# New Corner Orientation Method. Serious Speed Method.



## Tim Major (Nov 30, 2009)

This is not a joke thread. My idea, while learning WV, was to make a method almost exactly the same as ZB. There are some *Major* differences though, instead of orienting the edges during Zbf2l, to be the ll face's colour (let's use yellow), you orient the corners. 

Lets talk about the movecount for this. It is a bit different to WV, because WV preserves the edges in their current positions. This requires more moves. WV algs are still fairly short, but this will make them much shorter.

It's not just WV though, because you need the other cases as well, whereas this would just be the R U' R' and L' U L cases, or in other words, cases with a pair already made. This is similar in moves to ZBf2l _*I think*_.

Then the LL. This is where it is superior to ZBLL. The LL requires far fewer algorithms. This is because their are 7 ZBLL OLLs, with their variations to learn, plus PLL, to account for OLL skips, whereas only 3 cases in this to have variations for plus PLL. This will help time for recognition as well.

Another good thing, is it is very easy to recognise the various cases. I cannot explain this, but get out your cube, and you will see how easily recognisable these cases are, compared to ZBLL cases.


Any thoughts? Or smart people with input? Plus, I don't know how to work out how many cases there would be, so could someone with seriously good cubing knowledge please say *cough*cmhardwick*cough*

I'm not dumb, however, I don't want to put a figure to each of these cases that are wrong, as then people will not take this seriously.

I name this the COM method, for Corner Orientation Method (CO would end up with COLL ), as I can't say my real name here

Please take this method seriously, and any flaws you see, and I will stand corrected. This is a way of ZB, with way fewer algorithms, and a much more awesome way of recognition. So if you thought of learning ZB, learn this instead.

Edit:
Breakdown of method.
1. Any method you want up until putting in the final f2l pair.
2. COMf2l. Orienting corners while solving pair.
3. COMLL. Finishing cube.

Edit 2:
Example solve soon to come.
Edit 3: Blah makes me sad.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (Nov 30, 2009)

Your name is Matt


----------



## Faz (Nov 30, 2009)

So, you do WV without worrying about the edges.

Then you do something like like ELL, but with oriented corners, and not permuted?

Well there are 29? ELL's, and that would make the total number of algorithms 29 x 6 cp cases which would be 174 algs. Plus regular PLL's would make it 195 algs.

Pretty neat idea, recog would be ok if you are good at ELL recognition.

Also, some algs would be cut out, because of the cases where only the edges are flipped.


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 30, 2009)

Here's an example solve.

Scramble: U' B2 F' U' D' F' D F2 U2 F2 U2 B2 U' L' B' F' L R U' D2 F2 B' D' R2 B2

Cross: L' F' u2 L U B2 u2

F2L-one pair: U2 R U' R2 U R L U2 L' U' R U' R' U L' U2 L2 F' L' F Y'

COMF2L: U' R U2 L' U' L U2 R'

COMLL: L F U F U' L' U2 R' F' R F' U' F2

I'm fast with Cube Explorer.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 30, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> So, you do WV without worrying about the edges.
> 
> Then you do something like like ELL, but with oriented corners, and not permuted?
> 
> ...


Yeah, and I'll do an example solve later, to compare it to Fridrich (with my crappy f2l) to show difference between this, Fridrich, and ZB. I'll do example solves with those methods, using cube explorer of course for algs, and then ask someone good at petrus to do the petrus part of the solve. I'll have the same f2l with the Fridrich, ZB, and COM solve. I think this would be around the same as ZB, but after a few example solves, I'll have that cleared out.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2009)

I think doing F2L + CO is going to be a lot more algs than F2L + EO. The last layer has only 8 EOs (counting AUF as separate) but 27 COs. F2L + EO (ZBF2L) is already a ton of algs, and it looks like this would be at least twice that, which means it'll probably end up really hard to recognize and deal with. So the LL idea might work well but you are going to be ending up solving last slot with pair edge -> WV -> COMLL, which is still 3 steps, and it probably won't be much faster than normal solving, I could be wrong, but I really think the F2L step is gonna kill you here.

PS: Dudes, this is just a LS+LL method, right? Just use LS+LL scrambles from qqtimer, and then go compare the various methods with that.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 30, 2009)

qqwref said:


> PS: Dudes, this is just a LS+LL method, right? Just use LS+LL scrambles from qqtimer, and then go compare the various methods with that.



Thanks. That'll save alot of time.

And about the rest. I'll try to think of something. Maybe the people who made ZB already thought of this, and already realised this. However, there must be a way around it. Somehow...


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 30, 2009)

I know that this is going to take a ridiculous amount to time to generate the algorithms. 

Manyyyyy hours if you use cube explorer.
Good luck, if you're going to do this, it's going to take a while.
Making algs is slowww work. (x


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 30, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> I know that this is going to take a ridiculous amount to time to generate the algorithms.
> 
> Manyyyyy hours if you use cube explorer.
> Good luck, if you're going to do this, it's going to take a while.
> Making algs is slowww work. (x



I'm a-gonna learn OLL first. Then WV. Then R U R' WV. Then start generate algs. In the mean time, I have to learn square-1 algs, 4x4 parity algs, and 2x2 algs. Plus maybe pyra algs, for a thread I posted a while ago.


----------



## Faz (Nov 30, 2009)

B2 R' B2 F D R2 F B U D L R2 F2 R' D2 B' F2 R L F' L R' F' U' L' 

x2 y R' D' r' U r L u' R

U' L' U' L U' L' U L
U' R' U' R F R' F' R
L U2 L' U L U L'
COMF2L: y R U' R' U2 R U R2 F R F' U R U' R' U R U2 R' (made up)
COMLL: U2 y F B U2 R U2 R' U2 F' B D L2 D' B2 U

I can't really use cube explorer's optimal algorithm search, so it gives me a 14 move algorithms for COMLL


----------



## Faz (Nov 30, 2009)

Oh, I see, you aren't doing WV. Well, if you don't use WV it will be alot of algorithms.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 30, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> B2 R' B2 F D R2 F B U D L R2 F2 R' D2 B' F2 R L F' L R' F' U' L'
> 
> x2 y R' D' r' U r L u' R
> 
> ...


*

That could be shortened a lot.
So that isn't optimal? If not, it would only be a few moves less. So this method had potential, considering the cross and first 3 slots, are 31 moves, which isn't the best, although it wasn't the best scramble for that cross's f2l. I think a much more accurate way would be using QQ's suggestion, of LS+LL, for the 3 different methods.

I just tried using Cube Solver to find that, and it gave me B2 D2 U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F2. LOL!*


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 30, 2009)

I just figured out a system for recognition.

In ZBLL, with Dan/Jason system, it's super easy.
You could adapt the system for this method as well, but you'd track pieces in lieu of stickers.
You would only have to look at *2 pieces* to know the permutation.
You just have to look at orientation afterwards.

Just like how ZBLL looks at the COLL case, and then the 2 stickers on FU and RU to instantly know the case.

Like, UR moves to UB and UF is correct is enough to know the LL case.
Because they're unique to each case in the subset.
As long as you identify the corner perm case first.


----------



## Faz (Nov 30, 2009)

Well, all in all, it's interesting, but the movecount doesn't seem to be that different from fridrich, and with the massively high number of algs, and tricky recognition, and non fingertricky algs, I don't think anyone will want to learn all of the algorithms.

It's ok, but I doubt it will ever be faster than fridrich.


----------



## blah (Nov 30, 2009)

I might have made some major mistake somewhere, so if someone finds it, please feel free to correct me, but for now...

Each of these 6 LS cases have 8 different COMLS cases that follow, thanks to an amazing technique called AUF:





















The other 36 LS cases have 27 COMLS cases *each*.

That's 6*8+36*27 = 1020 COMLS cases. If you can really learn this many algs, you might as well go for 1LLL. Seriously.

And 1020 is just COMLS - we're not even at COMLL yet.

----------

The only reason this idea has never been mentioned is because most people who have come up with it have probably got these figures themselves. I had this idea about a year ago, which is *exactly* what qqwref said.


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 30, 2009)

I can't seem to think clearly about COMLL.
Due to... circumstances... my thinking isnt what it used to be.

Blah, can you make an estimation?


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 30, 2009)

Wow, thanks blah. Maybe it would be better to just use the 27 WV, and 26 (I think) R U R' algs.

LL still looks good though.


----------



## blah (Nov 30, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> fazrulz said:
> 
> 
> > Well, all in all, it's interesting, but the movecount doesn't seem to be that different from fridrich, and with the massively high number of algs, and tricky recognition, and non fingertricky algs, I don't think anyone will want to learn all of the algorithms.
> ...


Dude you still don't get it. Read my thread. Seriously.

LS + OLL + PLL = 3 steps = 119 algs
LS setup + WV + COMLL = 3 steps = more than 300 algs + harder recognition = what's the point?

See it now?


----------



## blah (Nov 30, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> I can't seem to think clearly about COMLL.
> Due to... circumstances... my thinking isnt what it used to be.
> 
> Blah, can you make an estimation?


Are you stoned? 

Not considering symmetries but considering AUF-reduction, 4*3*2*8*6/4 = 288 cases. My guess is that even with symmetry-reduction, it'll still be well over 200.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 30, 2009)

Or you could solve the last slot and the last layer all in one algorithm.


----------



## LewisJ (Nov 30, 2009)

aronpm said:


> Or you could solve the last slot and the last layer all in one algorithm.



You've got to be kidding...


----------



## blah (Nov 30, 2009)

aronpm said:


> Or you could solve the last slot and the last layer all in one algorithm.


4665600 algs.


----------



## rubiknewbie (Nov 30, 2009)

aronpm said:


> Or you could solve the last slot and the last layer all in one algorithm.



Or you can solve the cube in one algorithm


----------



## aronpm (Nov 30, 2009)

Only 4665600 algs? Might as well go with F3L then.


----------



## Davepencilguin (Nov 30, 2009)

I had posted a bit about this a few days ago here:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17142

However, if someone were to come up with a nice, fancy commuter method to orient the corners that had an easy recognition.....


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 30, 2009)

Oh! I see you've started ZB?

I wish you the best of luck sir.
Stick to it, the hardest part is when you're half way done.
It gets hard. x_x


----------



## Davepencilguin (Nov 30, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> Oh! I see you've started ZB?
> 
> I wish you the best of luck sir.
> Stick to it, the hardest part is when you're half way done.
> It gets hard. x_x



Thank you very much. So far the T-set has had some very nice algorithms... I can only hope it stays that way xD


----------



## 4Chan (Nov 30, 2009)

Ohhh no, it gets BETTER. 

H set is sooo good.
Sune set with all corners correct is sooooooo good.
L also has a few good ones.

Sorry for the off topic clutter. )';


----------



## miniGOINGS (Nov 30, 2009)

Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> Your name is Matt



What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Davepencilguin (Nov 30, 2009)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> I name this the COM method, for Corner Orientation Method (CO would end up with COLL ), as I can't say my real name here





Hyprul 9-ty2 said:


> Your name is Matt



lol


----------



## guitardude7241 (Dec 1, 2009)

how do you generate cases with cube explorer to place the already made f2l pair and orient corners ONLY?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 1, 2009)

guitardude7241 said:


> how do you generate cases with cube explorer to place the already made f2l pair and orient corners ONLY?



Use this.


----------



## 4Chan (Dec 1, 2009)

Right click to gray out the pieces that you dont care about.


----------



## guitardude7241 (Dec 1, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> Right click to gray out the pieces that you dont care about.



i did that. it don't work.

but cubesolver works.

this method balls.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Dec 1, 2009)

if all else fails, use ron's cube solver.


----------



## sz35 (Dec 2, 2009)

There is already a veriation of ZZ(called ZZ-C) which is pretty much this but it keeps the EO so you insert the pair from any case and orient corners (1020 algs as blah said) and then use PLL.
This was copied from wiki:


> ZZ-c: The last layer corners are oriented during insertion of the last F2L block. This system is similar to using Winter Variation, but can be applied to any last block situation and uses many more algorithms. Conceptually, the comparison of ZZ-c with ZZ-WV, is similar to the comparison of ZBF2L with VH.


But still,good idea.


----------



## ostracod (Dec 2, 2009)

I use WV with ZZ, and I have (re)memorized all the algorithms (I took a long break from the cube, and so I had to refresh myself over 2 weeks). Should I go on to learn MGLS? And are WV, MGLS, and WV + MGLS all subsets of the ZZ-c variation? I would appreciate advice.

I've also considered the "summer" variation (R U R' case, another 27 algorithms), but I don't think it's worth it since its algorithms are longer than those of WV. Is the summer variation a subset of ZZ-c as well?


----------



## Escher (Dec 2, 2009)

ostracod said:


> I use WV with ZZ, and I have (re)memorized all the algorithms (I took a long break from the cube, and so I had to refresh myself over 2 weeks). Should I go on to learn MGLS? And are WV, MGLS, and WV + MGLS all subsets of the ZZ-c variation? I would appreciate advice.
> 
> I've also considered the "summer" variation (R U R' case, another 27 algorithms), but I don't think it's worth it since its algorithms are longer than those of WV. Is the summer variation a subset of ZZ-c as well?



Yes.
Summer & Winter Variation and CLS are all subsets of ZZ-c.
You should definitely learn CLS. Using mirrors cuts down a very considerable number of algorithms, as does using inverses.


----------



## guitardude7241 (Dec 3, 2009)

if the CE pair is already paired, how many cases would there be to learn?


----------



## Cuber3 (Dec 3, 2009)

blah said:


> I might have made some major mistake somewhere, so if someone finds it, please feel free to correct me, but for now...
> 
> Each of these 6 LS cases have 8 different COMLS cases that follow, thanks to an amazing technique called AUF:
> 
> ...



Just wondering, how are there 27 COMLS cases for each of the remaining 36?

Edit: There must be something I'm really missing here...

Edit: Okay, I got it now... I'm slow...


----------



## Faz (Dec 3, 2009)

27 CO cases...


----------



## mazei (Dec 3, 2009)

I think MGLS is a kinda similar way to this, but much simpler.


----------



## Escher (Dec 3, 2009)

I *think* Blah got it wrong regarding no. of cases.

In Fridrich LS, there are 42 cases including LS skip (just counting cases from here). Of these, 12 (inc solved LS) have the corner permuted and therefore 8 CO cases (so 12*8). The rest have 27 possible COs (27*30).

Therefore the total no. of COLS cases = (12*8 + 27*30) = 906 
Using mirrors, we can reduce this to (6*8), and (16*27) = 480


Regarding ZZ-c:
We forgot to include the fact that there are far fewer LS cases because of EOLine.

LS cases with corner permuted and edge oriented: 6 (inc solved LS)
LS cases with edge oriented not inc. above: 15 

Therefore the total no. of algorithms for ZZ-c = (6*8 + 15*27) = 453

Using mirrors, we can reduce this to (5*8 + 14*27) = 418 

Even if somebody already knew CLS, WV & SV and was using ZZ, you would still have twice as many (*27) cases to learn, and just over twice as many (*8) cases to learn.
That's a lot.

I *think* that is right, if this is wrong, feel free to correct me.


----------

