# Briggs (3x3x3 method)



## shadowslice e (Sep 19, 2015)

This method is solely focused on 3 things: ergonomics, relatively low movecounts and relatively low alg counts (pretty much what i have always tried to develop in my methods) It is based on the conjecture that you can reduce all corners on a 3x3x3 to 2-gen using a 3-cycle and relies heavily on inspection.
The novelty in this method is in the first two steps



Spoiler: Method overview



1) Roux FB+CP
2) BD+FD+Eo
3) Finish F2L
4) 2GLL





Spoiler: More detailed step explanation






Spoiler: Roux FB and CP



1a) Solve a 1x1x2 block (so both share white/yellow and one other colour) (1 move)
1b) Solve CP (one three cycle; place last FB corner and push to one of the swap cases from here: http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm) (more detail on this below) (7 moves)
1c) Finish FB (FL and BL edges) (5 moves)

Total: 13 moves

The reason all of this is one step is because you can do all of it during inspection as the 3-cycle doesn't affect EP. It reduces the solve to <R, Rw, U>





Spoiler: Place FD and BD and orient remaining edges



2a) place BD (3 moves)
2b) orient edges and place FD in an L5E style (7 moves)

Total: 10/24 moves

Pretty self explanatory. This reduces the solve to <R, U>





Spoiler: Finish F2L



Essentially identical to the step in ZZ. (13/37 moves)





Spoiler: 2GLL



Pretty simple really: identify LL cases, apply one of 84 algs (including reflections) (13/50 moves)








Spoiler: Pros



VERY ergonomic (especially for OH) as it is mostly <Rw, R, U> (completely after FB)
Relatively low alg count for 1LLL
Lowish movecount
1LLL
Good lookahead up to LL





Spoiler: Cons



Some 2GLL cases do suck (but good algs could just be generated)
Could be difficult for beginners to pick up (but not much worse than ZZ)
Otherwise I don't think this method has very many cons





Spoiler: CP recognition



1) During inspection plan or find a 2x1x1 block using the DL edge and an adjacent corner using slice moves (purely because it is better for lookahead)
2) Locate the DL corners. They will fit one of the patterns on this webpage: http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm 
3) Identify the position of DL corner and where the piece in it's current slot should go to create the series of 2-swaps the two swaps will be made of 3 pairs: the DL corners (easily identifiable because they have a unique facelet colour) and the two U face corners which have opposite colours (so a red/blue/white piece would pair with a orange/green/white piece.) Usually you will also have to move one more piece to have the full pattern so a 3-cycle is needed.
Note: 1/2 the time you will also need to swap the DL corners (the ones that would be in these spots when solved) if you incorrectly do the 3-cycle for an opposite case and end up with the corner swaps in the opposite directions and an opposite swap LL.


CP video tutorial
http://youtu.be/fXnkFs_v6Qo


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 19, 2015)

this looks cool
and btw sorry I'm leaving the no avatar club


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 19, 2015)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?41986-Noah-s-CP-Block-Method-2-0


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 19, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?41986-Noah-s-CP-Block-Method-2-0



No, read the more detailed description.

You don't need to place DL corners and you can plan it in inspection.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 19, 2015)

This is the exact same thing that you and I attempted to develop in the New Method/Substep/Concept/Idea thread isn't it?


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 19, 2015)

2180161 said:


> This is the exact same thing that you and I attempted to develop in the New Method/Substep/Concept/Idea thread isn't it?



Not quite. The difference is in the first step where a 3-cycle is used and the first step is easier with the recognition method which is as much a part of the method as the steps themselves.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 19, 2015)

85 for 2GLL and how many for the 3-cycles?
Also, I was practicing what I proposed in the thread (phasing before 2GLL) and was starting to get sub-25 averages with it. I think that sub-20 with this is certainly possible.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 19, 2015)

2180161 said:


> 85 for 2GLL and how many for the 3-cycles?
> Also, I was practicing what I proposed in the thread (phasing before 2GLL) and was starting to get sub-25 averages with it. I think that sub-20 with this is certainly possible.



3-cycles are intuitive- you anly need to orient 1 corner rather than all of them. I only really use them so the whole of the first step can be planned out in inspection.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 19, 2015)

Examples please?

Also, this:

1a) Solve a 1x1x2 block (so both share white/yellow and one other colour) (1 move)
1b) Solve CP (one three cycle; place last FB corner and push to one of the swap cases from here: http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm) (more detail on this below) (7 moves)
1c) Finish FB (FR and BR edges) (5 moves)

I don't understand. I understand "Solve a 1x1x2 block" though. What it seems like to me is: 1x1x2 block, place the FB corner, solve CP, complete FB (Maybe you meant FL and BL edges?) I don't know where you got 5 moves from.


----------



## AlexMaass (Sep 19, 2015)

Yes, example solves please.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 19, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> Examples please?
> 
> Also, this:
> 
> ...



You solve CP while placing DBR then finish FB using Uw, U, Rw and R moves to preserve CP. A more detailed description on how to dot his is in the Recogntion spoiler at the bottom of the post.

And yes I did mean FL and BL. I've changed that now.

I'll upload some examples of the first step when I get the chance


----------



## AlexMaass (Sep 19, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> You solve CP while placing DBR then finish FB using Uw, U, Rw and R moves to preserve CP.
> 
> And yes I did mean FL and BL. I've changed that now.
> 
> I'll upload some examples of the first step when I get the chance



more curious for a full example solve


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 19, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> more curious for a full example solve



By now everyone should know that I'm really terrible at notation.

For example solves of the last 3 steps see the link Rob posted in his first reply.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 19, 2015)

I assume this is what you meant: 
Scramble:R2 D2 B' R2 B' D2 R2 B2 R2 F' L2 D' L2 R D F' L' D2 R' F' L'
x2 y 
U' F2 U B2// 1x1x3
R' U L' U R' U' L// CP
U E2 R' E' R' u// FB
M U M' U2 M U' M U M' U2 M//EO 2x2x3 while preserving CP
U R' U R' U' R' U' R2 U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U' R'//2GF2L
U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R2 U R' U R U2 R'// 2GLL


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 19, 2015)

I don't know if that is a good example to follow but you used about 20 moves to solve FB and permute corners...


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 20, 2015)

My solve up to LL
Scramble: R2 F' L2 D2 B2 U R' L' F D R2 D F2 U2 R L2 D F'

z' y' // inspection and 1x1x2
L' U2 L D2 L' U2 L D2 y// DBL and CP
U' R' Uw' R2 Uw2// finish FB
Rw U Rw U Rw// DB (horrible case)
U2 y M' U M y' Rw U2 Rw'// Eo+2x2x3
From here a Petrus or ZZ user could probably do this better than me. What I did to finish F2L is :U2 R' U2 R' U' R2 U2 R U R' U' R U2 R' U R

I used 13 moves to do FB+CP and 12 moves to do Eo+2x2x3 and use 4 L moves and no F or B moves.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 20, 2015)

24 quarter turns to do FB+CP... That is bad imo. You might as well do FB normally, then CP when you reach LL if this uses up so many moves at the start...


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 20, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> 24 quarter turns to do FB+CP... That is bad imo. You might as well do FB normally, then CP when you reach LL if this uses up so many moves at the start...



Where did you get 24 quarter turns? I count 19. Also, it depends on what 3-cycle is used. This one is one of the worst 3-cycles due to the positioning of the corners which were cycled. Most of the time you won't get a case which requires 2 double turn accessible corners so the regular move count in SQTM would be more likely 1+8+7= 16 moves (it is also a regripless step).

Also, LOOKAHEAD. You can plan the entirety of the first step in the inspection without too much effort once you have worked out the 3-cycle to correct CP as well as some of the second step if you are good with lookahead (or 3-cycles if you like BLD). And you don't have to try to recognise corner permutation later in the solve which will inevitably lead to a long pause or wasted moves getting RD corners to their positions. So this is much more fluid for the whole solve.

Lastly, if you go FB then CP the way that is described by the method you posted, you still get around 8+3+3=14 moves (and these are some of the lower numbers assuming good blockbuilding) and I'll be damned if some of them aren't double turns (so the actual movecount in SQTM would be at least 16) and then there is still the aforementioned problem with lookahead. Thus, I would say that 3 extra moves (or none in STM plus we haven't factored in how my method movecount could be lower if the corners weren't in such horrible positions) for a greatly increased lookahead and less algs is a good tradeoff.

So, yes Rob, I agree with you that movecount in SQTM is important (which is why this method aims for a movecount of 50- about the same as the "big four" (discounting petrus))but other things are important to consider as well; the lookahead given by this method is much better than many other methods which can help to give more fluid solves and forcing of good cases in the way in which could potentially lower the movecount as well.


----------



## mark49152 (Sep 20, 2015)

Isn't one of the objectives to avoid rotations, but the example has some nasty rotations in it? More examples would be helpful.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 20, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> Isn't one of the objectives to avoid rotations, but the example has some nasty rotations in it? More examples would be helpful.


That is how he did the EO. The y M' U M y'. To avoid rotations, he could have done F B' R/R' F' B.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 20, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Where did you get 24 quarter turns? I count 19. Also, it depends on what 3-cycle is used. This one is one of the worst 3-cycles due to the positioning of the corners which were cycled. Most of the time you won't get a case which requires 2 double turn accessible corners so the regular move count in SQTM would be more likely 1+8+7= 16 moves (it is also a regripless step).



Ok 19, which is still bad. You still haven't explained how to do CP properly. And you say it's more likely to be 16 which is still bad. I've asked a bunch of roux solvers to do an average of 12 for the first block in SQTM and the best of us are getting about 8 or 9 moves for this. I could just do a niklas at LL and get around 16 moves too. So why are you proposing to solve CP so early on. What led you to believe that this was a good idea? Also it's a regripless step? So what? People use a number of regrips in CFOP solves and can still achieve decent times. Is this such a big thing to you? It isn't to me.



shadowslice e said:


> Also, LOOKAHEAD. You can plan the entirety of the first step in the inspection without too much effort once you have worked out the 3-cycle to correct CP as well as some of the second step if you are good with lookahead (or 3-cycles if you like BLD). And you don't have to try to recognise corner permutation later in the solve which will inevitably lead to a long pause or wasted moves getting RD corners to their positions. So this is much more fluid for the whole solve.


"You can plan...without too much effort" I'd like it if you can back up this claim for me, otherwise I don't believe it. I don't know you think recognizing corner permutation later in the solve will "inevitably lead to a long pause" when most of the top solvers can recognize it fairly fast with enough practice. Have you tried it yourself? Or is this another claim without much evidence to back it up?



shadowslice e said:


> Lastly, if you go FB then CP the way that is described by the method you posted, you still get around 8+3+3=14 moves (and these are some of the lower numbers assuming good blockbuilding) and I'll be damned if some of them aren't double turns (so the actual movecount in SQTM would be at least 16) and then there is still the aforementioned problem with lookahead. Thus, I would say that 3 extra moves (or none in STM plus we haven't factored in how my method movecount could be lower if the corners weren't in such horrible positions) for a greatly increased lookahead and less algs is a good tradeoff.


"greatly increased lookahead"...I don't believe you. Again, I would like evidence to back this up. 



shadowslice e said:


> So, yes Rob, I agree with you that movecount in SQTM is important (which is why this method aims for a movecount of 50- about the same as the "big four" (discounting petrus))but other things are important to consider as well; the lookahead given by this method is much better than many other methods which can help to give more fluid solves and forcing of good cases in the way in which could potentially lower the movecount as well.


Yes, I think SQTM is somewhat important, or at least we should stop using HTM for speedsolves. Yeah I don't believe that the lookahead given by the method is much better than many other methods. Seems like you just made this up to me.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 20, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> Ok 19, which is still bad. You still haven't explained how to do CP properly. And you say it's more likely to be 16 which is still bad. I've asked a bunch of roux solvers to do an average of 12 for the first block in SQTM and the best of us are getting about 8 or 9 moves for this. I could just do a niklas at LL and get around 16 moves too. So why are you proposing to solve CP so early on. What led you to believe that this was a good idea?



Ok, first rob, you forgot to factor in how you would need to place the DL corners after FB so that's a few more moves after the FB which combined with the niklas is around 18 moves anyway and you would have to recognise the CP case before excecuting which is time that you will be able to avoid when doing my first step. In addition, I say 16 moves which is: solve 1x1x2 (1)+ 3-cycle+ setup (8)+ finish FB (7- and this is being conservative considering you only have 2 edges to place)



Robert-Y said:


> You can plan...without too much effort" I'd like it if you can back up this claim for me, otherwise I don't believe it. I don't know you think recognizing corner permutation later in the solve will "inevitably lead to a long pause" when most of the top solvers can recognize it fairly fast with enough practice. Have you tried it yourself? Or is this another claim without much evidence to back it up?



My claim for this is that the CP will not affect the edges at all (as you are doing a corner 3-cycle) so they can be planned during inspection whereas CP cannot be planned so easily during the inspection. Certainly, when I solve, I can somewhat predict where the DB edge will be after FB and CP. In addition, you need to practise your recognition a lot more if you want to recognise CP quickly.

Regarding the "long pause", I'll admit i was exaggerating a bit but i was comparing it to the pause that occurs in my method: namely, none (at least during the first step).



Robert-Y said:


> You still haven't explained how to do CP properly



Ok, this I will admit I am guilty of. In the most simple way I can describe it, you solve the remaining DR corner while permuting the remaining ones to a 2-gen solve using either a 3-cycle or a 2-swap.

To do this, you must first recognise what set of 2-swaps there are present (images of which are in the website link I provided in the OP; imagine the diagrams as if you were looking at the cube after a y rotation) the way that I do this is by finding the two DR corners and treating them as the first 2-swap. The remaining pairs are of opposite colours apart from on the U facelet (so a red/green would be paired with a orange/blue). To be 2-gen, they must fit into the 2-swap pattern that is dictated be the locations of the DR corners.

Clearly, as one of the corners in the pattern must be that of the remaining DL corner, the pattern is not complete so must be fixed after identifying what corner needs to be in the place it currently occupies.

The corner which is currently in the DL must also be cycled, so the three corners are cycled together with a 3-cycle (you can do this in less moves but I don't because the three cycle mean the edges can stay in place and so be planned more easily).

I'm afraid that that's the best explanation I can give in type. I will try to make it clearer but that's all I have ATM. Hopefully I'll be able to make it clearer if I verbally explain it to someone IRL and convert that to written form.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 20, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Ok, first rob, you forgot to factor in how you would need to place the DL corners after FB so that's a few more moves after the FB which combined with the niklas is around 18 moves anyway and you would have to recognise the CP case before excecuting which is time that you will be able to avoid when doing my first step. In addition, I say 16 moves which is: solve 1x1x2 (1)+ 3-cycle+ setup (8)+ finish FB (7- and this is being conservative considering you only have 2 edges to place)


Maybe I wasn't clear enough or that I misunderstand what you're trying to say. I'm saying that solving the first 1x2x3 block (and placing it on DL) seems to require about 8 or 9 moves for a "decent" Roux solver. However I think your second point is kinda fair although I still think that we can recognize the CP case fairly fast with enough practice. We can already recognize CxLL cases fairly fast, I think it's just a matter of learning what corner swap each CxLL case corresponds to.



shadowslice e said:


> My claim for this is that the CP will not affect the edges at all (as you are doing a corner 3-cycle) so they can be planned during inspection whereas CP cannot be planned so easily during the inspection. Certainly, when I solve, I can somewhat predict where the DB edge will be after FB and CP. In addition, you need to practise your recognition a lot more if you want to recognise CP quickly.


I don't know if this is a fair comparison but with CFOP, many of us can plan the cross and the first pair during inspection which is 6 pieces which is the same number of pieces for FB and DB so I do not see this as an advantage when I look at it this way. (Nor do I see it as a disadvantage)



shadowslice e said:


> Ok, this I will admit I am guilty of. In the most simple way I can describe it, you solve the remaining DR corner while permuting the remaining ones to a 2-gen solve using either a 3-cycle or a 2-swap.
> 
> To do this, you must first recognise what set of 2-swaps there are present (images of which are in the website link I provided in the OP; imagine the diagrams as if you were looking at the cube after a y rotation) the way that I do this is by finding the two DR corners and treating them as the first 2-swap. The remaining pairs are of opposite colours apart from on the U facelet (so a red/green would be paired with a orange/blue). To be 2-gen, they must fit into the 2-swap pattern that is dictated be the locations of the DR corners.
> 
> ...


Alright thanks for trying. I think I have a better idea of how this step is accomplished now. Still, if you or anyone has some more examples, that would be great to take a look at.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 20, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> I don't know if this is a fair comparison but with CFOP, many of us can plan the cross and the first pair during inspection which is 6 pieces which is the same number of pieces for FB and DB so I do not see this as an advantage when I look at it this way. (Nor do I see it as a disadvantage)



well, it's an ok comparison but you don't do CP or Eo in CFOP so it's not quite as simple as Cross+1 in that although you are solving the same number of pieces, you are influencing many more than CFOP does (at least normally).



Robert-Y said:


> Maybe I wasn't clear enough or that I misunderstand what you're trying to say. I'm saying that solving the first 1x2x3 block (and placing it on DL) seems to require about 8 or 9 moves for a "decent" Roux solver



I get what you are saying here in that FB can be solved pretty efficiently but (in almost every method that I have seen which deals with corner permutation) the DL corners must be placed in order to permute the L6C using a form of CPLL in order to avoid some really horrible recognition for all the corners at the same time. However, this adds moves to the overall movecount and the recognition for the CP is still not great.



Robert-Y said:


> Alright thanks for trying. I think I have a better idea of how this step is accomplished now. Still, if you or anyone has some more examples, that would be great to take a look at.



This I will be working on but I'm slow with notation because I'm terrible at writing it. I will try to get at least a couple more first step examples by tomorrow evening (GMT).


----------



## whauk (Sep 20, 2015)

An idea for CP after FB:
After placing the first block on the left as usual you have a "natural" bottom color. Find the two corners of this color and put them on D in any orientation (should require not much more than 3 moves.
Now check if any corners on U need to be swapped for being solved. If two adjacent ones need to be swapped apply F R F' or F R' F' in order to swap the two corners along UB. If two diagonal corners need to be switched L' U R2 U' L does the job. Notice that the D corners don't need to be in their correct position. If they are swapped you have to produce a diagonal swap on the U-layer in order to reduce the cube to <Rw,R,U>.
Example: (please notice, that I don't do Roux very often, so my block might be really bad.)
F U2 F L2 B D2 L2 D2 R2 F' D2 R' B U L2 F L B' F2 L2 D

FB: D F2 L F2 Rw2 B' U2 B2
place D-corners: R' U' R2. Now CP requires to swap URF and URB, but the D-corners are switched so we swap the other two with U F R F'.
The cube is in <Rw,R,U> now.

IMO a very big plus of this method is that LL-recognition reduces to 2GLL, which is a very manageable one-look-LL-set.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 21, 2015)

whauk said:


> An idea for CP after FB:
> After placing the first block on the left as usual you have a "natural" bottom color. Find the two corners of this color and put them on D in any orientation (should require not much more than 3 moves.
> Now check if any corners on U need to be swapped for being solved. If two adjacent ones need to be swapped apply F R F' or F R' F' in order to swap the two corners along UB. If two diagonal corners need to be switched L' U R2 U' L does the job. Notice that the D corners don't need to be in their correct position. If they are swapped you have to produce a diagonal swap on the U-layer in order to reduce the cube to <Rw,R,U>.
> Example: (please notice, that I don't do Roux very often, so my block might be really bad.)
> ...



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?41986-Noah-s-CP-Block-Method-2-0

Also, you are essentially doubling up moves as well as having to pause during the first step which is what I was trying to avoid by doing CP earlier during inspection.

Also it doesn't provide too much of a movecount decrease which is lost as soon as you have to pause to recognise CP.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 25, 2015)

Sorry it's really, really late but I have 3 more examples of how to do CP. Please not that these may not be the best way to execute the moves in terms of orientation going into the rest of FB.

1) Scramble: D2 R U B L' B2 L' R U' D F' U R' F D' B2 L2 F

z'// inspection +1x2x2
U' F R U R' U' F' U L// CP+ 1x1x3

2) L U R D R U2 B R2 L' F R' U' F R2 L F U D2
x2 z// inspection
M// 1x2x2
y U2 L' U L D' L' U L D'// CP+1x1x3

3) R B R2 L' U' B2 F2 U' D F' D2 L2 F U2 B' L2 R F

z'// inspection
M// 1x1x2
y' R U' R' D R U R'// CP+1x1x3


----------



## Phaint (Oct 2, 2015)

I'm interested in learning this method and have tried going though all your example solves. I really don't fully understand some of the steps and get lost in the explanations with all the shorthand I'm not used to seeing. Do you have a way to make a video of a solve with you explaining your thought process? If you aren't great with notation I would think that would be easier. Just me though, I do better with audio/video learning than text.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 3, 2015)

Phaint said:


> I'm interested in learning this method and have tried going though all your example solves. I really don't fully understand some of the steps and get lost in the explanations with all the shorthand I'm not used to seeing. Do you have a way to make a video of a solve with you explaining your thought process? If you aren't great with notation I would think that would be easier. Just me though, I do better with audio/video learning than text.



I will make a video as soon as I can but no guarantees as to when this will be as I'm pretty busy with college.


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 24, 2015)

I finally posted a video with the correct link. Also there's a link in the OP.

http://youtu.be/fXnkFs_v6Qo


----------



## shadowslice e (Oct 29, 2015)

2180161 said:


> 85 for 2GLL and how many for the 3-cycles?
> Also, I was practicing what I proposed in the thread (phasing before 2GLL) and was starting to get sub-25 averages with it. I think that sub-20 with this is certainly possible.



I finally got around to answering this question and concluded that you need 108 algs to solve any case optimally but realistically you only need * 21 algs including reflections and inverses (or 3 algs if we remove them(!)) with a 1 move setup* (2 sets of 3 cycles, and their inverses plus 1 2 swap times 3 orientations) or 9 with a 2 move setup. In addition, most of these would be very easy to learn as they would be pretty intuitive. Think of them as sort of like BH algs with a DFL buffer.


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 2, 2015)

Is this a double post? It's been 4 days so I don't think it qualifies anymore.

It might be a good idea to change which side you build the initial FB on based on which side has the LF and LB edges as you would be able to solve them using only L l and U without destroying CP if you keep it pseudo 2 gen before moving on to the next step.

Perhaps an example would be clearer: scramble a cube using only R, r, U and u moves. Now scramble using only L l U and u moves. Now solve FB using L, l and U moves, do Eo and now finish F2L with R and U moves. You now have a 2gll case which shows that as long as the LDF and LDB corners are disturbed using a (pseudo)2-gen scramble-ie LU, and are replaced still using only those moves, CP is preserved.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 27, 2016)

You were right, these methods are complicated... Still gonna attempt a video on them.


----------



## Micki (Aug 25, 2017)

first 6 solves i did on cam with this method


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 25, 2017)

Micki said:


> first 6 solves i did on cam with this method


Wow nice! I am impressed.

Would you say this a reasonably representative average with the method for you?


----------



## Arc (Aug 25, 2017)

Micki said:


> first 6 solves i did on cam with this method


This is awesome. Briggs is a ton of fun for me and I think it has a lot of potential, so I'm actually using it as my main method (I'm still _really _slow) as of a few days ago. I'm using the CPFB variant though, I think it's feasible (but difficult) to plan it in inspection and it cuts down on a few moves and removes <u> from the solve.

One thing I'm still really exploring atm is different ways of solving EO, if you'd like to share anything you found that was interesting I'd appreciate it.

Also it's nice to see someone else solving in blue/white.


----------



## Micki (Aug 25, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Wow nice! I am impressed.
> 
> Would you say this a reasonably representative average with the method for you?


yes atm, but since i learned CP 2 days ago and my block extensions + eo is kinda ineffecient right now it's definitely not a good average considering what you can get with this method. my only good steps are everything after 2x2x3+cp+eo since i'm sub 10 with CFOP and know 2GLL. I'm also pretty good at the first step but that's easy to get below 7 moves  i'm really liking solving with CP first methods, it makes you feel really advanced xD


----------



## Micki (Aug 25, 2017)

Arc said:


> This is awesome. Briggs is a ton of fun for me and I think it has a lot of potential, so I'm actually using it as my main method (I'm still _really _slow) as of a few days ago. I'm using the CPFB variant though, I think it's feasible (but difficult) to plan it in inspection and it cuts down on a few moves and removes <u> from the solve.
> 
> One thing I'm still really exploring atm is different ways of solving EO, if you'd like to share anything you found that was interesting I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Also it's nice to see someone else solving in blue/white.


i'm also exloring EO, I haven't found a good way yet to do it without having a bunch of pauses. But the way i'm doing it is pretty straightfoward. I solve my DF/DB edges while orienting as many pieces as i can, and that will always leave me with either 0 or 2 edges where i can just do r (R', R, R2) r' to orient the rest. I dont think this way is a bad way of doing it, the reason for me having a lot of pauses is just because i'm not used to orienting edges that way yet.


----------

