this method?


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 12, 2017)

Shiv3r said:


> wait there are people good at this method?


Haha well I don't know if you could consider it "good" or not but back in the day I was getting sub-13 ao5s. Haven't practiced ECE in ages though...


----------



## Poketube6681 (Mar 14, 2017)

Could you make a YouTube video explaining how this method works? I understand the concept but it's hard to wrap my head around the steps as (no offense) they aren't explained in a way that makes sense to me. However, I am very interested in learning this method. It seems very very cool


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 14, 2017)

Poketube6681 said:


> Could you make a YouTube video explaining how this method works? I understand the concept but it's hard to wrap my head around the steps as (no offense) they aren't explained in a way that makes sense to me. However, I am very interested in learning this method. It seems very very cool


Of course, that's absolutely no problem, however if I do make a tutorial it most likely won't be for ECE as I don't believe it is the most advanced version of this method. I will most likely make a tutorial for SSC, with the consent of shadowslice of course. Should be coming in the near future, however I'm on vacation right now so I won't be able to record anything for at least a week.


----------



## Poketube6681 (Mar 14, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Of course, that's absolutely no problem, however if I do make a tutorial it most likely won't be for ECE as I don't believe it is the most advanced version of this method. I will most likely make a tutorial for SSC, with the consent of shadowslice of course. Should be coming in the near future, however I'm on vacation right now so I won't be able to record anything for at least a week.


No problem. What channel would it be uploaded to?


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 14, 2017)

crafto22 said:


> Of course, that's absolutely no problem, however if I do make a tutorial it most likely won't be for ECE as I don't believe it is the most advanced version of this method. I will most likely make a tutorial for SSC, with the consent of shadowslice of course. Should be coming in the near future, however I'm on vacation right now so I won't be able to record anything for at least a week.


I give my consent


----------



## crafto22 (Mar 15, 2017)

Okay perfect so in a week or so I should have a tutorial up on my channel, which is simply my name (Julien Adam). Just look it up on YouTube, some cubing videos might come up. Otherwise I'll post a link here as soon as it's uploaded.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## American-Cuber (May 6, 2019)

Does anyone know if there are any EZD algs, I would very much like to learn them.


----------



## Silky (Dec 28, 2020)

So I've been checking out ECE for the Uncommon Method comp and noticed the similarities between ECE corners and the Guimond Method for 2x2.
From my understanding:

ECE => (1) Oriented 3 corners on D of opposite colours + place 3 E slice edges (2) Pair final E slice edge with a corner and preform WV orienting all corners (3) Separate corners to respective layers and permute.

Guimond => (1) Orient 3 corners on D of opposite colours (2) OL5C aka Guimond orientation (3) Separate corners to respective layers and permute.

It says on the wiki for the advanced variant to solve all of E slice/orient 3 D layer corners and then preform OL5C. Was wondering, similar to Guimond, if you could use a HD-G like extension forcing V cases then separating and permuting remaining corners, simultaneously.


----------



## Burrito (Jul 29, 2022)

Shiv3r said:


> here it is:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EHGcr92ksjRZflXDwgBwhA8o04mrGoJShV3bYLzY-gI/edit?usp=sharing


Umm…not all the algs are there…Can I have edit/suggestion permissions? The email is [email protected]




Also, you can join the ECE Discord here: https://discord.gg/aEJ3xK5H2E


----------



## Silky (Jul 29, 2022)

Burrito Does Cubes said:


> Umm…not all the algs are there…Can I have edit/suggestion permissions? The email is [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All algs can be found here => https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...cwI_Az3NDX72IxNvh1ZcgBNY1Y/edit#gid=299705860


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 29, 2022)

this method has great potential


----------



## Burrito (Jul 29, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> this method has great potential


When all the algs are out, 100 percent doing it


----------



## Silky (Jul 30, 2022)

Here is a doc for the SLS algs https://sheet.zohopublic.com/sheet/published/m8yj83f1b3b68d046490692aeff7cdfc3cacf


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jul 30, 2022)

ECE is a fascinating method. I was messing around with it today and my first solve was a 37STM solution! Are there any algorithms for EO or does a list need yet to be made? Thanks for the SLS sheet @Silky, I was wondering where I would find WV algorithms that have only regard for CO. They look promising, along with the entire method. I have my doubts on if this method has world-class potential because L8E (however you want to call it) seems like a very unergonomic step. Especially EZD. Still a really cool method and I'll definitely be exploring it some more. I might even make it my main method.

One other question I had is if L5CP has been considered yet? It would just take the best algs from TTLL to solve the DFR and U layer corners. It certainly seems like a viable trick set.


----------



## Silky (Jul 30, 2022)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> Are there any algorithms for EO or does a list need yet to be made


Here's a list for EO =>


https://imgur.com/a/ANYPHN9

I'm working on an algset that will simultaneously orient and separate edges into layers to finish with EZD. Also am going to EZD+1 which allows one edge to be separated into the incorrect layer.



TheCubingCuber347 said:


> I was wondering where I would find WV algorithms that have only regard for CO


These algs could still be improved. All of them except for one preserve EO so we could gen to see if there are better ones that do no preserve it. I used Batch Solver so I could still use cubexplorer to find some better ones. I also made some GLS algs as well. I want to work on a megadocx for SSC/ECE which will include everything. Check this doc for OL5C, EZD, CTL, and CP => https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...cwI_Az3NDX72IxNvh1ZcgBNY1Y/edit#gid=299705860. OL5C is an alternative to SLS and is rather elegant imo. SLS is easier but OL5C is more efficient in my experience..



TheCubingCuber347 said:


> if L5CP has been considered yet? It would just take the best algs from TTLL to solve the DFR and U layer corners


I proposed a bit ago to use TTLL for the Broken Variant and a L6CP variant. If you follow my progression thread I outline it a bit more there. I do plan to gen out 6CP for SSC at some point but they have already been developed for Mehta if you want to check that out.


----------



## Zaffran (Nov 8, 2022)

I made some variant (here) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L0WYyurU7zI4fL0P8XtD7EgGZfkelKrr7hSyhQ2qyJ8/edit?usp=drivesdk


----------



## abunickabhi (Nov 8, 2022)

Burrito said:


> Umm…not all the algs are there…Can I have edit/suggestion permissions? The email is [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


is the ECE discord active?

Also I recommend that you give full form and one line about what this method is and what it tries to achieve.


----------



## Burrito (Nov 8, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> is the ECE discord active?
> 
> Also I recommend that you give full form and one line about what this method is and what it tries to achieve.


Its not really active anymore -- id be happy to hand over ownership to anyone who wants it


----------



## Burrito (Jan 1, 2023)

will start using this again but not as main method

maybe for some example solves/for fun/for OH


----------



## Burrito (Jan 1, 2023)

i also refined the discord server quite a bit


----------

