# XG (New Method Based on Fridrich!)



## Lucas Garron (Aug 19, 2009)

Yo, I've been kinda thinking and came up with this good idea for cube solving. I think its an expert method, so Ill post it here. Its called Xtreme-Garron, or also "XG".

Anyhow, you know how normally you solve with Fridrich when you do cross, then 4 slots, then you have OLL and PLL. Except that F2L and OLL and PLL have so many algs. Theres intuitive F2L, some peaple call it, but that doesnt really make you less cases to know.

So, my idea is, you do F2l kinda like normal. But instead of knowing so many algs u just use a few. Its much easier to keep only those in your head, and use the same fast ones and get practice on doing them fast eevry solve. Like, you split up each pair and instead of "pair, then insert," you do "insert corner, then insert edge." So you insert corner with RUR' or RU'R' or RU2R'U'RUR', then do edge with URU'R'F'UF or R'U'R'U'R'URUR. These are just some sample algs I pcicked, feel free to use your own.

FOR EXAMPLE!
Lets say you have the F2L case you get by setting up R U F2 R' F2 R'
Normally youd solve it by doing R U2' R' U2 R U' R'
But with XG, you do U2 R U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U R U R. Two simple algs, and its not that much longer.

Therefore, the advantage is you only need to keep 5 algs in your head (4 if you use F'U'F instead of RU'R' for that case), and its always the same. F2l becomes much simpler, and you can easily practice to be fast. With enough practice, this will work good as an expert method. Im not saying that everyone should use XG instead of Friedrich, but its a fast alternative that has some great potential, yeah.

So, to the LL. Well, instead of OLL, PLL, you split up the steps.
What you do for OLL, is you use Compound OLL.
If you dont know, its a ool idea by Lucas Garron, where you do the OLL in only one look, even if you do two algs for the case.
You use R U R' U' r R' U R U' r' for opposite edges casew but you do r U R' U' r' R U R U' R' if theyre adjacent. But you use U M' U' R' U' R U M2' U' R' U r if you get unlucky and get all 4 edges flipped (poor you). As you probably know, its impossible to get 1 or 3 flipped edges.

Anyhow, after you do edges, you do one of the 7 corner cases (unless corners were right at the beginning of the step). Those, you can find all over the internet or on the wiki. Theyre the ones with all the edges flipped yellow up. You see, the edge algs in compOLL keep the corners in place, allowing you to do the corner case in the same place as before the edge alg, so you can see the case before. You can then learn more OLL cases, but you don't need to, because your OLL is already ONE LOOK.

But then for PLL, you do like normal 2-look PLL. Its only 6 cases in two steps, what you do is first place the corners (but like relative to each other, doesnt have to be the centers), then do one of the EPLL algs. Macky has a good description here. But make sure not to use his OLL method, but actually use compoundOLL.

But why not learn full PLL to get fast, you ask? Well, you do OLL in one look, two algs. To be consistent, you should keep PLL two looks. And kinda like compOLL, you can get used to recognize what will be EPLL fast, before youre done with the meving corners alg. And you can always use more PLLs, my suggestion is not, since your time is better spent practicing doing XG really fast.


Yeah, so thats XG. Im happy I discovered such a cool expert method, I hope some of you here will like it (and maybe use it ). I think its a good balance of speed but simplifies the steps so its easy but still fast and expert.


----------



## edd5190 (Aug 19, 2009)

*applauds*

This may be your greatest work yet, Lucas.


----------



## dbax0999 (Aug 19, 2009)

+1

My first thought when I saw the thread name was: "Surprise Challenge? Wait, this is Lucas Garron"


----------



## Waffle's Minion (Aug 19, 2009)

Interesting... But if people want to use full pll instead of 2-look, it is faster and chances are they already know the algs.

None the less, incredible.


----------



## Paul Wagner (Aug 19, 2009)

Waffle's Minion said:


> Interesting... But if people want to use full pll instead of 2-look, it is faster and chances are they already know the algs.
> 
> None the less, incredible.


Facepalm.


----------



## Waffle's Minion (Aug 19, 2009)

Did i miss out on something?


----------



## Kian (Aug 19, 2009)

Waffle's Minion said:


> Did i miss out on something?



No, you missed out on everything.


----------



## Waffle's Minion (Aug 19, 2009)

Kian said:


> Waffle's Minion said:
> 
> 
> > Did i miss out on something?
> ...



Ouch, what in particular?


----------



## skwishy (Aug 19, 2009)

Maybe I am missing something too but didn't he just describe intuitive f2l with 4LLL?


----------



## Waffle's Minion (Aug 19, 2009)

skwishy said:


> Maybe I am missing something too but didn't he just describe intuitive f2l with 4LLL?



Thank you! Thats what i thought too! But it sounds like it has less algs.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 19, 2009)

this method is XTREME

Can you get a sub-20 average with this, Lucas? I'd like to know how it competes with Triangular Francisco. (Of course, I'd expect at least a sub-10 average eventually, but I doubt you're going to be totally used to this method for a little while.)


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 19, 2009)

Cool method, think I might use it for FMC


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Aug 19, 2009)

Uh... Itsn't this jsut putting in a corner, then edge then 4LLL which is worse than a normal 4LLL?


----------



## riffz (Aug 19, 2009)

He's saying that you use edge orientation algs that don't alter the corners so you can see the corner OLL at the same time without memorizing the OLL that comes afterward. 

But I don't see why you are being ridiculed for saying that using full PLL would be faster if you already know it.


----------



## Waffle's Minion (Aug 19, 2009)

That s what it sounds like. Lucas, could you clarify?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 19, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> Uh... Itsn't this jsut putting in a corner, then edge then 4LLL which is worse than a normal 4LLL?



It's sort of hard to explain... you'd really have to be an expert on cubing theory to immediately understand why this method is better than Fridrich. If you're not you could just spend a few weeks doing this method alone - I guarantee you'll see how awesome it is after some serious practice.


----------



## Davepencilguin (Aug 19, 2009)

It seems that with having a few fast algorithms and more steps than Fridrich, you'll be able to look ahead faster and easier.
But the total number of moves needed would be alot higher.

So which is better?
Having a higher MPS count and a shorter time between steps, but a higher total amount of moves per solve...
or a lower MPS count and slightly longer times between steps, but a lower total amount of moves per solve?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 19, 2009)

Waffle's Minion said:


> But if people want to use full pll instead of 2-look, it is faster and chances are they already know the algs.


Sure, but its really not necessary.



skwishy said:


> Maybe I am missing something too but didn't he just describe intuitive f2l with 4LLL?


No. It's absolutely not intuitive F2L. Its corners, then edges. And its a special, good 4LLL.



qqwref said:


> this method is XTREME
> 
> Can you get a sub-20 average with this, Lucas? I'd like to know how it competes with Triangular Francisco.


After a few warmup solves:
21.53 avg12: 21.18, 21.28, (23.68), (17.06), 21.66, 21.83, 21.89, 21.37, 19.46, 22.66, 23.66, 20.26



*LukeMayn* said:


> Uh... Itsn't this jsut putting in a corner, then edge then 4LLL which is worse than a normal 4LLL?


No, it itsn't. Its jsut putting in 4 corners and 4 eddges, and then using an LL which is better that a "normal" 4LLL.



riffz said:


> But I don't see why you are being ridiculed for saying that using full PLL would be faster if you already know it.


You dont understand the method, dont you? You do PLL with T-perm or Y-perm, then EP algs like Bert or Arne or Allan. You dont have to know full PLL.



qqwref said:


> It's sort of hard to explain... you'd really have to be an expert on cubing theory to immediately understand why this method is better than Fridrich. If you're not you could just spend a few weeks doing this method alone - I guarantee you'll see how awesome it is after some serious practice.


Well, youre right. Its hard to immediately understand. But I can kinda explain: Fridrich may be fast, but XG is pretty fast and not as complicated.
But yeah, you need to spend a lot of time on this method to understand the benefits qqwref and I can understand.



Davepencilguin said:


> Having a higher MPS count and a shorter time between steps, but a higher total amount of moves per solve...
> or a lower MPS count and slightly longer times between steps, but a lower total amount of moves per solve?


Its TPS, not MPS, the common abbreviation. But the former is defiantly better.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Aug 19, 2009)

this method fails... get a sub 12 average and I'll believe it's good... lolwut, I bet this is a hoax


----------



## Davepencilguin (Aug 19, 2009)

riffz said:


> But I don't see why you are being ridiculed for saying that using full PLL would be faster if you already know it.


You dont understand the method, dont you? You do PLL with T-perm or Y-perm, then EP algs like Bert or Arne or Allan. You dont have to know full PLL.


That's all fine and dandy, but if you ALREADY KNOW PLL, what's the point in switching? If you know more algorithms, and can apply more in a solve, you will always be able to solve faster.
Simpler =/= better


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Aug 19, 2009)

^^ you realize this thread is a joke..


----------



## Davepencilguin (Aug 19, 2009)

*LukeMayn* said:


> ^^ you realize this thread is a joke..



One does not joke in the world of cubing o.o


----------



## Lofty (Aug 19, 2009)

Wow! Look at that! By putting the corner in and then the edge I can make my whole F2L into RU!! New OH method? I think so! Plus all the other advantages I think this method will really help me get the WR.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Aug 19, 2009)

A compiled list of the algs is appreciated. I would really like to test this method out!


----------



## beingforitself (Aug 19, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> So, my idea is, you do F2l kinda like normal. But instead of knowing so many algs u just use a few. Its much easier to keep only those in your head, and use the same fast ones and get practice on doing them fast eevry solve. Like, you split up each pair and instead of "pair, then insert," you do "insert corner, then insert edge." So you insert corner with RUR' or RU'R' or RU2R'U'RUR', then do edge with URU'R'F'UF or R'U'R'U'R'URUR. These are just some sample algs I pcicked, feel free to use your own.
> 
> FOR EXAMPLE!
> Lets say you have the F2L case you get by setting up R U F2 R' F2 R'
> ...



yo lucas, this method seems pretty useful, I totally did'nt think of it before

So anyway, I was practicing it for a few hours and thinkinng about some ways to make XG even more expert, and was playing around and came up with some this super sweet way to make the xg f2l better. I know I havent talked to you about it, but i am going to call it the XGJF2L method (Xtreme-Garron-Jahn-F2L) (cause Jahn is my last name, lol)

So basicly, my idea is that you do XG kinda like normal. What I think u could do is make the total algs even less, so that like even though the total movecount might be just a tiny bit higher you are using only superfast, even easier algs. You still split up the F2l down from Fredrich into pairs, but instead of having to use 3 algs to insert the corner, you could do everything with just RUR'U', which is (at least for me) a realy fast alg, and there is less thinking involved as well, which makes stuff faster generally.

EXAMPLE:

Using the same set up case R U F2 R' F2 R'
With normal XG, you do U2 R U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U R U R.
But with XGJF2L you would do: U (RUR'U')x5 U2 R' U' R' U' R' U R U R

It's not that much more moves, plus with practice most people can do RUR'U' really fast. The biggest strength i think though is that you dont have to decide between RUR' or RU'R' or RU2R'U'RUR' for corners, but you just do the same thing every time, that means you have to think less, so you can go faster in the end.

Let me know what you thikn, I am pretty excited that I came up with this new even more expert method.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Aug 19, 2009)

Thats 31 - 14 = 17 moves more for the alg, even if you could do RUR'U' triggers fast, I don't think there will be any bigger effort.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 19, 2009)

deepSubDiver said:


> A compiled list of the algs is appreciated. I would really like to test this method out!



Cross: No algs
First Layer Corners:

R U R'
R U' R'
R U2 R' U' R U R'
First Layer Edges:

U R U' R' U' y' R' U R
R' U' R' U' R' U R U R U
R U' R' U y' R' U2 R U2' R' U R (Edge Flip, ADVANCED!)
OLL-Edges:

R U R' U' M' U R U' r'
r U R' U' r' R U R U' R'
U M' U' R' U' R U M2' U' R' U r
OLL-Corners:

R U R' U R U2 R'
R U2 R' U' R U' R'
l U R' D R U' R' D'
R U' L U' R' U L' U2 R U' R'
R U2' R2' U' R2 U' R2' U2 R
R U R' U R U' R' U R U2' R'
x' U' R U L' U' R' U r
PLL-Corners:

R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
PLL-Edges:

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


----------



## deepSubDiver (Aug 19, 2009)

Great, thanks! I will look into that method and train a little, since I am currently learning Roux, I guess this will be a good way for comparison.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 19, 2009)

Hay guys! badmephisto just posted a really cool XG tutorial!! Check it out


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 19, 2009)

Omg!
That video was supposedly uploaded in July.
Obviously, the XG method is so good that it's faster than light, thus letting meph travel back in time to upload the video!


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 19, 2009)

My thoughts exactly


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 19, 2009)

wow just wow... 
i..i..im im in complete aww
its incredible its zomgtastic its its wow


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 19, 2009)

I fail to see what's so great about this method. Incase none of you knew Fridrich can be done in 6 algs.You simply need to follow 3 rules.

1. Make sure both corner and edge are on top 

2. seperate the corner and the edge if they're together

3. align the pieces so they can be solved

I don't think this is too great. I'm sorry. I just don't. Do you know why? It's just a way of putting in the corner and the edge except you do it in more moves.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Aug 19, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> I fail to see what's so great about this method. Incase none of you knew Fridrich can be done in 6 algs.You simply need to follow 3 rules.
> 
> 1. Make sure both corner and edge are on top
> 
> ...


:fp:fp:fp:fp:fp

5 of them are enough I think. I can't understand how you fail to see that this has been a joke the whole time.


----------



## Daniel Wu (Aug 19, 2009)

Wow. Just wow. :fp People are taking this seriously. Lol.


----------



## fanwuq (Aug 19, 2009)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> 
> 
> > I fail to see what's so great about this method. Incase none of you knew Fridrich can be done in 6 algs.You simply need to follow 3 rules.
> ...



It's not a joke. Only a true Expert of cubing would see how awesome this method is.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 19, 2009)

People are just sucking up to lucas. This method is just beginners F2L on steroids. This is in no way expert, or fast. It uses like 14 moves to put in a corner and edge. That's way to many. It's no better then the beginners method. Except this method doesn't have as many cube rotations. So this fails.


----------



## Zaxef (Aug 19, 2009)

Uhhhh... This has to be a joke, it's basically the LBL method...
I can't believe this has gone on for 4 pages


----------



## fanwuq (Aug 19, 2009)

It's not a joke. Lucas is just a genius.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14875


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 19, 2009)

Here's for everybody that thinks this is good.

:fp for you
:fp another for you
:fp one for you too
:fp yeah, you definately deserve

Oh, and a few :fp:fp:fp:fp:fp for lucas garron.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Aug 19, 2009)

And a few :fp:fp:fp:fp:fp for you. And if you don't know why, you deserve another 10 of them.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 19, 2009)

Yeah, whatever. I believe your username says it all.


----------



## brunson (Aug 19, 2009)

You should save your facepalms to sell on eBay, then maybe you can afford a sarcasm detector with enough left over for a sense of humor.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 19, 2009)

Well, your sig has lead me to believe I already have one.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Aug 19, 2009)

Cubefag reports in.
I now trained this method a little and it is really effective. I sometimes manage sub 0 solves and it often happens to have a middle layer skip. Also, I optimized the algorithms a little and made them 1-gen. This really helps my TPS and obviously is the reason for the sub 0 solves.
Amazing work, Lucas!
This method should get a Wiki page!


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 19, 2009)

Okay, this really isn't funny any more. Seriously, it's dumb.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 19, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Okay, this really isn't funny any more. Seriously, it's dumb.



I don't think you get it. 

Didn't you read the post? It's *less algs*!


----------



## fanwuq (Aug 19, 2009)

Kirjava said:


> xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, this really isn't funny any more. Seriously, it's dumb.
> ...



Yeah, that makes it the best method. Looks like your problem is solved. 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14875


----------



## puzzlemaster (Aug 19, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Okay, this really isn't funny any more. Seriously, it's dumb.



Then an intelligent person would stop looking at the thread. Either that, or they'd grow a sense of humor and just go along with it.


----------



## Ewks (Aug 19, 2009)

WOW! This is just awesome. You just don't have to think about anything anymore to get fast. This is perfect. 

There's just one thing I would add to this method I'd maek all the algs one gen by doing cube rotations. like instead of RU I'd do RzR. They're easier to perform 'cause you just do like two Rs in a row.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Aug 19, 2009)

Ewks said:


> WOW! This is just awesome. You just don't have to think about anything anymore to get fast. This is perfect.
> 
> There's just one thing I would add to this method I'd maek all the algs one gen by doing cube rotations. like instead of RU I'd do RzR. They're easier to perform 'cause you just do like two Rs in a row.


That's what I did.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=226823#post226823


----------



## ManasijV (Aug 19, 2009)

The 4LLL "Expert" LL is just too complicated for me. But I will spend a few months just practising them and getting the whole LL under one second. Sub-5 is possible. This is the future of cubing.


----------



## edd5190 (Aug 19, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Here's for everybody that thinks this is good.
> 
> :fp for you
> :fp another for you
> ...


Nice spelling.

Apparently you didn't realize that this was a joke. You can tell from the spelling mistakes and noobiness of Lucas' posts in this thread. Have you read his other posts? Compare those to the posts here and maybe you'll see that he was just acting. 

Lucas on the XG thread:



Lucas in the IRC chatroom said:


> Aug 18 21:45:23 <lgarron>	Ethan_Rosen: It's a grand parody of all the stupid threads out there.


----------



## shelley (Aug 19, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Okay, this really isn't funny any more. Seriously, it's dumb.



If this is dumb, what do you call the person who fell for it?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Aug 19, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> Yo,



That was enough by itself.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Aug 19, 2009)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > Yo,
> ...



Lol yea i read that and thought "there is no way he's serious about this."


----------



## Lucas Garron (Aug 20, 2009)

Experiment over. Hypothesis confirmed.
This thread has significantly more replies (55) than any serious ideas I've ever posted. The only threads I've ever started that gained more replies were SF09 (61) and the 2-gen contest (71).

Anyhow, the point wasn't so much a joke with which I wanted people to go along. It's supposed to make some of you realize that you're posting stuff which is just as stupid, with the pretense of knowing what you're doing. I wanted to capture all those minor-facepalm components I try to restrain myself from getting angry about.

As for the method, it's actually not bad for speed LBL. It's good if you want a high-TPS solve, or maybe if you want to show off with fast moves to people who don't care so much about the time.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 20, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> Experiment over. Hypothesis confirmed.
> This thread has significantly more replies (55) than any serious ideas I've ever posted.



Lol, my post on Phasing got a grand total of *0* replies. It must have been _very very_ serious


----------



## riffz (Aug 20, 2009)

Well I don't think my posts were stupid... I was just genuinely confused about this method being fast.

Although its funny, I did notice that you made quite a few spelling errors, which is definitely not like you.


----------



## IamWEB (Aug 20, 2009)

As I read the first post I thought several times about how Lucas sounded like a random member here making a thread, I guess that means he did a good job?

Also, this whole test in general was a great idea, and it worked.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm just...disgusted with certain people right now....

I could not have made a better parody to threads like this, and I really could not think any less of people who took this seriously...


----------



## jacob15728 (Aug 26, 2009)

Inserting the corners and edges seperately is slower than inserting them at the same time. Compound OLL is slower than full OLL. 2-look PLL is slower than full PLL. Therefore, XG is slower than Fridrich. Prove me wrong.


----------



## vrumanuk (Aug 26, 2009)

jacob15728 said:


> Inserting the corners and edges seperately is slower than inserting them at the same time. Compound OLL is slower than full OLL. 2-look PLL is slower than full PLL. Therefore, XG is slower than Fridrich. Prove me wrong.



:fp Why do so many people read only the first post of a multiple-page thread?


----------



## Anthony (Aug 26, 2009)

jacob15728 said:


> Inserting the corners and edges seperately is slower than inserting them at the same time. Compound OLL is slower than full OLL. 2-look PLL is slower than full PLL. Therefore, XG is slower than Fridrich. Prove me wrong.



No ****, wasn't that obvious enough?


----------



## jacob15728 (Aug 26, 2009)

Oh... I just read the rest of this thread and now I feel like a bit of an idiot. But I think not recognizing that it is a joke and realizing that it is a horrible method is nowhere near as bad as actually falling for it.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 27, 2009)

I knew it was a joke. But it's a dumb joke. Not even funny.


----------



## fanwuq (Aug 27, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> I knew it was a joke. But it's a dumb joke. Not even funny.





Lucas Garron said:


> Experiment over. Hypothesis confirmed.
> This thread has significantly more replies (55) than any serious ideas I've ever posted. The only threads I've ever started that gained more replies were SF09 (61) and the 2-gen contest (71).
> 
> Anyhow, the point wasn't so much a joke with which I wanted people to go along. It's supposed to make some of you realize that you're posting stuff which is just as stupid, with the pretense of knowing what you're doing. I wanted to capture all those minor-facepalm components I try to restrain myself from getting angry about.
> ...



After reading Lucas's message, I wouldn't even give you a facepalm.


----------



## PatrickT (Aug 30, 2009)

Waffle's Minion said:


> Interesting... But if people want to use full pll instead of 2-look, it is faster and chances are they already know the algs.
> 
> None the less, incredible.



lol epic fail


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2009)

ಠ_ಠ


----------



## Edward (Nov 18, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Lucas on the XG thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why the Heck are all threads presenting new ways to solve the cube stupid. I don't get you guys. You promote sharing your ideas, but when someone does, you automatically write them off. I find it wierd how instantly Lucas' post got serious replies (of course some were just playing along).


----------



## joey (Nov 18, 2009)

Because all these new methods.. just are Bad.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Nov 18, 2009)

I have no problem with a well thought out idea, with the merits of the new method explained over the old. But they're all really just 'what if we did...[this]?' where lately [this] has been solve the E slice first and fumble around the rest of the cube dealing with separating out into layers and fixing awkward parities.


----------



## Nukoca (Nov 18, 2009)

This is why I don't post whenever I don't understand a thread. It often saves me some ridicule.


----------



## Tomk (Nov 18, 2009)

Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Nov 18, 2009)

Tomk said:


> Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.



can you show us how you got those numbers? I think this method has potential.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 18, 2009)

Tomk said:


> Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.


lern2math

(The average would be 43,252,003,274,489,856,000, not half of that.)


----------



## anythingtwisty (Nov 18, 2009)

Sandbest said:


> I just found a way to improve the F2L of the XG method:
> My idea is to call it the XG-F2LWITHOUTANYALGSMETHOD. The basic idea of this method is to take XG and just make the F2L by inserting pairs; it's a very advanced method, so I can't really explain it, therefore badmephisto made a video about this (he already used the method), I hope you guys can follow this.


DUDE I JUST WENT SUB 10 MINUTES


----------



## hawkmp4 (Nov 18, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> Tomk said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't it be even better if you learnt no algoriths at all and just turned the cube until it solved, I could then do it in an average of 21,626,001,637,244,928,000 moves or if i made 10TPS 68,575,601,335 years, or 5 time the existance of the universe.
> ...


Wouldn't the actual number be higher? If I'm thinking about this correctly, 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 is assuming with every move you're visiting a new cube state.


----------



## mazei (Nov 18, 2009)

Why don't people read through the whole post?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 18, 2009)

mazei said:


> Why don't people read through the whole post?


yeah, good question, its only like 2 pages.



Spoiler



Anyone someone refers to page x, I feel like pointing out that my forum settings are 40 posts per page, so my page numbering is different. I should have the same right to be ignorant of other people and expect them not to get confused, rihgt?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 18, 2009)

hawkmp4 said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > Tomk said:
> ...


Huh?

Roll a die until you get a 6 and count how many rolls that took.
Repeat the experiment a few times.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Nov 20, 2009)

>.>
Shhhhhh.
Nothing more needs to be said. Hawkmp4 had a stupid moment.


----------



## DuJello (Sep 13, 2017)

Isn't this simply less efficient than CFOP which is already only good because of easy look-ahead? You're just increasing move count needlessly. CFOP already has a pretty bad move count for a speedcubing method but you almost doubled it. While I understand the general sentiment, learning and using algs isn't a bad way to solve until you try to learn way more algs than you could possibly ever practice and get fast at. Most decent cubers know from 50 to 130 algs which they can execute at full speed. There really isn't a need to consider methods with fewer algs unless your alg count is on the order of hundreds like zb or 1lll.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 13, 2017)

DuJello said:


> Isn't this simply less efficient than CFOP which is already only good because of easy look-ahead? You're just increasing move count needlessly. CFOP already has a pretty bad move count for a speedcubing method but you almost doubled it. While I understand the general sentiment, learning and using algs isn't a bad way to solve until you try to learn way more algs than you could possibly ever practice and get fast at. Most decent cubers know from 50 to 130 algs which they can execute at full speed. There really isn't a need to consider methods with fewer algs unless your alg count is on the order of hundreds like zb or 1lll.


Please don't bump old threads.

Also, CFOP isn't actually too bad movecountwise when you measure it in SQTM
Also, I think you missed the joke


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 13, 2017)

DuJello said:


> Isn't this simply less efficient than CFOP which is already only good because of easy look-ahead? You're just increasing move count needlessly. CFOP already has a pretty bad move count for a speedcubing method but you almost doubled it. While I understand the general sentiment, learning and using algs isn't a bad way to solve until you try to learn way more algs than you could possibly ever practice and get fast at. Most decent cubers know from 50 to 130 algs which they can execute at full speed. There really isn't a need to consider methods with fewer algs unless your alg count is on the order of hundreds like zb or 1lll.



No, this method is notably better. With this method, you have a really long time to recognize F2L, OLL, and PLL cases due to the length of each of their first steps. With CFOP, it can take seconds to recognize these same exact cases, which result in long, unnecessary pauses.

Although, if we're talking about better alternatives to CFOP, CFinity is definitely the way to go.


----------



## Benjamin Warry (Sep 13, 2017)

I actually tried CFinity once. It took me 2 months. However I suspect that the fact that I was using a shengshou was the main reason for my slowness. I wonder if this could be applied to something like a 4x4. Think of it! Reduxinity! Make the centres, pair up the edges and if it isn't solved repeat! With this method you could solve the 4x4 intuitively every time!


----------



## FJT97 (Sep 14, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Please don't bump old threads.
> 
> Also, I think you missed the joke



Why?


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 14, 2017)

FJT97 said:


> Why?


Don't bump old threads if you have nothing new to add. It's just good etiquette and also in the forum rules.


----------



## YouCubing (Sep 14, 2017)

Benjamin Warry said:


> I actually tried CFinity once. It took me 2 months. However I suspect that the fact that I was using a shengshou was the main reason for my slowness. I wonder if this could be applied to something like a 4x4. Think of it! Reduxinity! Make the centres, pair up the edges and if it isn't solved repeat! With this method you could solve the 4x4 intuitively every time!


i mean i have an official 39 with cfinity (not just a lucky LL skip, I actually tried for it)


----------



## Piotr Grochowski (Oct 31, 2017)

You can improve on F2L by taking advantage of free slots, for example:


----------



## mDiPalma (Oct 31, 2017)

Piotr Grochowski said:


> You can improve on F2L by taking advantage of free slots, for example:



or sometimes you can just use petrus, which is a less efficient variant of XG
F2 U F U' F2


----------



## Piotr Grochowski (Nov 1, 2017)

1. It breaks different pieces than the algorithm shown on picture; with my alg, you can rotate the D face to break different corners, and does not break any edges.
2. Isn't JUP for big cubes?


----------



## Ranzha (Nov 1, 2017)

Piotr Grochowski said:


> You can improve on F2L by taking advantage of free slots, for example:


F Rw U Rw' F' for that case 

Please don't unnecessarily bump old threads, particularly joke ones!


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 1, 2017)

Ranzha said:


> F Rw U Rw' F' for that case
> 
> Please don't unnecessarily bump old threads, particularly joke ones!


This is a joke? :-O


----------



## Piotr Grochowski (Nov 1, 2017)

Ranzha said:


> F Rw U Rw' F' for that case
> 
> Please don't unnecessarily bump old threads, particularly joke ones!


1. This breaks different pieces than the marked piece
2. This isn't for beginners. Beginners simply find it easier to rotate down face, then insert the edge.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 25, 2019)

why is this in the wiki as a serious method?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 25, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> why is this in the wiki as a serious method?


Because it is a serious method.


----------

