# Full LMCF 3x3 method now available



## efattah (Feb 26, 2017)

Hi all,

It seems rumors of my 28-move speed solve have reached as far as top cubers in China and I have recently received various requests for a more detailed description of this LMCF (low movecount corners first) method. I have now created a 43-page elaborate description of the method with tips tricks and all the algorithms. This can serves a very fast beginner's method with only 26 algorithms, or an extremely fast method for experts (with a LOT more algorithms, 99 to 776 based on the variant), capable of sub-3 second lucky solves. While I am not a fast turner (circa 3.80 TPS), the low movecount still allows me to get frequent 8-10 second singles, and fast turners could get insane times.

Here is the PDF (17MB):
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kNkpHSURSbzluc2s
[Edit: Updated to Revision 4.5]

28-move speed solve reconstruction:


----------



## TDM (Feb 26, 2017)

About the pdf: I definitely don't think method neutrality should be encouraged. It's far too much work for relatively little gain. If you want to get fast, pick a method and stick with it.

About the method itself: (super small point, but I don't think making steps algorithmic means you need a new name for a method. People call CFOP the same thing whether your F2L is algorithmic or intuitive. I would just call this CF)
It does look really efficient though - but I feel like the rotations and transitions between L/R would mean you couldn't get the ~10 TPS you assumed in the last sentence of the intro. Perhaps algorithmically solving three L edges followed by three R edges would improve the fingertricks?


----------



## efattah (Feb 26, 2017)

It's a very good point about the ergonomics of the E2L phase. You're totally right, the E2L phase will never achieve the same TPS as the other two phases (corners, and L6E). However it doesn't really matter. You max out the TPS on the corners like a 2x2 solver (circa 1.7 second average), you max out TPS on the L6E phase like a Roux solver (1.7 seconds L6E Alex Lau), and the E2L phase will have slower TPS but only accounts for about 18 moves and even much less on a lucky solve.

If you go with 8 TPS on the corners and L6E and 6 TPS on E2L, then the full method would have predicted splits of:
Corners 13 @ 8 TPS = 1.62
E2L 16 @ 6TPS = 2.67 seconds
L6E 13 @ 8 TPS = 1.62
Total average = 5.92 seconds

Looking at real world data, my global splits at the moment are corners (5 sec), E2L (7.8 sec), L6E (3.3 sec). However my corners suck because I average 1 second recognition on the CLL/EG1 and I get 4 second corner solves on 1 looks. So eliminating that skew and focusing on TPS with 1-looking corners and my splits are 4/7.8/3.3.

Scaling that down to a 1.9 second 2x2 phase gives a predicted high TPS split of 1.9/3.7/1.56 = 7.16 average, and that shows indeed the E2L phase has lower TPS than the other two phases. While that average is nothing spectacular, LMCF excels in fast singles, and if you scale some of my faster low movecount singles by the same amount it is interesting.

A full step 9.10 had 2.02/4.74/2.34 splits on csTimer; that scales down to 0.96/2.25/1.11 = 4.32 second full step at expert TPS, which seems about right since on that solve the corners would definitely have been a sub-1 by a 2x2 expert and L6E was very fast as well.

My 8.3 single with CLL skip would scale down to 3.94. So a 4.32 full step and 3.94 with skip are in the ball park of top CFOP ZBLL or VLS solves.


----------



## Miro (Feb 27, 2017)

Good job! Thank you! What about case if I have solved left and right layer completely, but I want orient and permute M-slice with one algorithm?


----------



## Miro (Feb 28, 2017)

I cannot find in your PDF algorithms for orienting M-slice edges, if all R-edges and L-edges are solved. How do you realize this case? Unsolve one edge?


----------



## efattah (Mar 1, 2017)

Okay here is the 2nd version (31 pages) which includes pure midge orientation algorithms as requested by Miro. It also includes FULL documentation and graphics for the complex Waterman L6E step which I think is the first time this step has ever been properly documented. Theoretically a Roux solver could leave any edge in the second block disoriented and it would be fixed if using Waterman's L6E to finish.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kUmM0V2RTdWg1U2M


----------



## Miro (Mar 1, 2017)

Thank you.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Mar 1, 2017)

That a great, informative PDF, efattah. A lot of work has obviously put into it.

I'm interesting in giving it a go, but I want to start with the "Basic" set.
I didn't readily see the 3 E2L algorithms and 11 L6E algorithms for all that would be needed for the "Basic" solving, though.

Can you point those out to me, please?


----------



## efattah (Mar 1, 2017)

Solvador,

Yes, it is true I did not expand much on the 'Basic' version of the method, I wasn't sure how much interest there would be; however I will say that I have had MANY solves in the 12.xx to 13.xx range using only the basic algorithm set of 26; a faster turner could easily get sub-10 with the basic set, making it possibly the fastest method for so few algorithms.

The LMCF basic set is:

1. Ortega for 2x2 (12 algorithms) (or any more advanced method you know for 2x2)

2. E2L algorithms (3)
Algorithm 7 (page 8) U' M U2 M2 U' (shown graphically on page 9 top left)
Algorithm 14 (page 8) M U M U2 M' U (shown graphically on page 11 top left)
Algorithm 18 (page 8) U M' U' (shown graphically on page 11 top left)
These are BY FAR the fastest situations to recognize. In the early phase of learning E2L, recognition of the cases is difficult, but with these three cases, recognition is super fast even for a beginner. The rule for recognition is simple:
Solve the DF edge into the UR slot. Does the UR slot contain an edge of the opposite color (i.e. going on to the opposite side)? If so solve it with either U M' U' (if the edge is disoriented) or M U M U2 M' U (if the edge is oriented). If the UR slot does not contain such an edge, does the UL slot contain an edge which is solved but disoriented? If so solve it with U' M U2 M2 U'. These are three very easy sequences; learn them intimately by watching what is happening with the cube and learn to execute these sequences from ANY angle (there are four reflections for each case). You can take a solved cube and execute the algorithms backwards and see exactly what they are solving (inverse is U M2 U2 M' U and U' M U2 M' U' M', and U M U').

3. L5E algorithms (8)
Learn the DFL set (page 14), 8 algorithms (solving DF->UL while orienting the midges). Using just this one set you can always solve the last ledge/redge while orienting the midges. If you end up with a reflected case, you can do D2 or U2 or y2 to 'transpose' the cube into a reflected situation for which you know the algorithm. For example, execute D2 [then do the DFL algorithm] then D2 again. Or U2 [then do the alg] then U2 again.

4. Midge permutations (3)
U2 M2 U2
E2 M E2
U2 M U2

To 'complete' your knowledge of the Basic LMCF set, the following SEVEN algorithms would be the next most important to learn in terms of how often they occur by accident. These are all midge orientation algorithms of special cases:

UR and UL both solved by accident (page 18)
2 disoriented midges DF UB: U' M U M U2 M' U M' U
2 disoriented midges UF DF: U M U M U2 M' U M' U'
4 disoriented midges: precede with U' M U M U' M' U then finish with DFL algorithm you already know (U2 M' U M U M' U M U') [this is longer than the 'fixed' version of this case but it is very easy to learn because it incorporates an algorithm you already know)

Page 16: learn all four of the situations at the top of page 16 (one edge inverted)
U L' U M' U2 M2 U L U'
U' R U' M2 U2 M2 U' R' U
M' U M' U M' U M' U [extremely easy, just [M' U]x4)
M' U' M' U' M' U' M' U' [extremely easy, just [M' U']x4)

So start with the 26 algorithm set then move up to the 33 algorithm set. I would comment that since most people know Ortega and the midge permutations are intuitive as is U' M' U, there are really only TEN algorithms to learn to get going with the basic set, or 17 if you learn the extended basic set. That means that most people can learn the basic set of 10 in a single day!


----------



## efattah (Mar 1, 2017)

I would comment that one of the extremely beautiful (and fun) aspects of this method is that it takes so few algorithms to get started (around 10-17 as I mentioned), but you can keep growing with the method and gradually learn more and more cases until you know all 776. This prevents the terrible problem of the 'plateau'. So many speedcubers get stuck around 20 seconds and don't see improvement for years. In most cases long hours of drills are needed for them to increase their TPS and recognition. While that does work, what I find a more fun way to improve is to learn new cases. Every week I learn a few new cases and it is really fun when one of the cases comes up in a solve and I can finish the cube faster than before, and the result is every single month my average times go down steadily with no end in sight.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Mar 1, 2017)

Wow! what a response! thanks so much for the details. I'm excited to give it a try even though I'm not a super fast solver.

I'm a fan of methods with few algorithms which is why I asked about the basic version.
I currently do CFOP with only 12-15 algs (depending on how one counts them)


----------



## efattah (Mar 2, 2017)

Here is revision 3, expanded to 38 pages, includes discussion on the beginner method and more discussion on advanced concepts at the end:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kZ0NvaDM5SlphTjg

Here is a link to training sets & images you can run through any slide show to practice algorithms, or print out some of the sheets:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kdHNFT2FGcXRUaFE


----------



## Anthony (Mar 2, 2017)

efattah said:


> Here is revision 3, expanded to 38 pages, includes discussion on the beginner method and more discussion on advanced concepts at the end:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kZ0NvaDM5SlphTjg
> 
> Here is a link to training sets & images you can run through any slide show to practice algorithms, or print out some of the sheets:
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kdHNFT2FGcXRUaFE



Awesome stuff, Eric!


----------



## efattah (Mar 2, 2017)

Here is revision 4, which now includes two extended L6E sets, the rDFR set and the xDFL set. The rDFR set is a new trick, when solving the last 6 edges you are better off solving UL/UR inverted which drops the move count of the orientation step to 7.87.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kNkpHSURSbzluc2s


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Mar 3, 2017)

Your PDF mentions "LMCF tutorial videos", are those posted somewhere?


----------



## efattah (Mar 4, 2017)

I'm going to create a tutorial for both the beginner's method and the advanced variations within the next couple of days. These will be posted to my youtube channel. In the meantime I got video of a Waterman L6E finish on a real speed solve! Ok it took me 7 seconds to remember the algorithm but c'mon there are 372 cases and I am still learning them.






Reconstruction is in the video description.


----------



## Miro (Mar 11, 2017)

What's about algorithms for L5E, which solve whole rest of cube? Solving UR edge + Midges orientation + Midges permutation with one algorithm. If I am not wrong and UR edge is on M-slice it is 88 new cases + mirrors. (If UR edge is flipped on own position, it is another 88.)


----------



## efattah (Mar 11, 2017)

Miro said:


> What's about algorithms for L5E, which solve whole rest of cube? Solving UR edge + Midges orientation + Midges permutation with one algorithm. If I am not wrong and UR edge is on M-slice it is 88 new cases + mirrors. (If UR edge is flipped on own position, it is another 88.)



This was explored in a thread I created a while back called 'Roux L6E in one look'. There are at least 110 cases and recognition is slow; I explored it extensively and decided there was little to nothing to gain as recognition takes around the same time as permuting the midges.


----------



## efattah (Mar 12, 2017)

I had a nice single today with csTimer, managed to reconstruct


Scramble: B2 L2 U' B2 F2 U L2 D' L2 B2 U2 L R B L' R F R' D' R
z2 U R2 U l U' R' // green face and CLL skip
M U2 M' // solve blue-red edge
D' M' D2 M // solve green-orange edge on D face
z x' L' U' M2 U // E2L pair
x2 r' U' M2 U r R // set up
M2 U' r' R' U M U' r2 U R2 // Waterman L6E Set 2 case 6C

Total 33 STM


----------



## kameron9291 (Mar 16, 2017)

I'm going to learn this, and try to learn all algs, but ima just start using this for fmc


----------



## uyneb2000 (Mar 16, 2017)

kameron9291 said:


> I'm going to learn this, and try to learn all algs, but ima just start using this for fmc


That's an awful idea considering FMC is counted in HTM and not STM...

Also this seems like an extremely interesting method, would you mind updating the original post with the revised PDF, for convenience?

Awesome stuff


----------



## Attila (Mar 16, 2017)

uyneb2000 said:


> That's an awful idea considering FMC is counted in HTM and not STM...



I don't agree. The currently known best official result (with CF method) is 22 single, and 27 mean of 3. Unfortunatelly, a few cubers use this.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 16, 2017)

Attila said:


> I don't agree. The currently known best official result (with CF method) is 22 single, and 27 mean of 3. Unfortunatelly, a few cubers use this.


Yes but if you use LMCF as described here then you will use many slice moves as you just follow a load of algs.


----------



## efattah (Mar 16, 2017)

Some people who have read the method express concern over the ergonomics of the E2L phase. This is a valid question but there are many advanced techniques used mid-solve to increase the ergonomics. The 2-gen pair algorithms are the fastest and there are ways of deliberately modifying the solve to increase the appearance of 2-gen pairs (vs. 3-gen, 4-gen pairs). Some of this stuff is intricate and isn't in the document; I will post a tutorial video where I explain some of these tricks. Furthermore it is true that some of the pair algorithms are not that ergonomic depending on which side of the cube they occur on (pair algs which have B moves will have F moves instead if the setup happens from the back of the cube). Anyway in many cases I will skip a pair if the alg is not ergonomic; the main time I will perform a non-ergonomic pair is if it is the last pair/triplet that sets up a favorable L6E case.

There are many more tricks near the end of E2L; by modifying the way you solve the last pair/triplet, you can force an L6E case that you already know. Since LMCF has so many algorithms and the average user would not know all of them, it is very important to finish the solve with an L6E case that you know and this is easily accomplished if you adjust the way you solve your last pair/triplet.

I am also compiling statistics of the appearance of the different L6E cases on normal solves with no control over the case. This gives a much better guideline over which algorithm sets are really useful. As with ZBLL, there is less value in learning sets that only occur in 1% of solves.

The last thing which really needs clarification is the transition phase. During the transition phase, you have solved the corners, and depending on your color neutrality, it is often useful to solve edges of the top and bottom layers during the transition into E2L. This step is extremely important; the edge solves during the transition phase allow U/D moves while solving the edges and these U/D moves allow you to *see* every edge piece on the cube without rotating the cube, so when you start the E2L phase you have already seen your first pair or triplet. If you don't perform this transition properly you will enter the E2L phase blind and there will be a pause in your solve as you experience 'lookahead failure.'

On a normal solve you solve 2 edges piece in the transition phase (U & D layers), and in the process you 'see' the entire cube and immediately roll into your first E2L pair; during the first pair algorithm you can see the next pair; after the second pair you have now solved all 6 required edges of the E2L phase and hopefully during the last E2L pair you set up an L6E case that you know and can roll into that directly.


----------



## efattah (Mar 19, 2017)

A full 33-minute LMCF tutorial with lots of advanced look-ahead tricks is now online:





Also the original document is now updated to version 4.5 with some additions and corrections:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QnZ3uD6I8kNkpHSURSbzluc2s


----------



## muchacho (Mar 19, 2017)

> This video is private.


----------



## efattah (Mar 19, 2017)

Fixed to public!


----------



## efattah (Mar 19, 2017)

I reconstructed my 28-move speed solve from several weeks ago:





Scramble: F2 L2 B2 U2 R' B2 L' U2 R2 F2 D2 B' L2 D R' U F' L2 B' D2 U2
z2 U R2 U l U' R' // green face and CLL skip
U M U2 M' // solve blue-red edge on U face
z F U' M U M' F' // E2L triplet
L2 R2 M F U' M2 U F' // E2L triplet
U2 M U2 M' // permute midges
// Total 28 STM


----------



## Spencer131 (Mar 20, 2017)

Here's an idea for my variation of the method, I will still work on this more.

Solve a 1x2x2 square before solving the corners. Solve corners like normal using wide turns when necessary to preserve the 1x2x2. Then you have 2 edges done for the e2l step


----------



## efattah (Mar 20, 2017)

Spencer131 said:


> Here's an idea for my variation of the method, I will still work on this more.
> 
> Solve a 1x2x2 square before solving the corners. Solve corners like normal using wide turns when necessary to preserve the 1x2x2. Then you have 2 edges done for the e2l step



Yes, this is a great idea, I have experimented with this a little already and it shows great promise, to keep the 'blind' part of the cube solved. Of the 80 EG1+CLL algorithms I selected in my LMCF document, only a few 'break' any of those 2x2 block edges. So only a couple of those algs would need to be swapped with CMLL or other EG1 variants. 

This variant also results in a rotationless solution. Kind of a Roux-LMCF hybrid.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 24, 2017)

This looks like a really cool method. I think I am going to learn it. That being said, despite not having a high alg count for the beginner version, I feel that it will be harder to get use to than the big 4 methods. Currently, I average about 35 with ZZ, and I suck at look ahead in general. So, we will see how this goes. Any general advice for learning and getting good at this method/ what to focus on? Also, how do you think this compares to waterroux?


----------



## efattah (Mar 24, 2017)

bren077s said:


> This looks like a really cool method. I think I am going to learn it. That being said, despite not having a high alg count for the beginner version, I feel that it will be harder to get use to than the big 4 methods. Currently, I average about 35 with ZZ, and I suck at look ahead in general. So, we will see how this goes. Any general advice for learning and getting good at this method/ what to focus on? Also, how do you think this compares to waterroux?



Block building is hard, and LMCF doesn't have any block building, and in that sense it is actually pretty easy to learn. I suggest using the multi-phase option in csTimer (or other timer) so you hit the space bar and each milestone in the solve; hit the spacebar after solving the corners, then hit the spacebar again before you perform L5E, then again at the end. For starters if you are using Ortega to solve the corners you can aim for 9 seconds on the corners, 13 seconds on the E2L phase, and 7 seconds on L5E. That would give you a 29 second average which is already a lot better than you have, and that should be achievable very fast.

Make sure you have good finger tricks for the M-Slice. Practice U M' U' x 100, U' M' U x 100, U M U' x 100, U' M U x 100 until they are so blazing fast as to be invisible.

For the E2L edge phase, do a lot of slow untimed solves to learn to follow the pieces and get an intuitive understanding of this phase. Slow untimed solves will improve this phase a lot more than timed solves. Understand that with basic keyhole techniques (L, R, U M' U', U' M' U, U M U', U' M U), you can break any edge on the L/R faces and put it in any other slot, even without any E2L algorithms. Once you learn that basic style, you can add the two E2L pair algorithms that I suggest.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 24, 2017)

That is nice to know. As a beginner, I am not nervous about corners(I average 15 with ortega, but I have only done like 20 timed solves. Dropping it to 9 should be easy with very little practice), but edges look like they will take a lot of thinking as a beginner. I have not tried solves yet, so this is just based on my assumptions after watching a few of your walkthrough solves in your tutorial.

I will probably post a more educated opinion once I have done enough solves to see how fast I am improving. I have only been seriously speedsolving since about january. With ZZ, I got my first sub 40 Ao100 about 10 days ago and sub 35 Ao100 yesterday. So I am improving fast. This method I feel has a lot of potential, so I will probably end up switching.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 24, 2017)

Hey efattah,

Do you think that at some point you could upload an average of 12? You have a lot of nice singles on your youtube channel but I am just wondering how this method performs on average. 

Also, do you always solve with either the blue or green center on top. If so, does insuring the blue or green center is on top make your 2x2 phase slower/more restricted?


----------



## efattah (Mar 25, 2017)

bren077s said:


> Hey efattah,
> 
> Do you think that at some point you could upload an average of 12? You have a lot of nice singles on your youtube channel but I am just wondering how this method performs on average.
> 
> Also, do you always solve with either the blue or green center on top. If so, does insuring the blue or green center is on top make your 2x2 phase slower/more restricted?



OK I uploaded a random practice session:





As you'll see in the video I don't always solve on blue/green when doing the corners, but I always hold blue/green on L and R when doing E2L. Lookahead on E2L is reduced if I solve other colors on L/R.

Watching the split times is quite interesting. The first solve in the series is 14.56 of which I spend 6.98 solving the corners and 7.58 solving the entire rest of the cube. Given that an expert can solve the corners in 2 seconds and turn twice as fast in general, you see the potential.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 25, 2017)

Thanks for the video. It is nice to see what an average looks like and how much room for improvement there is.

I did my first couple of solves and then did some timed solves, plus some slow solves to see my movecount. Currently I am utterly terrible at e2l recognition and execution. I did 5 timed solves and got this average(corners/e2l/l5e/full solve): 12.45/1:00.91/25.24/1:38.70 Clearly I have a ton of room for improvement(like memorizing algs so I don't have to look at a sheet of paper all the time for starters), but this is day one. I did 5 untimed solves to look at my potential movecount and got this average mc(corners/e2l/l5e/full solve): 24/27.8/13.6/65.4 So not terrible but again room for improvement.

I have a question about the beginner variant e2l. When trying to solve e2l pairs, I often got cases where I had a ledge to solve and in the place where it goes is another ledge or midge. If i didn't have a redge to flip, then I only saw a way to put in a single edge without the e2l Pairs Set algs(page 8). For example, if you had the case U M' U' l' L' U M' U' L2 with red front and yellow top, is there a good way to slot in the blue white edge with another edge to make a pair only using the beginner variant algs?

I hope I explained that issue well enough. If not, I can try and clarify.


----------



## efattah (Mar 25, 2017)

To answer Bren's question:

Holding the cube with red on front, yellow on top, and applying scramble U M' U' l' L' U M' U' L2.

1. If you know the full E2L set the solution would be:
L2 M D M' U M [U'+D' same time], then M, and then you are set up for L5E
[9 moves]

2. If you don't know the E2L set and only know the 3 beginner algorithms the solution would be:
U M' U' (solve blue yellow edge)
L2 M U M U' (solve blue white edge), then M2, and you are set up for L5E
[9 moves]

So in this case there is no move savings from executing a pair algorithm; any time you have a blue edge on the green face (but disoriented) it is easily solved by a U/M/U move and similarly any green edge on the blue face (disoriented) is also easily solved with a U/M/U style move.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 26, 2017)

Ok, Thanks for the comment. I am slowly getting better. I simply need to do a ton of slow solves so I can get down recognition and becomes more move efficient. I also need to memorize all of the algs. Definitely need to work on putting in pairs instead of single edge pieces. Any general advice on E2L?


----------



## efattah (Mar 26, 2017)

Many of the E2L pair algorithms are not ideal in a speedsolve due to ergonomics, unless they result in triplet solves where the benefit of a multi-edge solve is so huge that it is okay to suffer a delay from setup and a less than perfectly ergonomic sequence. The key to E2L is to learn intuitive pair solving, sometimes called cycling.

Here are some examples. Hold the cube with orange on the front and white on the top:

Scramble 1: L U M U' L' M U M' U'
We want to solve the green white edge (at DF) into the UR slot. We see that the blue-red edge is in the UL slot. We want to solve both the green-white edge and the blue-red edge at the same time intuitively.
Step 1: Prime the blue red edge with U M U'. Now the UR slot has been 'primed' and holds the blue-red edge, ready for an easy pair. The green-white edge has been displaced to the BD position.
Step 2: Bring the green-white edge back to the DF position with an M' move.
Step 3: We can now solve the green-white edge and the blue-red edge at the same time. Do an L move to put the blue-red slot in the UL position, then solve the pair with U M' U'.
The above will work any time the UL slot contains a blue edge piece on the blue layer that is oriented; using this intuitive method you have just covered 3 possible E2L situations and this intuitive pair method is extremely fast and ergonomic (no F or B or D moves, just L/R/U/M).

Scramble 2: Hold the cube with orange on front and white on top, U M U' l U M U' M'
We see the blue-red edge is in the UR slot in an ideal position. We also see the blue white edge at the UF position. We can cycle-solve both the blue-white and blue-red edges at the same time. First do an M move to put the blue white edge at the DF position. Now solve the blue-red into UL with U M' U', and this simultaneously places the blue-white edge into the UR slot. Now we solve that one next; L' U M' U

Scramble 3: (white on top, orange on front) U' M U R2 U' M' U
We want to solve the green-yellow edge (at BD) into the UR slot. We see there is already a green-white edge there. We can cycle solve them both with no algorithm. First do U' M U, and this solves the UR slot with green-yellow; it also primes the UL slot with the green-white edge. Now quickly do an r2, then U' M' U to solve the green-white edge piece (I deliberately didn't solve the blue-white edge at the same time, this was possible but unlikely to occur so nicely in a real solve)

Scramble 4: (white on top, orange on front) U2 R' U' M' U R U2 R'
The blue face is solved. We want to solve the green-red edge piece into the UR slot. Green-red is at BD. However there is a green-white edge piece already in the UR slot and we can solve it intuitively. This situation is defined as trying to solve an edge piece where there is another edge piece of the same side already in the slot but disoriented. In this case it could be green-white (as it is), or green-orange too for example. It is all the same.
Solution: We set this up as a basic U/M/U style pair and with all intuitive solving it is about 'priming' edge pieces for an easy pair. First do a U2. Now you have sort of inverted the blue/green faces. The green-white edge piece is now at UL and in a very favorable primed position for a pair. The green-red edge piece is still at BD and now it needs to go into UL. The green-white edge piece will be displaced to UR, so we need to put the green white slot at UR with an R move. Now solve the pair with U M U'. The edges are now both solved and we need to 'restore' the cube. We restore it with R' U2. Once you understand this 'style' of flipping the top slice with U2 to 'prime' a pair that exists on the same side, you can use it to solve any similar situation.

Scramble 5: (white on top, orange on front) F U' M2 U F' M'
We want to solve the blue-white edge (at DF) into UL. We see that UR (green-orange) and FR (green-white) are both disoriented and swapped. In a real situation this might happen, but more than often only one of UR and FR will hold such an edge piece. This is more of an algorithm but it is quite intuitive. We do M F U' M2 U F' and it solves all three pieces. This can be used in many situations such as this:
(white on top, orange on front) F U' M2 U F' U' M' U R
We want to solve the blue white edge at DF, into UL. We seed the green-white edge at UR would need to go to BR.
First do an R'. Now we are in our familiar situation. By doing our mini-algorithm we know the UR and FR will be swapped and oriented. We see green-white at FR, and this will swap into UR and its orientation will flip. So we execute our mini-algorithm M F U' M2 U F' and both edges are solved. This works any time either of UR/FR need to be swapped.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 26, 2017)

Thank you. This is extremely helpful, especially scrambles 4 and 5.


----------



## efattah (Mar 26, 2017)

The next E2L trick especially for beginners is to use the displacement method. This is an *extremely fast* intuitive method of edge solving which requires essentially no algorithms and has extraordinary lookahead, way easier/faster lookahead than probably any other solving method.

Hold white on top and orange on front, and scramble:
U M2 U' L' U M2 U' L' R U M2 U2 M' U L' R U M2 U' M U M' U2 M' U R' U M U' M'
We want to solve green-orange at DF, into UR. We see there is a blue-red piece there, we could solve it as a pair, but for this example we will only use displacement. We now want to displace ANY edge in the L face. So we do an L. Now we see we can displace the blue-yellow piece. We do U M' U'. We displaced the blue yellow to the BD position and we did that on purpose so we KNOW that is the next piece we can solve even though we can't see it any more. We do an r move. Now we want to solve blue-yellow at DF, into UL, and displace an edge piece on the R face. There aren't any available to displace so we just do U' M' U.
Now we want to solve the green-yellow piece at UF. We do an M move to put it at DF. Now we want to displace ANY edge piece on the L face. We do an L move. We see we can displace the blue white piece at UL. We do U M' U', and the blue-white piece is the next one we solve.

This wasn't a great example but it shows the method; you solve one edge while deliberately displacing another one and tracking it. Then you always solve that piece you displaced as the next one, and displace another one and so on. This way you have perfect lookahead as you always are tracking the next piece.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 26, 2017)

I thought of an interesting variant of LMCF that would be more ergonomic and also a little more move efficient. It would start like this:

1. Solve a "hexagon" on the d-face (by hexagon I mean the block you make in hexagonal fransisco that consists of a full face minus one corner and one edge) ~9 moves
2. Put in the last corner of the d-face while silmultaniously orienting and permuting the u-layer corners (basically solve the last five edges in one algorithm. I'm currently working on a 2×2 algset that does this) ~10 moves
3. Solve either a triplet or pair of edges somewhere on the cube (I'm not sure what the most efficient thing to do here would be) 6-9 moves?
4. Solve the remaining edges using an L5E, L6E, or L7E set (depends on what you do in step 3) 12-15 moves?

Basically I'm sure about the first two steps, as with lots of practice you can probably one look the whole thing AND go into E2L with the 3 hardest edges to find already solved. In the last two steps, what's the most efficient way to solve DF, UF, UL, UB, UR, and the four e-layer edges with two algorithms? I was thinking you could solve three edges on the top layer and then solve the last 6 edges with one of the waterman L6E sets you made, but there might be faster and more efficient ways. If this works out we could work on this method together, as I'm very interested in method designing.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 26, 2017)

What you have described here is basically a subset of the Waterman method. Waterman described part of his method that is identical to your method with one difference. He places the last corner on the face and then does CLL instead of doing last 5 corners. Your variant would save a few moves compared to that method at the cost of learning a lot more algs. 

It is a fine variant of waterman in my opinion. I think that the issue with your method is that it gets rid of a few advantages of LMCF. First off, LMCF complete removes block building(your variant adds that back in). Secondly, LMCF allows for looking ahead to the entire corners during inspections. With your variant, you will still have to deal with recognizing your corner alg during the solve. I think you variant is viable and may save a move or two at the cost of good block building and a lot of corner algs.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 26, 2017)

@brenn077s Yeah everything you said was also running through my head. Basically my thought process was that if you can one look your hexagon/first block during inspection, you can track your last d-layer corner and then try to recognize your L5C case as fast as possible (there are somewhere around 350 last 5 corner cases, including CLLs and TCLLs). Then you'll have 9 edges left, and you could do the rest of the solve exactly like waterman, but I was thinking somehow you could use E2L and L6E algs for the last two steps instead of the standard, kind of inefficient waterman way where you use the DF edge as a keyhole and solve 2 U-layer edges and DF, and then do an L6E case. I was thinking like maybe use an algorithm that solves 3 u-layer edges and then using one algorithm to solve the rest, or something like that. Basically I'm just asking: whats the most effiecient way to use two algorithms to finish off a waterman solve?


----------



## bren077s (Mar 27, 2017)

That sounds interesting and could be a viable way to solve the cube pretty efficiently. I am not sure what the best way to solve 3 edges on the u face would be, but maybe efattah would have some good ideas. I mean he made the pdf full of algs after all. You are basically efficiently reducing the cube to corners along with a face-1 edge. Afterwards I feel that LMCF method of solving edges should work fine.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 27, 2017)

@bren077s yeah basically this method is just using more algs and blockbuilding to have one triplet of edges already solved once you finish your corners, which makes lookahead easier and the movecount a bit lower. For the last two steps (L9E) I do think the most efficient way is to solve three u-layer edges and then use one of the L6E algs he has in his document, as L6E with UL and UR unsolved is more efficient than standard waterman L6E (two redges+m ring unsolved). I would just need to finish generating L5C cases (~4 months?) and get Efattah's help on the TEUL algs and this could be a seriously viable speedcubing method.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 27, 2017)

That being said, the full version of LMCF has almost 800 algs. So this method would have 1000??? Cause it would have even more algs, correct? 800 algs is already more algs than full ZBLS and ZBLL. I feel like you are making a method that may be extremely alg heavy and time consuming to learn(yet still needing block building).


----------



## efattah (Mar 27, 2017)

The best way and only currently existing way to quickly solve the last 9 edges is to use modified Waterman, where you have two options:
1. solve 2 redges at the same time in one algorithm, then finish with L7E (which is 2 algorithms, one to solve the L/R edges orient midges, then the ultra fast midge permutation)
2. solve 2 redges and the last ledge at the same time in a triplet algorithm, then finish with Waterman/LMCF L6E (this option can't always happen since a triplet set up doesn't occur every solve)

Waterman and its modernized variants have a lot going for it; slightly better ergonomics than LMCF, half the algorithms of LMCF, but LMCF beats it in two major ways; LMCF has much higher statistical chances of pre-solved edges and solving triplets, and LMCF puts the CLL/EG recognition in the inspection phase.

The problem with any block building method is you are forced to solve specific edges. In Waterman or even Roux, as an example, you are essentially forced to solve that first block. By constraining yourself and forcing yourself to solve such a limited set of pieces you are not putting luck on your side. The whole idea of LMCF was the 1-look corners (with algorithm selection in the inspection), and then by putting ZERO constraints on the next pieces you solve, you can allow the cube to partially solve itself. A true LMCF expert is color neutral and after solving the corners will choose the L/R sides based on which pieces on the cube are accidentally pre-solved, and then choose the next edge set to solve based on the first available natural triplet. This is how LMCF gets a lower move count than Waterman, because you get randomly solved edges on almost every solve. The drawback is higher algorithm count, and in some solves, less ergonomics on the edge solving phase.


----------



## efattah (Mar 27, 2017)

I will comment that many times I have solved the corners and found FIVE edge pieces pre-solved by accident. This has often happened on the orange/red sides (which are not my choice for the L/R; I prefer blue/green). Nonetheless if I see such a lucky situation I still put orange/red on L/R and finish the solve anyway. The usual movecount for 5 pre-solved edges is 28-30.

As an example, a CFOP solver could solve the cross and find all four bottom corners pre-solved. But this would be useless as he would have to BREAK every single one of those corners to solve the F2L pairs. That is not putting luck on your side. If a piece is pre-solved you want to leave it in the pre-solved position.

Similarly a CFOP solver could solve the cross and find almost the entire upper layer solved. Again he would have to break it all up to finish his solve.

A roux solver could solve the first block and find all the U corners solved. He would have to break them to solve the second block.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 27, 2017)

@efattah Ok, first the alg count. It definitely wouldn't be over a thousand. Evenn though L5C is ~350 algorithms, there would probably be around 160 TEUL or tiplet algs, depending on what you learn, and somewhere around 90-190 last _ edges algorithms depending on whether you learn waterman L6E, L7E, or L6E with UL and UR unsolved. The total probably wouldn't be more than full LMCF.

It's true, this proposed method flows much different and is more consistent and less lucky than LMCF. My whole idea was that I didn't really like that transition phase after the corners where you have ALL the edges unsolved and it can be really hard to lookahead and find a triplet. I'm sure there are people though (like you) who find this easier to do than I do, and yes, it does allow for a lot of lucky things to happen. By block building you're forcing the cube to have three edges solved, which in my opinion makes the solve feel a bit more like a CFOP/ROUX/ZZ solve where you do intuitive blockbuilding and then finish off the solve with 2-3 algoithms and you only have to look at one side of the cube. So to sum it up, it's just a slightly more efficient method (move count) with slightly better ergonomics (feels similar to the big 3 methods), but a lot less luck in it meaning in my opinion it's about the same as LMCF.

Moving on, these are the four ways I narrowed down for solving your last 9 edges (I don't care about the # of algorithms it has)

1. Solve two edges on the u-layer in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with Waterman L7E
2. Solve three edges on the u-layer in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with UL and UR unsolved L6E
3. Solve a regular triplet (DF, UL, and UR) in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with two-redges unsolved waterman L6E
4. Earlier in the solve blockbuild a FULL layer minus one corner, do step 2 normally, solve three edges on the top layer and finish off the solve with L5E and skip midge permutation

Either four of those would probably work in a solve, but a couple of questions about them:
1. I don't really understand how to solve the second triplet for option 2, would you use E2L triplet algs? If so, where would you place the DF edge before the algorithm, and when would normal triplet setup fail?
2. Would there be any way to generate TEUL algs for options 3 and 4? Do they already exist? What would be their average movecount?
3. For option 4, how bad is the recognition for L5E? Do algorithms for this already exist?
4. Of the above ways to finish off the solve of this method, which has the best recognition and the lowest movecount?
(Sorry for so many questions lol, hopefully you can answer them all)


----------



## bren077s (Mar 27, 2017)

@Thermex I can totally understand your want for the method to feel more like one of the big three with better recognition. I currently am trying to get good at LMCF. I find that the first and last step are super easy for me to get decent times in. For me, decent times is about 10 seconds for Corners and about 10 seconds for L5E(please note that I normally average about 35 with ZZ, so those break outs are good for me). That being said, my recognition and execution of E2L is terrible. I average 40 seconds to do E2L currently(it is slowly getting better). My best E2L time is 20 seconds because it was lucky. Also, I can get better times(around 30 on average) with E2L if I just spam the first piece that I see. That being said, spamming pieces is very inefficient and I am trying to force myself to learn proper recognition and look ahead for E2L. 

On a side note, Are you sure that your method is more efficient? Cause I am not completely sure that it would be. If step 3 and 4 of your method average towards the higher end of your estimate, then the move count would be the same as full LMCF.

If your method ends up having better recognition and some sort of beginner variant, so that people can use it without all of the algs. I think that it might be very useful, especially for most people who know a big three method and are terrible at E2L. 

@efattah I am just wondering, how long did it take you to learn LMCF and get to major goals like sub 30, sub 20, and/or sub 15?


----------



## Thermex (Mar 27, 2017)

@bren077s good idea. I just thought of a beginner method here:

1. Solve a full layer minus one edge piece
2. Use a 2-look CMLL (or 1-look if you already use 2×2 CLL or Roux)
3. Solve one pair of edges on the u-layer
4. Solve the last two edges on the u-layer
5. Rotate the cube so that the m-ring and FL are unsolved
6. Use one algorithm that solves FL and orients the midges
7. Permute the midges

Using 2-look CMLL, this variant would average in the low 60s and would probably use about the same amount of algorithms as beginner LMCF. This wouldn't be the most efficient method but still better than CFOP (lol). There are also easy ways to make an intermediate method that's close in move count to the advanced method(<50) but cuts off like 500 algs, you just solve a full layer-1 edge, CMLL, and the last two steps normally.

As for the efficiency, you're right. I would need the last two steps combined to be under 20 moves. I feel like there's DEFINITELY ways to do that, I just need Efattah's help on figuring that out (all my questions for that are in my last post). The first two steps can easily be done in 18-19 moves with L5C cases, so if the last two steps combine to be under 20 moves this would be a sub 40 move method (on average) which is slightly less than LMCF and the most efficient method I know.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 28, 2017)

How exactly do you expect someone to do steps 3 and 4?


----------



## Thermex (Mar 28, 2017)

@bren077s one of these four ways that I listed in a post a few hours ago:

1. Solve two edges on the u-layer in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with Waterman L7E
2. Solve three edges on the u-layer in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with UL and UR unsolved L6E
3. Solve a regular triplet (DF, UL, and UR) in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with two-redges unsolved waterman L6E
4. Earlier in the solve blockbuild a FULL layer minus one corner, do step 2 normally, solve three edges on the top layer and finish off the solve with L5E and skip midge permutation

I was wondering which of these four ways was the most efficeint and had the easiest recognition. You and efattah can both answer that if you can. Also in that post I asked these questions I hope can be answered:

1. I don't really understand how to solve the second triplet for option 2, would you use E2L triplet algs? If so, where would you place the DF edge before the algorithm, and when would normal triplet setup fail?
2. Would there be any way to generate TEUL algs for options 3 and 4? Do they already exist? What would be their average movecount?
3. For option 4, how bad is the recognition for L5E? Do algorithms for this already exist?


----------



## efattah (Mar 28, 2017)

bren077s said:


> @efattah I am just wondering, how long did it take you to learn LMCF and get to major goals like sub 30, sub 20, and/or sub 15?



I started in early January 2016. I could solve the cube in 80 seconds using my ancient techniques from when I was young.
I developed LMCF at that point and started practicing it.
I got my first sub-30 Ao12 in 2 months (using Ortega and just the L5E DFL set)
I got my first sub-20 Ao12 in 5.5 months (using Ortega+EG1 and just the L5E DFL set)
I got my first sub-15 Ao12 in 13 months (using Ortega+EG1+CLL and 3 different L5E sets)

I got my first sub-20 single in 6 weeks.
I get my first sub-10 single in around 7 months.
I got my first sub-9 single in 13 months.


----------



## bren077s (Mar 28, 2017)

@Thermex That makes sense. I don't know why I didn't realize that at first. I wish I had answers to your questions, but I only have guesses because I am pretty new to the method and just learning currently. I am trying not to simply say uneducated guesses.

I think I can answer question number 3 though. If you are trying to L5E plus midge permutation in one algorithm, I would bet that the recognition isn't terrible but will be bad enough that it will be much faster to to do L5E minus midge permutation and then a very short midge permutation algs. That honestly will probably be optimal or within a move or 2 of optimal most of the time.


----------



## Thermex (Mar 28, 2017)

bren077s said:


> @Thermex I think I can answer question number 3 though. If you are trying to L5E plus midge permutation in one algorithm, I would bet that the recognition isn't terrible but will be bad enough that it will be much faster to to do L5E minus midge permutation and then a very short midge permutation algs. That honestly will probably be optimal or within a move or 2 of optimal most of the time


Makes sense. Sometimes I get too obsessed over movecount and forget that adding one or two moves to a step can actually make it faster. I actually found a post earlier in this thread where someone asked effatah for those L5E algs and he said the same thing as you.
This all means that we can now narrow down my list of possible L9E finishes to these 3 ways:

1. Solve two edges on the u-layer in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with Waterman L7E
2. Solve three edges on the u-layer in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with UL and UR unsolved L6E
3. Solve a regular triplet (DF, UL, and UR) in one algorithm, then finish off the solve with two-redges unsolved waterman L6E

And your response also leaves me with only three unanswered questions:

1. I don't really understand how to solve the second triplet for option 3, would you use E2L triplet algs? If so, where would you place the DF edge before the algorithm, and when would normal triplet setup fail?
2. Would there be any way to generate TEUL algs for option 2? Do they already exist? What would be their average movecount?
3. Of the above ways to finish off the solve of this method, which has the best recognition and the lowest movecount?

Hopefully you can answer these questions, efattah (Sorry for so many). Then this method can really get going!


----------



## Neuro (Apr 3, 2017)

Hey so even though I'm not super good with the method I did get a 38 move solve with LMCF just now. Here's the link


----------



## efattah (Apr 3, 2017)

Different solve on the same scramble with same number of moves:
Scramble: L F' U F2 R' D' B' D R U2 R' D2 R2 L U2 R B2 R2 B2
F R' f' R U' F R' F U' F2 R U R
U' M U' M' // red green edge
z' D M U M' U' D' // orange-blue and orange-green pair
x' M2 U M2 U' l' // red-blue and set up L5E
M U2 M U' M' U' // L5E rBDR set
r2 U2 M U2 // permute midges 
38 STM


----------



## efattah (Apr 7, 2017)

Cool untimed solve today:

Scramble: F U F2 D' R2 F2 D' F2 U' R2 B' L B' L U R2 D' U2
x' y2 F' R U' R F2 R' U R' // corners
z' 
R2 M U' M2 U L' U M2 U' // E2L triplet
x L' U' M U R // E2L pair
R U' M' R' U' M U M R U // Waterman Set 1
U2 M2 U2 M2 // permute midges
Total 36 STM

https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=F_U_F...Waterman_Set_1
U2_M2_U2_M2_//_permute_midges


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 4, 2017)

This method seems pretty cool, but I would like to know, how many algs for full LMCF?


----------



## efattah (Jun 4, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> This method seems pretty cool, but I would like to know, how many algs for full LMCF?



It greatly depends, as the definition of 'full' depends on what sets you learn for the last 7 edges and this is even changing as Crafto came up with a remarkable L7E method. In my original LMCF document I have it listed as 776 algorithms for the full method, although it would really only be 300 or so as most are reflections of each other. Using Crafto's L7E method the number would drop dramatically to around 220 even with full EG. Of course you could take it even farther and learn TCLL and TEG-1 in which case the number continues to increase. This is actually a cool part of the method, in that there is endless room for improvement if you are willing to learn extra sets.

In my case you can check out my LMCF solves on youtube, I only use about 200 algorithms.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 4, 2017)

I found that it was 776, but how many of these do I need to learn to get fast? I'm not Chris Tran after all.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 4, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> I found that it was 776, but how many of these do I need to learn to get fast? I'm not Chris Tran after all.


As I was typing that you replied so you don't need to reply again, thanks


----------



## efattah (Jun 4, 2017)

Well if you read in the document you can choose the beginner's version of LMCF, which only has around 30 algorithms and you can still get sub-13 or better, which is probably the fastest method available for so few algorithms.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 5, 2017)

I am learning beginner E2L but what do I do if I don't have one of the 3 cases?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jun 5, 2017)

kameron9291 said:


> I'm going to learn this, and try to learn all algs, but ima just start using this for fmc


Probably not the best for FMC seeing how many M slice moves there are and inner slice moves aren't legal  Just NISS the heck out of those FMC scrambles and you should be fine


----------



## efattah (Jun 5, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> I am learning beginner E2L but what do I do if I don't have one of the 3 cases?



Firstly check earlier in this thread where I go over intuitive E2L pair solving.
Second, if you still can't find an intuitive E2L pair and you don't know the algorithms, you solve one L/R edge piece, by placing the candidate edge in the M-slice at DFM or BDM, then using U/M'/U', U'/M'/U, U/M/U', or U'/M/U. This is called keyhole solving because you place an open slots at UL and UR, then solve either UL or UR.

Eric


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 6, 2017)

efattah said:


> Firstly check earlier in this thread where I go over intuitive E2L pair solving.
> Second, if you still can't find an intuitive E2L pair and you don't know the algorithms, you solve one L/R edge piece, by placing the candidate edge in the M-slice at DFM or BDM, then using U/M'/U', U'/M'/U, U/M/U', or U'/M/U. This is called keyhole solving because you place an open slots at UL and UR, then solve either UL or UR.
> 
> Eric


Thanks!


----------



## LemonCuberIGuess (Jun 6, 2017)

kameron9291 said:


> I'm going to learn this, and try to learn all algs, but ima just start using this for fmc


Me too.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 26, 2017)

Hi, I'm trying to learn the DFL algs but whenever I do one I always end up with not every piece oriented


----------



## efattah (Jun 27, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Hi, I'm trying to learn the DFL algs but whenever I do one I always end up with not every piece oriented


Are you sure you are doing the recognition correctly? Look at some examples below.


----------



## efattah (Jun 27, 2017)

For the DFL set, referencing the above images as examples:
IMG_3927: All three edge pieces are disoriented [U' M' U' M' U' M U2 M U]
IMG_3929: The left and top edges are disoriented [U' M U M' U' M' U]
IMG_3932: The bottom edge is disoriented [U2 M' U M U M' U M U']

You reference the center; any edge that is the same or opposite color is considered oriented. If not it is disoriented.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jun 27, 2017)

Thank you so much. I messed up the recognition.


----------



## bren077s (Jul 10, 2017)

Hey efattah,
Is there a way to apply LMCF to big cubes? I mean you could do reduction and then use the method the same way it is used for 3x3, but is there another way to apply it to big cube?


----------



## efattah (Jul 10, 2017)

bren077s said:


> Hey efattah,
> Is there a way to apply LMCF to big cubes? I mean you could do reduction and then use the method the same way it is used for 3x3, but is there another way to apply it to big cube?



Yes we have discussed application of LMCF to big cubes. The process is this:
- Solve L/R centers
- Solve corners (these first two steps might even be done in the opposite order, i.e. corners then centers)
- Use E2L to solve 3 L edges and 3 R edges (note this solves the edges in their final position and so goes beyond normal reduction)
- Place unsolved L edge at UL and unsolved R edge at UR, then solve remaining centers and use reduction on the remaining 6 edges
- Finish with reduced 3x3 L6E of which there are dozens of approaches


----------



## Neuro (Jul 10, 2017)

There are a few options actually

LR Centers
Corners
3 redges/ledges, kinda like NM blocks in Roux

Here is where things change

Solve L4C
Insert DFDB
Do K4 ELL

Solve L4C
Insert DB
Do Lewis L5E

Solve L4C
Pair edges
Do LMCF/Roux L6E

My suggestion would be reduction to K4. What may be better is to do L4C before doing edges, but I don't know how to modify E2L to preserve centers. 

IMO, LMCF isn't good for big cubes. It isn't very efficient and look ahead is difficult. Not to mention that it uses a lot of inner slice moves which tend to be slow. If you want to use it, good for you I could be wrong. But I'd stick with Yau/Hoya, K4, 3CFCE, and Hoya


----------



## bren077s (Jul 10, 2017)

In context of of a 4x4 for example. Would you consider a redge/ledge two physical edge pieces that equate to 1 3x3 piece, or are we talking about a single 4x4 edge piece?

I agree that LMCF may not be good for big cubes, but I am interested in potentially trying it. I rarely solve big cubes anyway, so how good I am does not really matter. No matter what method I choose for big cubes, it will just be for fun and not for speed.


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 10, 2017)

Is it true that you can get faster times with CFOP for less effort than Roux or ZZ. And that Roux or ZZ are faster than CFOP but with more effort?


----------



## Rubik's cubed (Jul 11, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Is it true that you can get faster times with CFOP for less effort than Roux or ZZ. And that Roux or ZZ are faster than CFOP but with more effort?


Wrong thread


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 11, 2017)

Rubik's cubed said:


> Wrong thread


Delete the post then.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Sep 6, 2017)

Thanks again efattah for all your work on LMCF
Your inspiration (and a few of your algs  ) got me to assemble a simple CF method that I named Corn.E.Midge!

I posted details about it here:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ers-first-made-easy-and-with-few-moves.66244/

It doesn't contain any new, novel concepts... i just organized some steps onto one sheet for beginners.


-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## Pyjam (Sep 6, 2017)

In the french community, someone just got this scramble:
L2 F2 R' U2 D2 R' D F B' R' B2 L2 D' R2 U D' B2 R2 L2 U B2


----------



## efattah (Sep 7, 2017)

Pyjam said:


> In the french community, someone just got this scramble:
> L2 F2 R' U2 D2 R' D F B' R' B2 L2 D' R2 U D' B2 R2 L2 U B2



LMCF solutions for the above scramble:

Scramble: L2 F2 R' U2 D2 R' D F B' R' B2 L2 D' R2 U D' B2 R2 L2 U B2
z y M E M U M2 // solve green center and two green edges
z U' M' U L2 // solve blue red and set up triplet
U l' U M U' L U' // E2L triplet
L' D' M D L2 M U2 M U' M' U' M U' M' U M2 // L6E BDL set XOO
32 STM
16 moves for E2L phase, 16 moves for L6E

Another solution to the same scramble:
z D' M' D M' D2 M // solve Green/Blue centers and blue orange edge
y M2 U M2 // solve green-orange and green-red edges
z L' U M' U' R2 // green white edge
L2 U' M' U l' L' U' M U // E2L triplet
M2 x U' M U' M' U' M U' // L6E DFL set
31 STM
23 moves E2L, 8 moves L6E


----------



## adimare (Sep 26, 2017)

This method's great! I've been trying it out, but since I don't know how to orient the edges while solving the last one, what I do is orient and solve them using Roux once I've solved 3 edges on each side. So for instance, this is how I'd solve the above scramble:

Scramble: L2 F2 R' U2 D2 R' D F B' R' B2 L2 D' R2 U D' B2 R2 L2 U B2
z y M E M U M2 // Solve green center and two green edges
z U' M' U L2 // Solve blue red and set up triplet
U l' U M U' L U' // E2L triplet
L' x2 // Setup for Roux L6E
U M' U M' U M U M' // EO
U2 M' U2 M U M2 U' // L6E
L2 // ALF

alg.cubing.net


----------



## efattah (Nov 10, 2017)

Got video of a 13.29 Mo3 and 14.13 Ao5 today. Not PB's but fastest on cam.


----------



## Neuro (Nov 27, 2017)

Going to do some tests pinning LMCF to my "phase" solving style to see what happens. What I'm thinking is to do corners intuitively and solve the L12P using pairs, triplets, comms and other edge stuff. IDK if I'm gonna break the edge portion down to separate substeps but as of now I don't see much of a reason to.


----------



## efattah (Nov 27, 2017)

Neuro said:


> Going to do some tests pinning LMCF to my "phase" solving style to see what happens. What I'm thinking is to do corners intuitively and solve the L12P using pairs, triplets, comms and other edge stuff. IDK if I'm gonna break the edge portion down to separate substeps but as of now I don't see much of a reason to.



Good luck, interesting to see what comes of it. A super human person who could solve the 12 edges in no particular pattern (not L/R first), could solve the cube in a ridiculously short number of moves. However recognition and lookahead would be extremely hard.

For what it is worth I am still developing the method and making great progress. The number of tricks I have found is so huge that it will require another huge document. In particular, I am learning different variants of E2L pair/triplet algorithms which if selected on the fly improve the ergonomics. As a result the ergonomics of the E2L phase is radically improving, which was previously one of the weak points of the method.

I am still a comparatively slow solver of the corners. I don't like to practice that segment. But I can now routinely finish the E2L phase in sub-5 seconds and the last six edges in sub-2, and that is still with a relatively low TPS of around 3.5 - 4.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 14, 2018)

Just Use Roux


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jan 14, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Just Use Roux


LMCF IS the best! It has high TPS and low movecount

Jokes aside though if you really like roux for low move count then LMCF is actually way better


----------



## efattah (Jan 14, 2018)

To be fair Roux is still more developed than LMCF. I would say a Roux solver who knows EOLR and multiple CMLL's to skip bad LSE cases has an advantage over an LMCF solver... but not for long. The progress I am making improving LMCF is so rapid that I'm not sure that Roux will have an advantage for much longer. LMCF has unparalleled flexibility for innovations, speed short cuts and on-going developments which will continue to speed it up over the next while. Even before any of that, I am also re-working the algorithms for better ergonomics & speed and even lower movecount, as well as improving the ergonomics and lookahead in the E2L phase.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Jan 14, 2018)

efattah said:


> To be fair Roux is still more developed than LMCF. I would say a Roux solver who knows EOLR and multiple CMLL's to skip bad LSE cases has an advantage over an LMCF solver... but not for long. The progress I am making improving LMCF is so rapid that I'm not sure that Roux will have an advantage for much longer. LMCF has unparalleled flexibility for innovations, speed short cuts and on-going developments which will continue to speed it up over the next while. Even before any of that, I am also re-working the algorithms for better ergonomics & speed and even lower movecount, as well as improving the ergonomics and lookahead in the E2L phase.


I don't use LMCF because of the waaayyyy high algorithm count. I already have problems learning OLL/PLL so... 400 algs...


----------



## Juqe (Jan 14, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> I don't use LMCF because of the waaayyyy high algorithm count. I already have problems learning OLL/PLL so... 400 algs...


I started learning it 1.5 months ago and the algorithms ( especially the basic set ) are really easy to remember. I am currently learning the advanced set and 50% of the algorithms are just mirrored cases( especially L5E and E2L pairs )! Got a little problem with EG-1/CLL, but I still use Ortega for the corners and my PB is on 20.83 right now ( I solved the corners in 6 seconds ).. so even if you do not know a lot of algorithms, you can get pretty fast too, I definitely recommend you trying it


----------



## efattah (Jan 14, 2018)

Juqe is right, you can get really fast with just the LMCF basic algorithm set (around 25-30 algorithms), you can get sub-10 singles with just that. I believe that makes it the fastest existing method for such a low algorithm count...?


----------



## Juqe (Jan 14, 2018)

efattah said:


> I believe that makes it the fastest existing method for such a low algorithm count...?


From my own experience I can definitely agree to that, but rather singles than average.


----------



## Juqe (Jan 14, 2018)

efattah said:


> To be fair Roux is still more developed than LMCF. I would say a Roux solver who knows EOLR and multiple CMLL's to skip bad LSE cases has an advantage over an LMCF solver... but not for long. The progress I am making improving LMCF is so rapid that I'm not sure that Roux will have an advantage for much longer. LMCF has unparalleled flexibility for innovations, speed short cuts and on-going developments which will continue to speed it up over the next while. Even before any of that, I am also re-working the algorithms for better ergonomics & speed and even lower movecount, as well as improving the ergonomics and lookahead in the E2L phase.


By the way, when will the new document be published? I think I heard someone saying something about E2L Quadruplets ?


----------



## Reed Merrill (Jan 15, 2018)

efattah said:


> Juqe is right, you can get really fast with just the LMCF basic algorithm set (around 25-30 algorithms), you can get sub-10 singles with just that. I believe that makes it the fastest existing method for such a low algorithm count...?


Wouldn't someone who gets sub-10 using ZZ-OCLL/PLL be using just as few algs? If I'm not mistaken, this is not to uncommon (I'm pretty sure Phil Yu does it all the time).


----------



## efattah (Jan 15, 2018)

Juqe said:


> By the way, when will the new document be published? I think I heard someone saying something about E2L Quadruplets ?



It is still some time away. There are huge amounts of work to be done. In addition to E2L quadruplets, there is also a variant where the L face has two or more edges in place that are oriented but not permuted. In which case you can finish the solve in a different way. I am still optimizing the waterman set 2 algorithms, there are many more sets to optimize.



Reed Merrill said:


> Wouldn't someone who gets sub-10 using ZZ-OCLL/PLL be using just as few algs? If I'm not mistaken, this is not to uncommon (I'm pretty sure Phil Yu does it all the time).


7 corner orientations then 21 PLL's, plus F2L algorithms I suppose? So 28 algorithms plus F2L algorithms. A very low algorithm count, similar to LMCF basic.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jan 15, 2018)

I think you could average sub 8/9 with roux and two look CMLL (9 algs).

I know that Kian didn't know any EOLR until he was around sub 7 or 8, so I think 2 look CMLL would only add about 1-2 seconds to his time. You could also get some nice singles when you get a CO or CP skip.


----------



## Reed Merrill (Jan 15, 2018)

efattah said:


> 7 corner orientations then 21 PLL's, plus F2L algorithms I suppose? So 28 algorithms plus F2L algorithms. A very low algorithm count, similar to LMCF basic.



Gotcha! So LMCF can be both one of the most or least algorithmic methods, deepending on how much one is willing to learn? If so, that's pretty cool.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Jan 15, 2018)

Since LMCF has such a large range for the number of algs one has to learn (few or hundreds), I think that's one of it's biggest draws. The more you can memorize, the faster you can get. 

I also like it because if someone already knows 2x2 and L6E (or L4E) then they don't even need to learn any new algs. 
The E2L steps can all be intuitive! Even doing one edge at a time can be about the same number of moves as solving 2 at a time (an E2L pair). So new cubers can get into it and see low move counts (<70 anyway) right away.

I tried to record this intuitiveness for myself in an info sheet. 
It's Step 2 on here: http://solvexio.cf/app/#/Corn_E_Midge


-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## Spencer131 (Jan 27, 2018)

Here's a comparison of Roux and LMCF which I think is very reasonable.

1. First square of FB is approximately equal to first side of the 2x2 phase.
2. The eg algorithm is probably slightly faster than CMLL.
3. LMCF doesn't have CMLL recognition, but Roux doesn't have E2L transition, so that roughly balances out.
4. They both have lse.
5. And all that's left is E2L for LMCF, and second pair of FB+SB for Roux. My intuition says that E2L is faster than second pair+SB.

So overall, this could mean lmcf is faster than Roux. Because of this reasoning, I am definitely considering switching.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 27, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> Here's a comparison of Roux and LMCF which I think is very reasonable.
> 
> 1. First square of FB is approximately equal to first side of the 2x2 phase.


 Fairly reasonable though it neglects that fact that with Roux FB is rarely built by itself without doing anything to the other pair or DR.


> 2. The eg algorithm is probably slightly faster than CMLL.


CMLL has less algs to practise (important with really large alg sets like eg)


> 3. LMCF doesn't have CMLL recognition, but Roux doesn't have E2L transition, so that roughly balances out.


 CMLL is easier to predict and faster to recognise.


> 4. They both have lse.


 true, though in roux LSE should rarely be left uninfluenced by CMLL.


> 5. And all that's left is E2L for LMCF, and second pair of FB+SB for Roux. My intuition says that E2L is faster than second pair+SB.


The second pair of FB should be 1 maybe 2 moves after FBsquare if done right. SB+3 moves is less moves and also significantly more ergonomic than E2L


----------



## efattah (Feb 4, 2018)

Spencer131 said:


> Here's a comparison of Roux and LMCF which I think is very reasonable.
> 
> 4. They both have lse.



In Roux, LSE is always done by solving UL+UR plus the M-slice edges. In LMCF, half the time, two unsolved edges are on the same slice (both on the R slice, or both on the L slice). And the other slice (R/L) is fully solved. For example, FR+UR+M Slice edges. The case when the remaining edges are both on the same slice results in using Waterman's L6E method, however Waterman's L6E was not fully computer optimized back in 1988. I have spent the last several months re-optimizing the Waterman L6E set and the results are very unusual. I really felt the case where two edges were on the same side would be a disadvantage compared to the other half of the time where you are solving UL+UR (which results in a pure M/U solution). This turned out to be untrue.

Firstly, the astonishing thing is the move count, *even for the speed optimized algorithms*, is incredible. Solving FR+UR, or DR+UR, while orienting the midges, takes an average of 8.90 moves + 0.75 setup moves = 9.65 moves for the speed optimized algorithms. In Roux, full EOLR with misoriented centers can solve UL+UR+orient midges in 8.28 moves (Source: http://jeremyg.nl/home/rouxdata).

So again it seems like having both edges on the same side is a disadvantage in terms of movecount. What actually turns out is that this is not the case. In one case you have 8.28 STM moves that are pure M/U. In the other case (Waterman) you have 9.65 moves that are generally RrUM and sometimes (if ergonomic) FRrUM, and in UR/DR cases RrUMD. What ends up happening is due to the extra freedom of movement (not constrained to pure MU), the number of possible algorithms to solve each case is enormous, typically yielding 12 or more candidates that are ergonomic, allowing us to be VERY PICKY when choosing an algorithm. The end result is incredibly fast algorithms that are significantly faster than pure MU. So the 9.65 move [F]RrUM ends up faster than the 8.28 pure MU algorithm. My TPS on the FRrUM sets is significantly faster than my max M/U TPS (my TPS is around 11 on the Waterman cases and around 8 to 8.5 on the pure MU). So what ends up happening is that having the last 2 edges in LMCF L6E being on the same side of the cube ends up being an advantage. The disadvantage is the large number of cases (around double the number of cases vs. Roux EOLR+MC).


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Feb 16, 2018)

efattah said:


> In Roux, LSE is always done by solving UL+UR plus the M-slice edges. In LMCF, half the time, two unsolved edges are on the same slice (both on the R slice, or both on the L slice). And the other slice (R/L) is fully solved. For example, FR+UR+M Slice edges. The case when the remaining edges are both on the same slice results in using Waterman's L6E method, however Waterman's L6E was not fully computer optimized back in 1988. I have spent the last several months re-optimizing the Waterman L6E set and the results are very unusual. I really felt the case where two edges were on the same side would be a disadvantage compared to the other half of the time where you are solving UL+UR (which results in a pure M/U solution). This turned out to be untrue.
> 
> Firstly, the astonishing thing is the move count, *even for the speed optimized algorithms*, is incredible. Solving FR+UR, or DR+UR, while orienting the midges, takes an average of 8.90 moves + 0.75 setup moves = 9.65 moves for the speed optimized algorithms. In Roux, full EOLR with misoriented centers can solve UL+UR+orient midges in 8.28 moves (Source: http://jeremyg.nl/home/rouxdata).
> 
> So again it seems like having both edges on the same side is a disadvantage in terms of movecount. What actually turns out is that this is not the case. In one case you have 8.28 STM moves that are pure M/U. In the other case (Waterman) you have 9.65 moves that are generally RrUM and sometimes (if ergonomic) FRrUM, and in UR/DR cases RrUMD. What ends up happening is due to the extra freedom of movement (not constrained to pure MU), the number of possible algorithms to solve each case is enormous, typically yielding 12 or more candidates that are ergonomic, allowing us to be VERY PICKY when choosing an algorithm. The end result is incredibly fast algorithms that are significantly faster than pure MU. So the 9.65 move [F]RrUM ends up faster than the 8.28 pure MU algorithm. My TPS on the FRrUM sets is significantly faster than my max M/U TPS (my TPS is around 11 on the Waterman cases and around 8 to 8.5 on the pure MU). So what ends up happening is that having the last 2 edges in LMCF L6E being on the same side of the cube ends up being an advantage. The disadvantage is the large number of cases (around double the number of cases vs. Roux EOLR+MC).


Pretty cool!


----------



## efattah (Feb 17, 2018)

We know the corners can be solved in 1.5 seconds by experts, and we know LSE can be done in around 1.3 to 1.7 seconds. So with LMCF the only 'unknown' area is the E2L phase in the middle, between the start (corners) and the end (LSE), as well as the 'transition' between the three phases. Giving conservatively 1.9 seconds for the corners and 1.9 seconds for LSE (=3.8 seconds), then to get a 6.8 average we need to solve E2L in 3.0 seconds. We have 6 edges to solve, either in three pairs (1 second each), or two triplets (1.5 seconds each). I'm not a super fast cuber (yet) and my TPS is pretty slow; still, despite non-optimized E2L mechanics I have routinely gotten 4.5 second E2L phases in real solves. So we are not too far from the goal of a 3 second E2L.

The problem with the initial LMCF versions (up to and including v4.xx), is the E2L phase was not very optimized. First, the E2L algorithms were not super speed optimized. Second, the E2L algorithms often required as many as three setup moves (L setup, R setup, M setup). That is way too many setup moves. In my original document, I only gave E2L cases from one of the four possible orientations/reflections, and I simply said to use the L/R or F/B reflections for the other cases. What that meant is that the ergonomics of some of the reflections were very poor.

The E2L phase has tremendous potential, and this is what I have been improving lately:
- For the very common E2L cases, I have been ignoring reflections and treating all 4 (reflected) cases as unique and generating customized highly ergonomic and fast algorithms for EACH reflection. Furthermore I have found that by relaxing the movecount, and allowing for an extra 1-2 moves, the algs are way faster (despite a move or two longer). In this fashion all 'B' moves are eliminated, and all awkward regrips are eliminated
- Also for the common cases, I have found that certain situations have awkward setup moves. In some cases doing an L2 move in order to setup up the E2L algorithm is pretty slow. To compensate for this, it is possible to execute a different algorithm that solves to the DL slot instead of the UL slot, eliminating the awkward set up move

Some people have commented by early experiments that solving one edge at a time gives almost the same move count as solving pairs or even triplets. While this is almost true, it is absolutely not true of the speed of the entire E2L phase. 

When solving SINGLE edges by the old fashioned keyhole method, you have 
(A) a look ahead challenge between each edge you solve
(B) setup moves between each edge you solve
(C) often you have rotations between edge solves
(D) awkward move combinations

The flow is usually broken, and the TPS low. Solving is all intuitive, and non-algorithmic. TPS is more of the intuitive class. 

By executing pairs or triplets, you greatly reduce the number of 'looks', you increase the TPS a lot by using algorithmic execution, and you reduce or eliminate rotations. The algorithmic method, by using super ergonomic algs, ensure all moves are fast and ergonomic, versus SINGLE edge-by-edge solving that often uses awkward L/M/R combos that need regrips and are really slow.

I have also been developing two new classes of triplet algorithms. Currently the triplets only solve DF+UR+UL at the same time, and only the case where the target keyhole edge moves to the opposite layer it is on. These are pretty fast, but they only occur (randomly) in about 30-50% of solves. By expanding the class of triplets, you can get triplets in almost every solve. It would take too long to explain the new class of triplets and I will leave it for the next document revision, but the ultimate goal of LMCF is to solve E2L in two triplets each taking just over 1 second. Allowing 1.1 seconds for each triplet, and a more aggressive 1.7 seconds for corners and 1.6 seconds for LSE, yields an average of 1.7+2.2+1.6 = 5.50 seconds which is pretty on-par with the best CFOP and Roux solvers. Of course, lucky singles would be way faster.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 8, 2018)

I’ve concluded that the best way to do LMCF on big cubes is probably just reduction while influencing/tracking corners. I’d probably try and make algs using primarily face moves but you’ll basically need a magnetic cube to use the method effectively. I have no suggestions for improvement for OH, it just doesn’t seem good enough to match other methods.


----------



## efattah (Mar 8, 2018)

Neuro said:


> I’ve concluded that the best way to do LMCF on big cubes is probably just reduction while influencing/tracking corners. I’d probably try and make algs using primarily face moves but you’ll basically need a magnetic cube to use the method effectively. I have no suggestions for improvement for OH, it just doesn’t seem good enough to match other methods.



One of the major revisions/improvements I have made to LMCF recently is changing M-U algorithms to R-U and L-U 2-gen sets. This goes both for LSE and for E2L. The end result is solves that sometimes have as few as 4 M moves.

Examples for L5E-BDR:
Previous algorithm: 
U2 M U M' U M U M' U'
New algorithm:
R U R' U' r' R U R U' 

Examples for E2L:
Old: U M' U' R' U M U'
New: U r' U r R' U' r U'

Not only does this speed up the algorithms (TPS wise) but makes a limited case for LMCF in FMC, although it will never beat true FMC methods.

I have also created sets of L5E and pure edge flips that displace the L/R slices with respect to each other such that by selecting the correct variant you eliminate the irritating L/R slice adjustment during L6E. These algorithms do not use any more moves than their variants, meaning the move count for the entire method is reduced by about 0.75.


----------



## Neuro (Mar 8, 2018)

Wait instead of redux what if we did this

1) 2 opposite centers
2) 3 random edges on L
3) Last 4 Centers
4) 1 random edge to finish "cross," rotate z'
5a) Pair First x Edges, place 2 corners on bottom, rotate to back
5b) Pair remaining edges, place last 2 corners. Layer done!
6) 3x3 stage

Here's a solve

128 moves. Got super lucky on centers and 3 edges on L but had parity. Unfortunately we can't use the standard edge flip alg so OLL parity is much longer than in other methods. I had trash E2L ergonomics but hey you're improving it so good luck


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 8, 2018)

When are all of these new developments going to be released?


----------



## CeBeMind (Apr 19, 2018)

I'm learning this (actually it's my main method). It's very funny.


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Apr 29, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> When are all of these new developments going to be released?



Yeah, I'm thinking the same... @efattah


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 30, 2018)

Neuro said:


> Wait instead of redux what if we did this
> 
> 1) 2 opposite centers
> 2) 3 random edges on L
> ...


I proposed this way back in the New Methods and Substeps thread, although a bit different
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-new-method-substep-concept-idea-thread.40975/page-227


----------



## efattah (Apr 30, 2018)

SomeRandomZZUser said:


> Yeah, I'm thinking the same... @efattah



Sorry I have been really busy with other life stuff, but despite that I keep making improvements to LMCF daily, I was kind of hoping the 'improvements' would slow down and 'stabilize' so I could actually publish them, but each improvement is then improved upon again and again making the evolution seemingly endless. Hopefully I can compile something together in the next few months.

In terms of the change list, almost all of the E2L algorithms have been improved to be much faster and more ergonomic; almost all of Waterman Set 2 is now way faster and more ergonomic, and the L5E sets have been greatly improved. Pure M slice edge flips have been modified to eliminate the L/R correction move at the end by incorporating it into the edge flip algorithm (similarly with L5E). More triplet cases have been added and some quadruplets as well.

On another note I will say that this method has much better lookahead than I originally expected. My lookahead keeps improving without limit, and I can often breeze through E2L seeing way into the future the whole time and never lose track of the next pieces to solve.

I guess the easiest thing would be to do a partial update and at least update the E2L and WS2 sets. That would only take a few hours of edits. I could add the more complex modifications later.


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 30, 2018)

efattah said:


> Sorry I have been really busy with other life stuff, but despite that I keep making improvements to LMCF daily, I was kind of hoping the 'improvements' would slow down and 'stabilize' so I could actually publish them, but each improvement is then improved upon again and again making the evolution seemingly endless. Hopefully I can compile something together in the next few months.
> 
> In terms of the change list, almost all of the E2L algorithms have been improved to be much faster and more ergonomic; almost all of Waterman Set 2 is now way faster and more ergonomic, and the L5E sets have been greatly improved. Pure M slice edge flips have been modified to eliminate the L/R correction move at the end by incorporating it into the edge flip algorithm (similarly with L5E). More triplet cases have been added and some quadruplets as well.
> 
> ...



What were you averaging with it in the beginning, and what are you averaging now?


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 1, 2018)

efattah said:


> Sorry I have been really busy with other life stuff, but despite that I keep making improvements to LMCF daily, I was kind of hoping the 'improvements' would slow down and 'stabilize' so I could actually publish them, but each improvement is then improved upon again and again making the evolution seemingly endless. Hopefully I can compile something together in the next few months.
> 
> In terms of the change list, almost all of the E2L algorithms have been improved to be much faster and more ergonomic; almost all of Waterman Set 2 is now way faster and more ergonomic, and the L5E sets have been greatly improved. Pure M slice edge flips have been modified to eliminate the L/R correction move at the end by incorporating it into the edge flip algorithm (similarly with L5E). More triplet cases have been added and some quadruplets as well.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I came across as rude. I was really excited about the method at that point. I guess I can't really say you've been slacking off, because I still haven't even come close to finishing my stuff with HD. I've done some stuff as far as alg optimization goes, and I've introduced different NLLs depending on the position of the D layer. It looks really nice so far, but I'm busy with lots of school and stuff for now.


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (May 12, 2018)

efattah said:


> Sorry I have been really busy with other life stuff, but despite that I keep making improvements to LMCF daily, I was kind of hoping the 'improvements' would slow down and 'stabilize' so I could actually publish them, but each improvement is then improved upon again and again making the evolution seemingly endless. Hopefully I can compile something together in the next few months.
> 
> In terms of the change list, almost all of the E2L algorithms have been improved to be much faster and more ergonomic; almost all of Waterman Set 2 is now way faster and more ergonomic, and the L5E sets have been greatly improved. Pure M slice edge flips have been modified to eliminate the L/R correction move at the end by incorporating it into the edge flip algorithm (similarly with L5E). More triplet cases have been added and some quadruplets as well.
> 
> ...


No problem. I was just a little frustrated but I completely understand.


----------



## CeBeMind (Jun 13, 2018)

efattah said:


> Sorry I have been really busy with other life stuff, but despite that I keep making improvements to LMCF daily, I was kind of hoping the 'improvements' would slow down and 'stabilize' so I could actually publish them, but each improvement is then improved upon again and again making the evolution seemingly endless. Hopefully I can compile something together in the next few months.
> 
> In terms of the change list, almost all of the E2L algorithms have been improved to be much faster and more ergonomic; almost all of Waterman Set 2 is now way faster and more ergonomic, and the L5E sets have been greatly improved. Pure M slice edge flips have been modified to eliminate the L/R correction move at the end by incorporating it into the edge flip algorithm (similarly with L5E). More triplet cases have been added and some quadruplets as well.
> 
> ...


Please, the update


----------



## Burnsy101 (Jun 13, 2018)

I would like the update as well. Can fell E2L be solved intuitively, and for someone trying to get sub 10, what should the 2x2 stage be done in?


----------



## efattah (Jun 13, 2018)

E2L can be solved intuitively which usually means solving edges one at a time or at most, the 2-3 really simple pair cases. Using algorithms to solve E2L reduces the move count only slightly; the major benefit is a great improvement in ergonomics. Solving E2L with singlets and simple pairs usually means a lot of L/R slice adjustments and x/x' rotations and regrips.

For sub-10 solves, a realistic split is corners: 2.6, E2L: 5.0, L6E: 2.3 = 9.9 seconds. Most of my sub-10's actually have sub-5 E2L phases, but in my case I need to get pretty lucky to get a sub-5 E2L.

The corners and L6E take similar amounts of time; if you consider top 2x2 solvers averaging around 1.70, and top Roux solvers finishing L6E in 1.70. Yet, record class 2x2 is 1.30 - 1.50, and some Roux guys like Kian Mansour have 1.30 - 1.50 averages on L6E.

Generally E2L will take twice as long as those stages, i.e. ratio of corners:E2L:L6E being 1:2:1.

So a world class solver would do 1.5:3.0:1.5 = 6.00 average.

Then you have solves where you get a CLL skip (i.e. 4-5 move corner solve), and/or L6E partial skip (L6E in 3-6 moves), and then there are solves where 2-3 edges pieces are pre-solved in E2L. All of these obviously result in really fast singles.

An interesting note is that in 2x2 solving, scrambles are 'screened' to make sure the solve is more than 4 moves. This is not the case in 3x3. In other words, 3x3 scrambles are not 'screened' to make sure the corners can't be solved in less than 4 moves. So you can get scrambles where the corners can be solved in 1-3 moves. Some guy earlier in this thread posted a home scramble (PC generated) that had the corners already completely solved to start off with. Obviously illegal in 2x2 solving, but not illegal for 3x3.


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 27, 2018)

TDM said:


> About the pdf: I definitely don't think method neutrality should be encouraged. It's far too much work for relatively little gain. If you want to get fast, pick a method and stick with it.
> 
> About the method itself: (super small point, but I don't think making steps algorithmic means you need a new name for a method. People call CFOP the same thing whether your F2L is algorithmic or intuitive. I would just call this CF)
> It does look really efficient though - but I feel like the rotations and transitions between L/R would mean you couldn't get the ~10 TPS you assumed in the last sentence of the intro. Perhaps algorithmically solving three L edges followed by three R edges would improve the fingertricks?



Method Neutrality is a long term investment , and it can pay dividends in the end with faster global averages.
I agree there is no big winner as CFOP , as it takes the least time to master , and given high speed fluid solves.
There is a struggle with Roux method and LMCF method that makes this thing worth fighting for, just for the case 'why not?'..


----------



## SomeRandomZZUser (Aug 28, 2018)

How are the developments going @efattah?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Feb 12, 2020)

SomeRandomZZUser said:


> How are the developments going @efattah?


I wanna know too @efattah


----------



## abunickabhi (Jan 4, 2021)

Sorry for the bump, but @efattah is back with some cool LMCF solves.

Super happy to see more LMCF solves being uploaded by him, R' U R' S' R U' R' S' R2 S2.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 4, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> Sorry for the bump, but @efattah is back with some cool LMCF solves.
> 
> Super happy to see more LMCF solves being uploaded by him, R' U R' S' R U' R' S' R2 S2.


Wow thats's so cool!


----------



## Nir1213 (Jan 4, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Wow thats's so cool!


effatah goes on!


----------



## LukasCubes (Jan 4, 2021)

woohoo, I would say that in all caps but i just got back from a ban literally a few minutes ago.


----------



## Nir1213 (Jan 4, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> woohoo, I would say that in all caps but i just got back from a ban literally a few minutes ago.


serves you right, how long and why?


----------



## LukasCubes (Jan 4, 2021)

Nir1213 said:


> serves you right, how long?


35 days, i put too many ruRU in YruRU

Edit: I wish they would have kept it there so y'all can see it. The reply was probably more than 1k characters I can't remember


----------



## carcass (Feb 27, 2021)

How does beginner's E2L work?


----------



## PetraPine (Jun 1, 2021)

First LMCF average, the 1:01 was because I was trying to remember an e2l pair case lol
I feel like a complete beginner again!
39.15 "LMCF" ao5
1. 48.12 D2 U2 L2 F2 L' U2 R U2 R2 D2 F2 D' U' B' U' B2 L B L2 R B' 
2. 31.22 R2 U2 L' F2 L' U2 L' D2 U2 R B' L' B U' R' D F2 R2 B' 
3. 38.11 B2 U R' U2 F B2 L2 D' F R2 B' D2 B2 L2 B R2 L2 D2 R' 
4. 1:01.35 B2 U L2 B' L2 D2 B2 L2 F L2 D2 L2 R2 F' U L U' B2 F L' R' 
5. 30.93 U' L' B R' B2 L F L B2 L2 F2 D L2 U' B2 R2 D B2 U2 L B
(using a unoptimal CmLL/COLL/CLL combination for the corners)


----------



## Jamal_69 (Jul 15, 2021)

https://discord.gg/VbDRNfHx anyone interested join the server!


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 15, 2021)

Jamal_69 said:


> https://discord.gg/VbDRNfHx anyone interested join the server!


Hmm... Sounds interesting, I don't have a discord account but I might create one


----------



## Waffles (Jul 16, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> Hmm... Sounds interesting, I don't have a discord account but I might create one



Discord is a very useful platform. You can get hacked, get money stolen from you, bullied, manipulated into buying nitro, etc

Jk jk jk


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 16, 2021)

Waffles said:


> Discord is a very useful platform. You can get hacked, get money stolen from you, bullied, manipulated into buying nitro, etc
> 
> Jk jk jk


That isn't a jk but cubers are generally more nice than other people (I learned that the hard way lol)


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 16, 2021)

carcass said:


> How does beginner's E2L work?


3 algs for E2L Beginner

M U M U2 M' U
U M' U'
U M U2 M2 U

+ some reflections and setup moves


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 16, 2021)

Jamal_69 said:


> https://discord.gg/VbDRNfHx anyone interested join the server!


It won't let me create an account but I am stuck on mobile so that might be why

Edit: i got another solution so hopefully it works

Another Edit: I got the account now I just need to join server and other cubing servers


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 16, 2021)

LukasCubes said:


> algs for E2L Beginner
> 
> M U M U2 M' U
> U M' U'
> ...


wat?


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 16, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> wat?


These the only E2L algs in the beginner set I think they in PDF rev 4.5 too and I know quite a bit more than this.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 16, 2021)

I can't join some servers because my tablet sucks but I made my own server about 4CF and 5CF so join it then complain about everything lol. https://discord.gg/MUyWH634Ca


----------



## Waffles (Jul 16, 2021)

Over COVID I actually earnt a little money making discord server for people, never got scammed once.


----------



## LukasCubes (Jul 16, 2021)

Waffles said:


> Over COVID I actually earnt a little money making discord server for people, never got scammed once.


You lucky lol I know nobody personally that has discord unless its a secret lol


----------



## Melkor (Jul 20, 2021)

Efattah is talking about the future of LMCF in that server, and some interesting developments in the works, so if that interests you, come and check it out!


----------



## Greenfrog (Mar 15, 2022)

I've been trying to learn the E2l algorithms, and the ones in the set "Solve DF->UR while simultaneously solving UR - UR Oriented" don't work, could someone confirm, or guide me to where the correct algs are please? (I'm reading the Rev 4.5 .pdf)

Cheers!


----------

