# New semi-advanced method (FMEOP)



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

FMEOP (pronounced f-me-op, not f-me-up)

I'm developing a new method for those who want to transition from beginner method to CFOP. I want to see what you think of my idea for the first 2 layers. I'm mostly designing this because i want to transition myself (Avg 45sec). Hopefully the designing will help my mind wrap around CFOP if i ever get around to learning it. But here is my F2L idea:

Instead of breaking the First 2 layers as fedges (fcorners, medges), break it as (fcorners, fedges) medges. Doing the whole first layer in one step (not one algorithm) like the F2L step in CFOP. 

Pairs of edges and corners are identified, and solved into place together. Pairs can be paired up clockwise or counter clockwise (if you chose red edge the corresponding corner would be the red-blue or red-green if your first layer is white). 

Since less of the cube is solved during this step, the algorithms dont need to consider as much. And the cuber has more freedom to prepare the cubies for the algorithm. This stage also helps to ease the cuber into the F2L step of CFOP.

The middle edges can be solved using the beginner method (with some minor adaptions that will be in my method).

I'll explain the EOP steps later.

Please tell me what you think. Would it be practical? Faster than the beginner method? Has this been done before? If not, anyone want to help design it?


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Aug 14, 2010)

I'm confused: why don't you just learn CFOP?


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

endless_akatsuki said:


> I'm confused: why don't you just learn CFOP?



CFOP is 100 or so algs. This will require only about 40 or 50 depending on the results of my F2L strategy.


----------



## Shortey (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> endless_akatsuki said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused: why don't you just learn CFOP?
> ...



Fail.


----------



## Weston (Aug 14, 2010)

Interesting idea.
I'm not too sure about the practicality though.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 14, 2010)

or you can just use petrus. owait. its kinda late for that.

and I don't see as a practical method.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Morten said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > endless_akatsuki said:
> ...



Why? Its actually 119.


----------



## Shortey (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Morten said:
> 
> 
> > Dane man said:
> ...



Intuitive F2L mang.


----------



## Weston (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Morten said:
> 
> 
> > Dane man said:
> ...


Only for like "full" Fridrich. 
You can get pretty fast with like 16 algs and a good understanding of F2L.


----------



## BigGreen (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Morten said:
> 
> 
> > Dane man said:
> ...



yeah if you suck


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

You guys aren't helping, except maybe Weston. 

@Weston: Which algs?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 14, 2010)

Why does everyone think that the amount of alg matters to how fast and how difficult it is?

Last I checked kirjava has done sub-15 avgs using only 2


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Why does everyone think that the amount of alg matters to how fast and how difficult it is?
> 
> Last I checked kirjava has done sub-15 avgs using only 2



What method is that?


----------



## Weston (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> You guys aren't helping, except maybe Weston.
> 
> @Weston: Which algs?



2-look OLL
and 2-look PLL


But you don't even need that many. I just think that the alg#/speed ratio is pretty good with those algs.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

aka LBL.


----------



## irontwig (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> endless_akatsuki said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused: why don't you just learn CFOP?
> ...



CFOP has way less than 100 algs, even less than 50. Pairing up two pieces or inversing, mirroring and/or adding slice moves to an alg is hardly creating a new alg.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > endless_akatsuki said:
> ...



Not counting those.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Weston said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > You guys aren't helping, except maybe Weston.
> ...



I already have a 4 step last layer. I want to make it 3. And i want to compress the F2L as well.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Please respond to my original post in full. Not somethinng useless like "I use 2 algs" or "fail" or "lolthread".


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

So anyway, people have been doing this since the dawn of time.

You can solve the middle edges without rotating at all if you do it F3L style.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 14, 2010)

Yes, this method is faster than beginner, but you're moving in the wrong direction if you want to learn Fridrich F2L. Getting used to this will only make it harder to do F2L pairs.

If you want to learn F2L, you should start playing around with pairing up corners and middle edges without destroying the cross. After a while you will start to develop a feel for it, and then learning F2L algorithms (not memorizing the moves, but understand the way they put the pieces together) will be easy - it's quite possible to do it within a day. You should be treating the F2L algorithms as just ways to pair and insert the pieces, and when you understand them you should be able to do it from any angle.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Yes, this method is faster than beginner, but you're moving in the wrong direction if you want to learn Fridrich F2L. Getting used to this will only make it harder to do F2L pairs.
> 
> If you want to learn F2L, you should start playing around with pairing up corners and middle edges without destroying the cross. After a while you will start to develop a feel for it, and then learning F2L algorithms (not memorizing the moves, but understand the way they put the pieces together) will be easy - it's quite possible to do it within a day. You should be treating the F2L algorithms as just ways to pair and insert the pieces, and when you understand them you should be able to do it from any angle.



Thats the whole point of my F2L strategy. Not a lot of algs, mostly intuitive.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

You're missing the point of what qqwref said entirely.

Anyway, seems like you're too blinded by the GLORY OF USING YOUR OWN INVENTED METHOD OMG (that already existed) to listen to advice that contradicts it.

Have fun being mediocre.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> You're missing the point of what qqwref said entirely.
> 
> Anyway, seems like you're too blinded by the GLORY OF USING YOUR OWN INVENTED METHOD OMG (that already existed) to listen to advice that contradicts it.
> 
> Have fun being mediocre.



Dont be a jerk. I'm serious. The point of my F2L was exactly that, to give the cuber a feel for pairing up corners and edges without destoying the cross, but with a little more freedom. I understood completely what qqwref said.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Dont be a jerk. I'm serious.




UR SRS?



Dane man said:


> The point of my F2L was exactly that, to give the cuber a feel for pairing up corners and edges without destoying the cross




No it isn't, otherwise the first step would be to make a cross.



Dane man said:


> I understood completely what qqwref said.




No you didn't, otherwise you'd realise that the technique is more of a tangent from the LBL -> F2L progression rather than a stepping stone.


----------



## Carrot (Aug 14, 2010)

GO JAPAN!!


----------



## qqwref (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> The point of my F2L was exactly that, to give the cuber a feel for pairing up corners and edges without destoying the cross, but with a little more freedom.


No, when I say "without destroying the cross" I mean there IS a full cross, but there aren't other corners in the first layer. Your idea encompasses very much different techniques and is more similar to the first block in Roux than it is to Fridrich F2L.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

@Kirjava: You should probably read my original post.

@qqwref: True. True.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> @Kirjava: You should probably read my original post.





Kirjava said:


> ...you'd realise that the technique is more of a tangent from the LBL -> F2L progression rather than a stepping stone.





Dane man said:


> I'm developing a new method for those who want to transition from beginner method to CFOP.




I started helping you but got quickly bored of that when you ignored me.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > @Kirjava: You should probably read my original post.
> ...



LBL is the beginner method I'm talking about.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

Same here. I don't think you understand the word 'tangent'.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Same here. I don't think you understand the word 'tangent'.



So your saying it's side-ways instead of forwards? 

This is a two step first two layers, where LBL is three step. I'd say thats forward.


----------



## Gavin (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Instead of breaking the First 2 layers as fedges (fcorners, medges), break it as (fcorners, fedges) medges. Doing the whole first layer in one step (not one algorithm) like the F2L step in CFOP.
> 
> Pairs of edges and corners are identified, and solved into place together. Pairs can be paired up clockwise or counter clockwise (if you chose red edge the corresponding corner would be the red-blue or red-green if your first layer is white).



From what I understand this seems quite unnecessary. You are trying to pair up a cross edge with a corner and then insert it? If you can figure out how to make the pairs, it seems as though you are better off just doing CFOP...




Dane man said:


> Thats the whole point of my F2L strategy. Not a lot of algs, mostly intuitive.


Is that not the point of CFOP F2L?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

You still do not understand what I am saying.

This is not a stepping stone to F2L. It is something else altogether.

Also, I'm going to post this video now to kill your boner;






The video is about a year old~


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> This is not a stepping stone to F2L. It is something else altogether.



That's your opinion.


----------



## Gavin (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> You still do not understand what I am saying.
> 
> This is not a stepping stone to F2L. It is something else altogether.



Pretty much what Kirjava said, I don't see how this will help transition to CFOP other than making it more annoying when you want to switch to standard CFOP F2L.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> That's your opinion.




It appears to be your opinion too, considering you agreed when qqwref explained the exact same thing.


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > That's your opinion.
> ...



LOL


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > That's your opinion.
> ...



What qqwref said explained exactly why mine helps with the CFOP F2L.

Maybe i didn't explain it right the first time.


----------



## amostay2004 (Aug 14, 2010)

My advice is to actually practise and understand CFOP before developing a transition to a method you don't grasp yet.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> What qqwref said explained exactly why mine helps with the CFOP F2L.




...?!



qqwref said:


> Your idea encompasses very much different techniques and is more similar to the first block in Roux than it is to Fridrich F2L.




Anyway, we can continue arguing (you don't want to do that) or you can get help from me. When I do FreeFOP, I generally use this B2L method when the first layer has an easy solution.


----------



## Gavin (Aug 14, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Dane man said:
> 
> 
> > What qqwref said explained exactly why mine helps with the CFOP F2L.
> ...



LOL.:fp


----------



## incessantcheese (Aug 14, 2010)

the point of fridrich's normal f2l is to pair up slots of corner-edge pairs while preserving a cross and slotted pairs. this can be done completely intuitively with no algs.

the point of "your" method is to pair up corners while making the cross. this is a step backwards from the most popular form of f2l.

a major step in f2l is to make the cross in as few moves or as quickly as possible. this method doesn't teach that at all, and in fact does not allow the user to practice making a cross at all. if a user was proficient at making a cross quickly, s/he will probably regress by using this method.
pairing up first layer cross and corner pieces is nothing like pairing up f2l pieces. in f2l, you should be preserving the cross as well as any slots that you've already completed. this method doesn't teach this at all.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

I forgot to mention - this is the beginner version of the L2L4 method.


----------



## Edward (Aug 14, 2010)

You asked for feedback. Don't be a pussy about what feedback we give you. Take it and reflect >.>.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Aug 14, 2010)

Edward said:


> You asked for feedback. Don't be a pussy about what feedback we give you. Take it and reflect >.>.


This.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 14, 2010)

incessantcheese said:


> the point of fridrich's normal f2l is to pair up slots of corner-edge pairs while preserving a cross and slotted pairs. this can be done completely intuitively with no algs.
> 
> the point of "your" method is to pair up corners while making the cross. this is a step backwards from the most popular form of f2l.
> 
> ...



Alright, thanks. Your the most helpful person here. You make a good point. I will drop this theory.


----------



## Akuma (Aug 14, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Please tell me what you think. Would it be practical? Faster than the beginner method? Has this been done before? If not, anyone want to help design it?



Your method makes little to no sense.
I don't understand but perhaps you need to make a video out of this in order to make things clear.

However - I seriously don't see why you would need another F2L-method other than CFOP. CFOP is NOT 100 algorithms. You could very well solve the cube under 30 seconds with barely 5-10 F2L "algorithms" and yes I use quotation marks because they really aren't "algorithms". Using 3 turns in order to pair up a corner with an edge isn't an "algorithm" I think.

If you want to improve your time I would suggest learning and mastering 2-look OLL (2+7 algorithms) and 2-look PLL (5 algorithms). That alone will make your average drop by 10-15 seconds. Learning and understanding a few F2L cases and working on your cross wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

Learning how to make a layer fast can come in useful for non-CFOP things though.

Akuma; His method makes perfect sense.


----------



## Dene (Aug 15, 2010)

Dane man said:


> Please respond to my original post in full. Not somethinng useless like "I use 2 algs" or "fail" or "lolthread".



I use 2 algs

fail

lolthread


----------



## HelpCube (Aug 15, 2010)

just learn intuitive f2l... took me 2 days to grasp the idea, and then my averages were dropping nearly half a second every day lol.


----------

