# I just wanna share my method...



## abctoshiro (Apr 2, 2010)

Hey.I'm just new here, but I wanna share my method of solving a 3x3x3. It's kinda like Waterman + Roux + OLL and PLL. 
NOTE: I'm a 14 year old boy from the Philippines, forgive me if there are li'l mistakes, I'm just a kid.

I'll say everything about this in here, but if you want the file, I can mail you.
My mail is [email protected].
NOTE: This guide requires knowledge of PLLs and OLLs.

MY METHOD FOR SOLVING THE RUBIK’S CUBE

1.	Solve the first layer. Choose the color of your top layer and solve it with correct edges and correct corners. The cube should look like this:

correct edges
correct corners

Trust me, it’s intuitive. You can build it on your own. 

2. Orient corners on bottom side. OLL.The OLL's with correctly oriented edges. If you dont see the edges this time, ignore them.
If corners are correctly oriented,

The first layer is at the bottom, and the last layer on top. The corners are oriented, but not permuted. That’s the next step: permute corners.

3.	Permute corners. We will now move the corners to the right places without disturbing their orientation. If you know PLLs, good.

4.	Solve bottom edges. This step is hard to understand. If you really don’t understand this step, do the algs on a solved cube and observe what happens. 

We return with the first layer ON TOP. The bottom layer is on, well, bottom.

Look for the pieces in the middle or 2nd layer. 

IF THE EDGE IS FACING LEFT...
Then now, adjust bottom layer so that the opposite color of the one to be solved will be at your front. Here’s what I mean:
PICTURE THESE.
I use blue to opposite green, red to orange and white to yellow. It depends on your cube. Blue is our front face so I adjusted the bottom layer to green. Look at the yellow edge. It faces left.

If that is the state, then do: F’ M’ F2 M F’

IF THE EDGE IS FACING RIGHT...
We can’t apply the algorithm above because the edge to be solved is facing right, not left. 

Adjust bottom edge.

Well, orange is at the back, so the bottom edge is already adjusted.

Then do: F M’ F2 M F
We solved the orange-yellow edge.

To take out incorrect edges, try to understand the alg. Use it on a solved cube and if you understand it, then you can take out the edge easily without help.

But if you really want the way to do it…

Just do:

Face the incorrect edge, adjust bottom face and do any of the two algs I put there and solve the edge. In the case above I first take out the red-yellow edge then solve it so at the same time I can take out the green edge then solve it.

Bottom layer…solved. Remaining: four pieces. But sometimes this step solves the cube. Just sometimes :]


5.	Orient middle edges. We now make the bottom and top layers our L and R to make things easier.

Here’s what I mean:

An H on each side except L and R face.

We will now orient the four edges to their right position.


In the case above (case 1a), we need to cycle three edges downwards twice. First, we put the part of the cube which is already oriented (If there is none, the position is either case 2 or 3) at the back of the cube.
Then do: M’ U2 M U2 twice. 
Case 1b is simply the case where you will execute M’ U2 M U2 once.

case 2:

We need to swap edges at the front and back face simultaneously. We do:
M2 U2 M2 U2

case 3:

This is the hardest case to identify. The clue here is the pieces have gone to their opposite face. We now do:

E’ M E U M U’ M E’ M E M2 U M’ U’ M

To memorize: do this on a solved cube, then do this again. 


Then we proceed to our final step: flip edges. But sometimes this step solves the cube. Just sometimes :]

6.	Flip edges. There will be two or four edges that need to be flipped. 

Again, there are three cases.

case 1: Incorrect edges on top

do: M U M U M U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U2

case 2: 
It’s case 1…but with another two incorrectly flipped edges at the bottom.
Do: Face this and do: 
M U M U M U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U2-x2- M U M U M U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U2 
It’s case 1, put the other pair on top, then case 1 again.

case 3:

Woah. The two edges are not at the same layer. 
Do: F2 M U M U M U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U2 F2

F2 sets-up the cube for case 1, then another F2 at the end returns everything.

CUBE SOLVED.

again, mail me if you have a hard time understanding this.=P


----------



## Sakarie (Apr 2, 2010)

Great to see that you've invented your own method.

But remember, the more used methods, as CFOP, Roux or Petrus, are used more because they're better. You'll never get as fast with this method as with another one. 

Also, some of the algorithms aren't that good. E’ M E U M U’ M E’ M E M2 U M’ U’ M kan be changed to E2 M' E2 M', for example.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 2, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> Great to see that you've invented your own method.
> 
> But remember, the more used methods, as CFOP, Roux or Petrus, are used more because they're better. You'll never get as fast with this method as with another one.
> 
> Also, some of the algorithms aren't that good. E’ M *E U* M U’ M E’ M E M2 U M’ U’ M kan be changed to E2 M' E2 M', for example.


lololol wut?

but its interesting, and if i have some time ill play around with this.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Apr 2, 2010)

To me, it kind of looks like this method.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 2, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> To me, it kind of looks like this method.




This is more like beginner waterman. Or a 3x3x3 version of sandwich.

As I always say, if you're wondering if a method you made up has already been considered, chances are it has.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 2, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> This is more like beginner waterman. Or a 3x3x3 version of sandwich.
> 
> As I always say, if you're wondering if a method you made up has already been considered, chances are it has.




The key is whether the person that considers the idea sees the potential. When Gilles first showed his idea, Ryan Heise said he had thought of the "Two 1x2x3 Blocks" idea before. Apparently he didn't think it would be fast enough, or maybe he thought it was too hard, and, most importantly, he probably didn't discover the wonderful idea of solving UL and UR while orienting


----------



## qqwref (Apr 2, 2010)

I could see this as being a useful method for beginners, but the long algs and many separate steps (looks) make it unsuitable for speed. To me, it looks like a very unoptimized variant of Waterman. Solving the second layer corners in one look, and finishing the second layer edges in two looks while orienting the middle layer, are very useful optimizations that save quite a lot of time (even though you need to learn extra algs to do it).


----------



## giantcuber (Apr 3, 2010)

That's interesting but a bit hard to learn.I prefer the LBL one.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 3, 2010)

oh hai, greetings from a CF user. sandwich as a 3x3 method is basically CF, but I do not orient the midges while inserting the last edge on the R/L sides.

I currently solve like this:
1. first layer minus 1 edge with blockbuilding or anything I can see
2. CLL (corners of last layer in 1 look)
3. rotate such that last layer is on the left, insert 4 edges with stuff like U' M' U
4. insert last edge on R
5. midges in 1 look. currently I do 2 look for some cases...The last time I counted there are only 22 cases. I need to know like 5 more algs to be completely 1 look midges...

of course sometimes I just do the corners first, then insert the edges 1 by 1, depending on whether I can see the blocks or not.

Firstly...to improve your method you have to change your long algs to shorter, and better ones. I don't mind sharing my algs if you ask =P

anyway this method is basically a primitive version of waterman.

MAYBE I should release my algs for the midges. I've got most of the algs and I must say that they are nice.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

I taught my friend Beginner Roux, and it looks kind of like this.

3 D edges (cross minus 1)
4 D corners (layer minus 1)
CO
CP
z rotation
3 R edges
L&R edges
EO
EP

He got sub-40 with it, then I taught him MBR.


----------



## abctoshiro (Apr 3, 2010)

hey. i'm just a 14 year old...forgive me.T.T
i'm actually working on it to be fast, just don't know how=P
my friends here just pushed me to share this with the world over the net.
i targeted my method for beginners. and also for solving the void cube (the one without centers)
again, play around with it and if you don't understand something, mail me so i can mail you the .doc version complete with pictures:] note: i like middle slice moves=P maybe i should learn roux.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 3, 2010)

Yeah, Roux would be a good choice. The slices are why I chose it. I came from using Ortega 3x3x3 and just couldn't understand the appeal of the memorization-heavy Fridrich.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 4, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> I taught my friend Beginner Roux, and it looks kind of like this.
> 
> 3 D edges (cross minus 1)
> 4 D corners (layer minus 1)
> ...



wtf, you don't understand the point of roux at all o_0

this is beginner CF


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 5, 2010)

qqwref said:


> wtf, you don't understand the point of roux at all o_0
> 
> this is beginner CF



Oops, did I say Beginner Roux? Yes, this is CF. My bad.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 5, 2010)

qqwref said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > I taught my friend Beginner Roux, and it looks kind of like this.
> ...


lawl can you really tell mini he doesnt know the point of roux?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 5, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> lawl can you really tell mini he doesnt know the point of roux?



Well, actually he can.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 5, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > lawl can you really tell mini he doesnt know the point of roux?
> ...



oyea?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 5, 2010)

It really annoys me when you say your only 14. Many of the members of this forum are under the age of 14 & can create posts just fine, it's really not a good excuse.

As for the method, I can't really say anything that hasn't been said already. It's interesting, but as a beginners method, it wouldn't be very good as you can't really use it to step into any commonly used method (besides waterman).


----------



## waffle=ijm (Apr 5, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> As for the method, I can't really say anything that hasn't been said already. It's interesting, but as a beginners method, it wouldn't be very good as you can't really use it to step into any commonly used method (besides waterman).



Last edges -> transition to Roux?
I'm not sure but I think Roux and Waterman can transition from this method.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 5, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Last edges -> transition to Roux?
> I'm not sure but I think Roux and Waterman can transition from this method.



I KNOW this method can transition to Wateman and Roux.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 5, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > As for the method, I can't really say anything that hasn't been said already. It's interesting, but as a beginners method, it wouldn't be very good as you can't really use it to step into any commonly used method (besides waterman).
> ...



With Roux, I think the main thing beginners have trouble with is the F2B (I barely know anything about learning Roux, but this is what my friend told me). This method doesn't do any blockbuilding. Although I guess you're right in saying that it could help in a transition to any LE method.


----------



## Karma Cat (Apr 7, 2010)

Pretty awesome. I wish I was smart enough to make my own method of solving the cube =)


----------



## Athefre (Apr 7, 2010)

Karma Cat said:


> Pretty awesome. I wish I was smart enough to make my own method of solving the cube =)




You are. Half-solve some pieces during cross and or F2L then fix them later while finishing the last layer. Alakazam, you have created a new method.

Enjoy your years of fame.


----------

