# New Speed Method for 2x2x3 (Mini Tower)



## Ian Brown (Feb 27, 2020)

Hello, I'm new to this forum but thought this would be a good place to share my new speed method for the 2x2x3 cuboid. Some things to know about this method are that it relies heavily on algorithms, and that it is possible and encouraged to use this method for one-looking solves.

The solve has three stages:

1. Squares: Solve the square faces intuitively

2. CP: Corner permutation [ 5 cases ]

Adjacent swap on U layer: R U' (R D R D') R (U' D R U' R)
Diagonal swap on U layer: (R U D R U')2 (R U D R)
Adjacent swap on both layers: (R U R U') (D' R D R)
Diagonal swap on both layers: (R U D R) U2 (R U' D' R)
Diagonal swap on U layer and Adjacent swap on D layer: (R U R U R) U2 (R U' R U' R)

3. EP: Equator/Edge permutation [ 7 cases ]

Front Right with Back right swap: (R U2)3
Front left with front right, back left with back right: R E2 R
3 edge cycle clockwise, front left piece is correct: (R E R E')
3 edge cycle counterclockwise, front left piece in correct: (E R E' R)
Diagonal swap: (R E R E') (R U2)3
4 edge cycle clockwise: (R E R E) (R U2)2 (R D2)
4 edge cycle counterclockwise: (R E R E) (R U2)3

One thing you may notice is that the CP algs are not like those from SQ-1 or other algs for 2x2x3, this was done on purpose. The CP algorithms do not affect the equator layer and that is why it is possible to one look with this method.

I have attached a pdf detailing the method and algorithms, please try this method out and tell me what you think or how it can improve, I was partly inspired to explore this puzzle because I think it should become a WCA event.


Edit: After discussion, it has been determined that this method is much better when The equator layer is solved while also solving the square faces in the beginning of the solve. In this way, only 5 algorithms, all which are CP cases, are the only algs in this method.

The method would then go as follows

1.) Solve Square faces and equator simultaneously (done intuitively)

2.) Permute corners [5 cases]

for details see AC.pdf


----------



## ProStar (Feb 27, 2020)

How many algs would it be to solve a face then solve the rest?


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> How many algs would it be to solve a face then solve the rest?


After solving the square faces, there would be two algorithms to finish, one for CP, then one for EP


----------



## ProStar (Feb 27, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> After solving the square faces, there would be two algorithms to finish



But how many algs would it take to do the square faces then do one alg to solve the rest? I.e: how big would the alg set be


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> But how many algs would it take to do the square faces then do one alg to solve the rest? I.e: how big would the alg set be


I apologize but I'm a bit confused as to what you mean. If you're wondering how many total algorithms there are, its 14. There are 5 for corner permutation, and 7 for solving the equator layer.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 27, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> I apologize but I'm a bit confused as to what you mean. If you're wondering how many total algorithms there are, its 14. There are 5 for corner permutation, and 7 for solving the equator layer.



Think of the cube like the LL on a 3x3. First you do OLL, which takes 57 algorithms, and then you do PLL, which takes 21 algorithms. But if you wanted to do the entire thing in one alg, it takes 3915 algorithms. That's kind of what I'm saying, except CP=OLL and EP=PLL. I'm asking how many algorithms you would need to be able to solve both CP and EP at once(with squares already finished), or like 1lll in my example


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Think of the cube like the LL on a 3x3. First you do OLL, which takes 57 algorithms, and then you do PLL, which takes 21 algorithms. But if you wanted to do the entire thing in one alg, it takes 3915 algorithms. That's kind of what I'm saying, except CP=OLL and EP=PLL. I'm asking how many algorithms you would need to be able to solve both CP and EP at once(with squares already finished), or like 1lll in my example


Ok, sorry for the confusion. So I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure there would only be 35 unique cases. Since there is no parity or mirrored cases, and not counting layer adjustment and rotational variation. I think it's just (number of CP cases) * (number of EP cases) = 5 * 7 = 35.

edit: *the only thing is, to narrow it down to 35, you would have to set up the equator layer in the correct orentation for EP after solving the square faces so that you could flow from CP into EP without needing layer adjustment to make it work.*



ProStar said:


> Think of the cube like the LL on a 3x3. First you do OLL, which takes 57 algorithms, and then you do PLL, which takes 21 algorithms. But if you wanted to do the entire thing in one alg, it takes 3915 algorithms. That's kind of what I'm saying, except CP=OLL and EP=PLL. I'm asking how many algorithms you would need to be able to solve both CP and EP at once(with squares already finished), or like 1lll in my example


Just thinking out loud here: if we say there are 4 cases for equator layer adjustment between Cp and Ep, which are: E, E', E2, or no moves, then it might be (number of CP cases) * (number of equator adjustment cases) * (number of EP cases) = 5 * 4 * 7 = 140.


----------



## Billabob (Feb 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> How many algs would it be to solve a face then solve the rest?



Not counting algs for the first face as it is easy enough to solve intuitively. The total number of cases is 35, 6 PBL cases multiplied by 6 equator cases and excluding the solved case.

The 6 PBL cases are the same as those used in Ortega for the 2x2, plus the case for all corners permuted. Ignoring the corners there are 3 equator cases can each be solved with either ( ), (R) or (F R), but if you solve the equator while preserving corner permutation there is a 1/2 chance you will have a "parity" of sorts where the corners are on the wrong end of the puzzle. This can be solved with R E2 R or avoided by learning an alternate set of PBL+equator algorithms. I'm not sure how to recognise that you have parity before permuting all these pieces but if a method for that is devised it would be possible to plan face+parity in inspection rather than just planning the face. With this you could one-look the puzzle using 17 algorithms.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 27, 2020)

Billabob said:


> Not counting algs for the first face as it is easy enough to solve intuitively. The total number of cases is 35, 6 PBL cases multiplied by 6 equator cases and excluding the solved case.
> 
> The 6 PBL cases are the same as those used in Ortega for the 2x2, plus the case for all corners permuted. Ignoring the corners there are 3 equator cases can each be solved with either ( ), (R) or (F R), but if you solve the equator while preserving corner permutation there is a 1/2 chance you will have a "parity" of sorts where the corners are on the wrong end of the puzzle. This can be solved with R E2 R or avoided by learning an alternate set of PBL+equator algorithms. I'm not sure how to recognise that you have parity before permuting all these pieces but if a method for that is devised it would be possible to plan face+parity in inspection rather than just planning the face. With this you could one-look the puzzle using 17 algorithms.


What do you mean by equator cases? Also, the CP algorithms in the first post (also in the pdf) preserve the equator layer pieces, so equator cases can be predicted before Corner Permutation.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Feb 27, 2020)

I see some similarities between this and a .pdf I put together named: MiniTowerCuboid
(though I oriented it with an M layer instead of an E layer)





Solvexio - Google Drive







tinyurl.com





I'll check out your algs and dig out my 2x2x3 again! Thanks!

I am also interested in a low count one-look set of algs, if discussion on that continues.


-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 27, 2020)

Solvador Cubi said:


> I see some similarities between this and a .pdf I put together named: MiniTowerCuboid
> (though I oriented it with an M layer instead of an E layer)
> 
> 
> ...


Hello, glad to know who created that document because I remember seeing it after creating my speed method and noticed similarities as well. The approach seems similar but I notice that those corner permutation algorithms affect the middle layer which unfortunately means it’s nearly impossible to 1-look. also there seems to be no Algorithm for the case where a diagonal swap occurs on one face, and an adjacent swap occurs on another. I would love to hear further suggestions and encourage everyone visiting this thread to view the pdf.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Feb 27, 2020)

I have made a method that people have told me is much better than orient, CP, E-layer, which most people think of.

From the New Method / Concept Thread, back in April 2019.


WoowyBaby said:


> Here I present a method way better than what is currently done....... for the Tower Cube 2x2x3 lol.
> 
> Seriously though, most people do Seperate -> PBL -> E-layer which is not as good as this method I made-
> 
> ...



Main points:
- Only 8 algorithms
- Very good look lookahead/recog
- Two-lookable
- Great ergonomics
- Completely rotationless

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More related to your own idea (I'll stop being arrogant about my own ideas lol),
I am able to generate all of these algorithms for this 1-step idea you have.

Here they are: (Well, except not)

E-Layer Solved:
Solved Corners - Done!
Double Diagonal - F2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 F2
Double Adjacent - R2 U R2 U' D' R2 D R2
Diag Top Adj Bot - R2 U R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 U R2
Top Diagonal - R2 U' R2 U' R2 U R2 D' R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2
Top Adjacent - R2 U R2 U' R2 U' D R2 U' R2 U R2 D'
E-Layer off by an R2 Move:
Solved Corners - R2 U2 R2 U2 R2
Double Diagonal - F2 U' D F2 R2
Double Adjacent - R2 U F2 D2 R2 U R2 F2
Diag Top Adj Bot - R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2
Top Diagonal - R2 U R2 U' R2 U2 D' R2 U R2 U' R2 D R2
Top Adjacent - R2 U R2 U' F2 U R2 U R2 U2 F2 R2
Tip: Do the reverse of the alg to see what it looks like when you do it.

I only genned 2 out of the 6 or so sets because I don't feel like doing them all now, but still, I hope this is helpful in some way!

If you want me to make the rest of them just ask, and have fun with tower cube!


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 28, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> I have made a method that people have told me is much better than orient, CP, E-layer, which most people think of.
> 
> From the New Method / Concept Thread, back in April 2019.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing this. This looks like a really good speed method yet I suppose an advantage of mine is the one-look ability and perhaps slightly more intuitive nature. Anyway, I wasn’t even aware of this method so it looks like there are 2 good alternatives to the bad way most people solve 2x2x3, further reason to add this as WCA event.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 28, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> Thanks for sharing this. This looks like a really good speed method yet I suppose an advantage of mine is the one-look ability and perhaps slightly more intuitive nature. Anyway, I wasn’t even aware of this method so it looks like there are 2 good alternatives to the bad way most people solve 2x2x3, further reason to add this as WCA event.



You didn't actually invent a new method, everyone does white/yellow, permute top/bottom layers, permute middle layer. And multiple methods isn't a real reason to add it to the WCA, you can come up with different methods for any puzzle.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> You didn't actually invent a new method, everyone does white/yellow, permute top/bottom layers, permute middle layer. And multiple methods isn't a real reason to add it to the WCA, you can come up with different methods for any puzzle.


No, the algorithms are different (arguably faster because no F moves) and and they also preserve the equator, so it’s possible to one-look. Also on 2x2x3 CP is typically done on each of the outer layers separately as opposed to both simultaneously, somtimes CP is only done for one layer, while the other layer is solved fully while doing the square faces. Further, all 7 possible EP cases are not recognized with their own algorithms by standard. This new method is about as different from the origianl way of solving 2x2x3 as Ortega is from LBL on a 2x2. Anyway I guess you can refrain from calling it a new method if you don’t want to, but it really is different.
•
•
Also this thread isn't a serious call to have 2x2x3 added to the WCA, I just thought I’d mention that I’d like to see it added eventually.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 28, 2020)

I just thought I'd mention this: To avoid ever having the diagonal top - diagonal bottom CP case, you can make sure to make a correct pair of corners on either yellow or white when initially solving the square faces. This takes more planning but reduces CP from 5 cases to 4.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 28, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> I just thought I'd mention this: To avoid ever having the diagonal top - diagonal bottom CP case, you can make sure to make a correct pair of corners on either yellow or white when initially solving the square faces. This takes more planning but reduces CP from 5 cases to 4.



Diagonal top diagonal bottom is the best case ever, it's just R F R. Predicting E layer is still easy because it's just a flipped version


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Diagonal top diagonal bottom is the best case ever, it's just R F R. Predicting E layer is still easy because it's just a flipped version


It’s not RFR, it’s (R U D R) U2 (R U’ D’ R). Doing this algorithm is better than RFR because it preserves the equator layer, the algorithm is also faster than it may seem because U and D moves would ideally be performed simultaneously. Plus, even having the equator pieces flipped with RFR like you said is still bad because it’s difficult to predict the more complicated EP cases.
•
Also, you don't have to do the technique in order to avoid the case, however some people may want to trade extra initial move prediction in exchange for lessening the number of possible CP cases.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

I still think doing "squares"->cube wouldn't be that hard or take too many algs, and it would be simple to 1-look. Also the problem of having AUF cases is easily solved by just doing a couple E moves.


----------



## seagullboy225 (Feb 29, 2020)

this is true, real cubers know when to simplify a method. Or you could do the Schrodinger cube method which actually would lower your cube outtake to 27 mph instead of having to deal with AUF cases. Clearly none of you have been to the Blingingsmith International Academy of Cubing.


----------



## seagullboy225 (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> How many algs would it be to solve a face then solve the rest?


You also have to take into account the rate at which to decide to solve each algorithm based upon the type of layer. According to my calculations, this number would be about 54.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

seagullboy225 said:


> this is true, real cubers know when to simplify a method. Or you could do the Schrodinger cube method which actually would lower your cube outtake to 27 mph instead of having to deal with AUF cases. Clearly none of you have been to the Blingingsmith International Academy of Cubing.



27MPH?


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

SpikeTheCuber said:


> CP cases aren’t that difficult if you really know how to solve them, just saying.



I think a lot of people here might be unsure of what this method actually is, it’s nothing confusing, over-complicated or difficult to understand: it’s literally just:
•
Solve Square faces
•
CP for Both layers simultaneously [5 cases]
•
EP [7 cases]
•
There is also the option to solve a pair of corners while solving the square faces to reduce the number of CP cases by one.
•
Please visit the pdf in the first post if you want to understand it. If you don’t want to use this method that’s fine, but I’m really looking for people who will try out this method and suggest improvements to the idea, and maybe popularize it; rather than stating that they prefer another way of solving it, although if you do prefer another way, that’s fine.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

SpikeTheCuber said:


> Interesting point. Still, I strongly believe that the original method IS superior. All these new fangled ideas seem to pollute the idealistic values of an older generation of cuber community. My opinion is valuable and I will share it where I want, thank you very much. I could fight you.


I actually wasn’t meaning to come across as confrontational so I do apologize, but this thread isn’t really for saying why you think this method is bad, it was more intentioned for testing it out and sharing it.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

Ok so I think we have some trolls on this thread.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> 27MPH?


I think he’s a troll


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I still think doing "squares"->cube wouldn't be that hard or take too many algs, and it would be simple to 1-look. Also the problem of having AUF cases is easily solved by just doing a couple E moves.


I totally agree, and I’m pretty sure the Algs for this could be constructed with current CP + E moves + EP, although I’m sure some of the cases will have more efficient solutions than that. 
•
For example R U R U’ R solves diagonal top and adjacent bottom while also solving adjacent equator pieces. This is better than R U R U R U2 R U’ R U’ R and then (R U2)3 to do the same thing. They are both however, examples of one alg to solve right after doing the square faces.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> I think a lot of people here might be unsure of what this method actually is, it’s nothing confusing, over-complicated or difficult to understand: it’s literally just:
> •
> Solve Square faces
> •
> ...



Your method is almost exactly the same as every other method for the tower cube. Plus, do you really expect a method for a puzzle that gets solved while scrambling sometimes will be popularized? I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that anyone seriously practices this puzzle. And if they did, they'd just learn faces->cube.



Ian Brown said:


> I actually wasn’t meaning to come across as confrontational so I do apologize, but this thread isn’t really for saying why you think this method is bad, it was more intentioned for testing it out and sharing it.



If you've ever been to the New Step / Method / subset etc. thread, you know that when a new method is proposed, often people will tell them it isn't viable for speedcubing. That being said, @SpikeTheCuber was definitely rude and assumptive saying that his opinion is the ruling one, and I'm not sure why he thinks new ideas are bad.



Ian Brown said:


> Ok so I think we have some trolls on this thread.





Ian Brown said:


> I think he’s a troll



Do you even know what a troll is?


Also, you can edit your posts. Multiple posts in a row just generally clutter the forums, so you can just edit/delete your posts so that you just have one post replying to different comments.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Your method is almost exactly the same as every other method for the tower cube. Plus, do you really expect a method for a puzzle that gets solved while scrambling sometimes will be popularized? I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that anyone seriously practices this puzzle. And if they did, they'd just learn faces->cube.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1.) This method might remind you of the standard way of solving 2x2x3, but it's _not_ similar other than the general framework of the stages in the solve; especially since the "normal method" for 2x2x3 isn't really standardized. Anyway, you may not like 2x2x3 or perhaps understand why other cubers like the puzzle since it is pretty trivial compared to something like a 3x3; but many people do actually practice 2x2x3 and try getting sub 6 and sub 3 times, etc. Sure they _could _learn how to solve it they way most people do, or they could learn it this way; are you saying that this method isn't worth sharing because you think no will would want to learn it?

2.) Yes I know what a troll is.

One of the accounts posted "27mph", obviously making fun of cube jargon
The other one threatened to fight me in real life because I disagreed over an algorithm

They were there to provoke.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> This method might remind you of the standard way of solving 2x2x3, but it's _not_ similar other than the general framework of the stages in the solve; especially since the "normal method" for 2x2x3 isn't really standardized. Anyway, you may not like 2x2x3 or perhaps understand why other cubers like the puzzle since it is pretty trivial compared to something like a 3x3; but many people do actually practice 2x2x3 and try getting sub 6 and sub 3 times, etc. Sure they _could _learn how to solve it they way most people do, or they could learn it this way; are you saying that this method isn't worth sharing because you think no will would want to learn it?



The only difference between this method and other methods is that the E layer is preserved in CP. That can be argued as worse, because algs become much longer and take longer. I know exactly how the puzzle works, I'm turning one right now. And who that you know of practices 2x2x3 seriously enough to learn this but not seriously enough to learn faces->cube?


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> The only difference between this method and other methods is that the E layer is preserved in CP. That can be argued as worse, because algs become much longer and take longer. I know exactly how the puzzle works, I'm turning one right now. And who that you know of practices 2x2x3 seriously enough to learn this but not seriously enough to learn faces->cube?


In fact I have a friend who practices this puzzle alot and has even done 100 timed solves in a row to get faster. Im not trying to suggest that me having a friend who does this means that everyone does this, but many people _do_ take this cube seriously. Also, E-layer preservation and one-look ability isn't the only difference between this and the "normal method". typically only 2-4 CP cases are recognized on this cube. However this method has five. Typically only 1-3 distinct EP algorithms are used to deal with all of the cases, and they often inefficiently use F R and U moves for them. This method recognizes 7 EP cases, each with their own algorithms that employ E and R moves exclusively. Also, when solving their squares, you may make a pair of corners to avoid a CP case, a technique which you could also do when solving the normal way, but would have no purpose as that method uses R F R for the circumvented CP case. Anyway, even if you think this method isn't anything remarkable, it is still better than the previous way of solving. As for the idea that everyone who is serious about this puzzle would learn ~140 algorithms is a bit ludicrous; does every serious 2x2 solver learn full CLL?, or is it possible to be serious about 2x2 while only knowing Ortega?


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> In fact I have a friend who practices this puzzle alot and has even done 100 timed solves in a row to get faster.



An ao100 on a puzzle that takes 5 seconds if you're really slow isn't all that impressive.



Ian Brown said:


> Also, E-layer preservation and one-look ability isn't the only difference between this and the "normal method". typically only 2-4 CP cases are recognized on this cube. However this method has five. Typically only 1-3 distinct EP algorithms are used to deal with all of the cases, and they often inefficiently use F R and U moves for them. This method recognizes 7 EP cases, each with their own algorithms that employ E and R moves exclusively. Also, when solving their squares, you may make a pair of corners to avoid a CP case, a technique which you could also do when solving the normal way, but would have no purpose as that method uses R F R for the circumvented CP case.



So the difference is you need to learn more algs for yours? And for the normal method you can intentionally make an diag swap on one face to hope for RFR, just like for yours they can make an adj swap.



Ian Brown said:


> Anyway, even if you think this method isn't anything remarkable, it is still better than the previous way of solving.



That's not necessarily true, I think the "old" method of faces->cube is wayyy better



Ian Brown said:


> As for the idea that everyone who is serious about this puzzle would learn ~140 algorithms is a bit ludicrous; does every serious 2x2 solver learn full CLL?, or is it possible to be serious about 2x2 while only knowing Ortega?



No, every serious 2x2 solver learns full EG, which happens to include CLL. If you're serious about 2x2 you'd keep learning algs. And I could say the same to you: why would I learn your method instead of another one? Isn't it a bit ludicrous for me to learn extra algs that probably won't make much faster(if any) just for a non-WCA event?


----------



## Billabob (Feb 29, 2020)

Just a thought - if you're using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E layer you could solve the E layer before PBL. Perhaps while you're solving the first face, I tried some practice solves and it's relatively easy. I just don't see the benefit of using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E-layer when that layer isn't even solved.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

Billabob said:


> Just a thought - if you're using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E layer you could solve the E layer before PBL. Perhaps while you're solving the first face, I tried some practice solves and it's relatively easy. I just don't see the benefit of using longer PBL algorithms to preserve the E-layer when that layer isn't even solved.



This is a very good idea, thanks for sharing it. Could you offer some tips or guidelines for consistently solving the E layer while doing the square faces, because this sounds extremely useful.

edit: I attached a new pdf in the first post with this idea instead of doing E layer last, and will probably treat this amendment to the method as standard. thanks!


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> An ao100 on a puzzle that takes 5 seconds if you're really slow isn't all that impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1.) So I didn't mean an ao of 100 exactly, it was more of a figure of speech, the way he explained it to me was that he basically spent a lengthy amount of time practicing 2x2x3.

2.) You may prefer the "old method", but this one is objectively faster, especially since the CP algs other than RFR are typically not _that _short with the "old method".

3.) I used Ortega and CLL just as examples, don't debate me over what method a serious 2x2 solver would use, because that's not relevant to this conversation or thread, and comes across as hostile. Anyway, I'm not saying that you have to use this method; I have stated that multiple times. Use whatever method you want. And no, I don't think it's ludicrous to learn extra algs to get faster; You just used EG as an example of learning algs to get faster at 2x2 if you're serious about it; and if you're serious about 2x2x3 you learn this method, or perhaps invent something better. No offense really, but you've offered lots of unfounded criticism, disinterest in the thread topic, and attempts at persuading me that I'm somehow wrong about things that are just matters of opinion. You even stated that you think the old method is "wayyy better". You obviously don't care for this idea, so what do you hope to achieve on this thread?


----------



## ProStar (Feb 29, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> You even stated that you think the old method is "wayyy better". You obviously don't care for this idea, so what do you hope to achieve on this thread?



If you read my post, I told you why I thought it was better: make a face then do an alg. It's objectively faster.


----------



## Ian Brown (Feb 29, 2020)

ProStar said:


> If you read my post, I told you why I thought it was better: make a face then do an alg. It's objectively faster.


What old method are you talking about, Face --> alg is _not_ the old method, the old method is face --> cp on one layer --> cp on the other layer --> ep. This idea of doing a face then one alg to solve is something that I have never heard of being done for 2x2x3 until you mentioned it. However, User Billabob had a good idea of how to shorten the new method which effectively makes it only 2-steps long, but much easier than Face --> alg. the idea is to intuitively solve the equator while solving the square faces, and then do one of the 5 equator preserving CP algs. It's still 2 steps, but less moves, and less memorization then both the previous idea for the new method, and the hypothetical Face --> alg method which would require tons of algs, 140 i think. (see new attached pdf in the first post)


----------



## Wish Lin (Mar 1, 2020)

After seeing all the posts I am really curious how this is done:


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Mar 2, 2020)

Yeah Ive been using this method for a long time now


----------



## Ian Brown (Mar 2, 2020)

PingPongCuber said:


> Yeah Ive been using this method for a long time now



You have always done square faces and equator simultaneously, then equator preserving CP algs? If so then could you share some algs if they are different


----------



## 2018AMSB02 (Mar 2, 2020)

Ian Brown said:


> You have always done square faces and equator simultaneously, then equator preserving CP algs? If so then could you share some algs if they are different



No, sorry, I was talking about the original method described at the start of the thread, and I use all of the algorithms that I use on square-1 except for some equator cases.


----------



## Ian Brown (Mar 3, 2020)

What do you guys think about these alternative CP algs for the adjacent and diagonal cases? I know they're on the longer side but thought they might be easily finger tricked quickly for some people.

Adjacent top layer: (R' D R D')2 R U' (R D' R D)2 R

Diagonal top layer: (R' D R D')2 R U2 (R D' R D)2 R


----------



## HexaFlexaCubing (Jan 15, 2022)

WoowyBaby said:


> I have made a method that people have told me is much better than orient, CP, E-layer, which most people think of.
> 
> From the New Method / Concept Thread, back in April 2019.
> 
> ...



How did you generate these sequences? Like what program/application did you use?


----------



## robotmania (Dec 22, 2022)

I got a single of 2.372 with this method, reconstruction is below:
Scramble: U D F2 U' F2 U2 R2 U' R2
Square Faces Skip
CP: R U R U' D' R D R
ABF: U2


----------

