# Proposed ZZLS and VIM!



## SenileGenXer (Dec 6, 2013)

NOTE this post has be completely edited from it's original content. I am trying to present what I am thinking more clearly. I have also re-designed this whole thing. VIM! is vanquished and Excalibur substituted. I said something off-hand about how many F2L pairs Matz Valk could do on inspection and a whole lot of people wanted to argue about that.

This is my proposed Last Layer Skip. The Lewis-LS.

It starts like this. You solve the cross and the first three F2L cases. You make your last F2L pair so that it is's white face is pointing clockwise and you trap the oriented front color edge. Orient the rest of your edges if you need to. This forms a pattern I will call the Copperhead after a venomous Virginia snake. Visualize it as snake. The F2L pair and the front color edge form the head and mouth respectively. The pieces that would be scrambled by the sexy move are the serpent's body. The open corner positions have been labeled 1 2 3 and 4.



The next step is to permute and orient the RF color corner piece (primary piece) into position 4 with it's up side facing right while also just permuting the LB color corner piece (secondary) into position 3. If we wanted to make an alg for every case I think we would have 36 cases. We could label the cases like P2U1 where the primary piece is in position 2 with it's U face color up and the secondary piece is in position 1. For solving these cases everything along the Copperhead's body is swapable except edge orientation. Orienting the permuting the primary piece while permuting the secondary forms a case I will call Excalibur. We will call this step forging. 



_Behold the sword of power! Forged when the world was young and and man and beast were one and death was but a dream!_

The picture is all there is to it. Picture it as a sword standing upright along the front right. The handle is solid and material, the blade is oriented but not permuted, the tip is permuted but not oriented. There can be nine concrete incarnations but we'll call them all Excalibur. 

Once the we have forged excalibur inside the Copperhead serpent there are 9 corner orientations possible we can see them fairly easily looking at the up face colors. 



In addition we have only 6 crypto PLL's possible after forging excalibur (Solved, an N-Perm, V, Y, Ua, and a Ub). We could label them S, N, V,Y, A, and B. Reconition is probably awful. Nine corner orientations times 6 crypto PLLs gives us 54 cases. Solving from excalibur to a finished cube might be called wielding. 

The algs to wield Excalibur can have a great overlap with the algs that forge Excalibur. That is I expect a great number of them could be executed by exactly the same alg. There is incredible alg reuse.

I may develop tables for forging and wielding and fill them in with optimal HTM solutions from cube explorer. I expect these algs to be very very short. A few sexy alternativs are possible as well.

If you would like to help maybe you could start a WIKI article for the Lewis-LS so we could all contribute? If you would like to calculate some algs I would suggest wielding cases first then note what they do for forging cases and add them there as well.

I am only human and I make a lot of mistakes. I am sure there are mistakes in this if you see some let me know. I have stumbled blind in the vast unknown. I groped for things in that I did not know and pulled out something true. It is a very strange feeling. Take this truth, this technique and make it yours.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 6, 2013)

I'm having a lot of difficulty following your method.
Please post a few example solves?

That's really helpful in figuring out what you're doing.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 6, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> You do the cross and 3 F2L slots. I I think Mats Valk can plan all that during inspection.



no he can't no one can


----------



## rj (Dec 6, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> no he can't no one can



Noah can lol.


----------



## aznanimedude (Dec 6, 2013)

in noah i belief?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 6, 2013)

rj said:


> Noah can lol.



No he can't. Noah can have the solution for the pieces from the cross and F2L-1 to be solved in that time

the spec was for the planning of a cross solution execution then the solutions for the F2L slots.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 6, 2013)

StachuK1992 said:


> I'm having a lot of difficulty following your method.
> Please post a few example solves?



I'm sorry. The heavens opened up and the angels screamed at me. A choir sang the _Ode to Joy_ really loud. I touched the face of God and unleashed a dragon named VIM!

I'm kinda burnt out. I not gonna post a video on this. I haven't done many cases except C1S. I need time to recover. 

Make yourself a table for the VIM configuration. Write the corner cases on one edge, the PLL's on the other and fill it with algs & pictures. You'll be a better cuber.

Kirjava: Some things are sacred. Don't troll this thread. I await meaningful replies here.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 6, 2013)

It's probably best to not call legitimate criticism trolling, and I'd rather you didn't.

You might want to be pandering to the people that find your description vague lest this soon fades into obscurity.


----------



## EMI (Dec 6, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> Kirjava: Some things are sacred. Don't troll this thread. I await meaningful replies here.



So ... you seriously think he can plan his Cross + 3 Pairs in inspection?


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 6, 2013)

EMI said:


> So ... you seriously think he can plan his Cross + 3 Pairs in inspection?



He had a video explaining his solve where he came very close or actually did it. It's tremendous look-a-head. He does blue or green cross and decides what side gives him the best F2L cases and does a few of those during inspection. I bet sometimes he gets to three. It's stunning.


----------



## EMI (Dec 6, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> He had a video explaining his solve where he came very close or actually did it. It's tremendous look-a-head.



Well, there are easy cases where even I can do that. But nobody can always inspect three pairs or three pairs on average. Propably not even two.


----------



## elrog (Dec 8, 2013)

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Your pictures have green and blue on opposite sides of the cube, yet you have a corner piece with both green and blue on it?


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 8, 2013)

elrog said:


> This makes absolutely no sense to me. Your pictures have green and blue on opposite sides of the cube, yet you have a corner piece with both green and blue on it?



OOPs! The blue in the UFR corner in the diagrams is supposed to be white. Thank you for pointing that out. The whole RF area is supposed to be setup to be solved with R U' R'. I am abandoning VIM! and working out the algs to forge and use a different case to be called Excalibur. I will update as soon as I see for myself how every case works out.


----------



## Escher (Dec 8, 2013)

So if I interpret your very vaguely worded post correctly, the method you're proposing involves setting up a WV case, using some basic algs to manipulate the permutation of the corners, then solving it using a set of WV+PLL algs?


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 8, 2013)

Escher said:


> So if I interpret your very vaguely worded post correctly, the method you're proposing involves setting up a WV case, using some basic algs to manipulate the permutation of the corners, then solving it using a set of WV+PLL algs?



Yep, very close. I am engineering a 2-look last layer skip. Trying to make it as 2gen and rotation free as I can.

I runs like this; setup a copperhead case. The edge that should end up at RF is caught in it's mouth. The corner orientations (similar to OLL) are very like some of the RLS-WV cases.

I'm working on a table to position and orient one corner piece while only permuting a second corner. The empty positions on the sexy move line are swap space. There are 36 cases needed. Some algs can be re-used for more than one case. Worst case I believe is 14 moves HTM. These would "forge Excalibur". This is somewhat like doing OLL.

Then I need another set of algs to directly solve the cube. With what I am thinking there would be 28 algs needed. Incredibly short algs. I've done one Excalibur solve. Last look recognition was easy considering it was the first time ever and 10 moves HTM.

I want it to be two-look and good enough to eventually displace solving to the final layer. I want someone better than me at speed to take this to a sub 5 second WR.

This is just a proposal. Other people are free to "forge" other sword cases and see if they can come up with something better.


----------



## Mollerz (Dec 8, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> He had a video explaining his solve where he came very close or actually did it. It's tremendous look-a-head. He does blue or green cross and decides what side gives him the best F2L cases and does a few of those during inspection. I bet sometimes he gets to three. It's stunning.



He sees one pair during inspection or during the making of the cross. He will only see 2 if it is REALLY easy. Given he's planned his Cross+1 sometimes, he can look ahead for the next 2 pairs whilst doing them. He does not plan that many during inspection.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

Bump. The first post has been updated with an proposal for Excalibur.


----------



## mark49152 (Dec 10, 2013)

Example solves would be really, really helpful.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> NOTE this post has be completely edited from it's original content. I am trying to present what I am thinking more clearly.



Are you honestly trying to do this? Because it is still so unclear. People ask you for example solves for clarity but you just seem to be telling them to document it themselves. I asked if anyone on IRC understood you and everyone there seemed to have trouble.

Your ludicrous use of metaphors and verse is the main folly. Since your first post confused people you seem to have obfuscated it further with this fluff.



SenileGenXer said:


> I said something off-hand about how many F2L pairs Matz Valk could do on inspection and a whole lot of people wanted to argue about that.



Probably because it's the easiest thing for them to read in this thread. Besides, we weren't arguing - we were just correcting your mistake.



SenileGenXer said:


> This is my proposed Last Layer Skip. The Lewis-LS.



It's a bit rich to call it a last layer skip when you're just conjugating a two look last layer method by RUR'.



SenileGenXer said:


> In addition we have only 4 crypto PLL's possible after forging excalibur (Solved, an N-Perm, a Ua and a Ub). We could label them S, Z, A, and B. We can distinguish them just by the edge colors on the right face. Nine corner orientations times 4 crypto PLLs gives us 36 cases again. Solving from excalibur to a finished cube might be called wielding.



Your math is bad

2 corner perm * 3^2 corner orient * 3! edge perm /2 parity = 54 cases


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Are you honestly trying to do this? Because it is still so unclear. People ask you for example solves for clarity but you just seem to be telling them to document it themselves. I asked if anyone on IRC understood you and everyone there seemed to have trouble....
> 
> Your math is bad
> 
> 2 corner perm * 3^2 corner orient * 3! edge perm /2 parity = 54 cases



I'm trying to do this. I will post some algs but I'm slow and picky at that. I want the idea out there in case I get hit by a bus or something. This is a proposal not a walkthrough. If you want to jump ahead and do an example solve work out some algs.

My math is not bad. The corner perm is tied directly to edge perm. When you have the following PLLs (Solved, Na, Ua, and Ub) how many corner cases do you have? For each PLL it's just one.

I'm not with conjugating with R U R'. I using a mental R U' R' to see into the future but not sinking that last F2L pair until the cube is solved.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> My math is not bad. The corner perm is tied directly to edge perm. When you have the following PLLs (Solved, Na, Ua, and Ub) how many corner cases do you have For each PLL -it's just one.



Your math is bad

You should actually try to work out the cases instead of counting them, because you forgot Y and V perm


----------



## Hypocrism (Dec 10, 2013)

There is a possible benefit to this sort of approach to LL: the algs might be more fingertrick-able. When you've already got the F2L+OLL solved you have less flexibility and so some PLLs are difficult. Perhaps this could be faster..but I am definitely not certain.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Your math is bad
> 
> You should actually try to work out the cases instead of counting them, because you forgot Y and V perm



Your right. I did. Sorry. If we redefined the sword to have the back right (Green-orange) corner permuted on top this would limit us to Solved, Jb, Ua, and Ub correct? Can't ever finish with it with just a simple R U' R' but... recognition is very important and needs to be easy. Limited cases also a big plus in my book.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> Your right. I did. Sorry. If we redefined the sword to have the back right (Green-orange) corner permuted on top this would limit us to solved, Jb, Ua, and Ub correct? Can't ever finish with it with just a simple R U' R' but... recognition is very important.



You forgot T & R.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

Front left corner permuted on top limits us to Solved, F, Ua, and Ub?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> Front left corner permuted on top limits us to Solved, F, Ua, and Ub?



You forgot J & J


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> You forgot J & J



Thank you.

Another entire alternative is to build a samurai sword raised along the back of the sexy move line. Have the red blue corner permuted and oriented up in the #1 position and have Blue-orange corner only permuted in #2. Recognition can be done a little easier as most of the un-moved parts and twisted corners are right frontish. I can only see Solved, F, Ua, and Ub here. What am I missing on this one? I guess R's

Edit made the secondary corner Blue-Orange.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> What am I missing on this one?



More stuff. I'm getting bored of this game now, try thinking for yourself.



SenileGenXer said:


> Do you want to collaborate and work out some CmLLish algs? It's three corners and three edges to move around I think you could do some fun moves.



Now that we've gone and fixed your logic, here's my main gripe with the actual method and why I will not be touching it;

Firstly, I'll explain the actual method to everyone that doesn't understand it.

This is a two look last layer method for when you have EO complete in your last layer already.

Step 1: Permute & orient a corner to the right of an edge and permute the opposite corner
Step 2: Solve everything else

This is all well and good, but for some reason the entire thing is conjugated by an LS insert so that the LL pieces you are solving have been moved around a bit. You can do this to any two look last layer method if you wish, but there is no reason to.

This adds literally nothing, except the chance to throw in the phrase 'last layer skip' as if it is some kind of holy grail. Doing it completely misses the point of what last slot methods are for in the first place.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> More stuff. I'm getting bored of this game now, try thinking for yourself.



Says the man who asks people on IRC what they think of it? I do want to collaborate with someone but I don't need someone so insulting. 

Anyway thank you for the insights you have given me but I don't think you get it entirely. Please don't presume to explain it for me.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 10, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> Says the man who asks people on IRC what they think of it?



You just keep suggesting things that have the same problem I've already pointed out three times.

Yes, it's boring when people try to outsource their repetitive thinking onto you.



SenileGenXer said:


> I do want to collaborate with someone but I don't need someone so insulting.



I have never written a single insult directed at you in this entire thread. I have only given constructive criticism of your method and method presentation which you now appear to be taking to heart.

You have now falsely accused me of insulting you and warned me against the trolling that I haven't been doing.



SenileGenXer said:


> Anyway thank you for the insights you have given me but I don't think you get it entirely. Please don't presume to explain it for me.



I do indeed get it entirely. This is how I managed to point out its flaws. 

You are free to point out anything that I missed, but I think that this is another thing you have just made up.

You're also free to reply to my actual criticism instead of just complaining about it.

It did take me longer than usual to understand this system, but I don't believe that's an issue on my end.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 10, 2013)

After the first step you have 2(number of CP cases remaining after first step) * 12 (number of EP cases) * 8 (i think, this is the number of CO cases with FR corner in the position where it would be solved with R U' R') = 192 cases for your "LL skip" + 36 for your first step and voila! your two look LL skip method has 228 cases assuming you don't need to learn anything to orient the edges prior to to starting. additionally, recognition for this last step would not be as easy as traditional LL methods with F2L already inserted 

Alternatively, phasing (which permutes 2 edges rather than 2 corners and does not influence CO uses 58(permute 2 edges) + 167 (ZZLL) = 225 algs for something significantly closer to a 1LLL than what you propose. 

This is assuming that I understand your method correctly, which I am not certain I do


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

For better recognition I propose the first step is finding Parsifal. 



It's a little man lying down. His feet are firmly grounded at position 1. His body is hidden (and off limits according to the legend) under the oriented edge in the back. His head is permuted green orange corner not knowing where to look. Again nine incarnations are all Parsifal.

The next step would be guiding Parsifal. There would be nine corner orientations a little easier to recognize. 



In addition there would be six crypto PLL and they would be more towards the front. 

If someone would confirm my corner cases are correct I will thing this over a little longer then get calculating on actual algs.


----------



## TDM (Dec 10, 2013)

cubeninjaIV said:


> Alternatively, phasing (which permutes 2 edges rather than 2 corners and does not influence CO uses 58(permute 2 edges) + 167 (ZZLL) = 225 algs


Phasing can be done intuitively very easily. There are only 6 cases (or 8 if you include a LS skip) after the corner and edge are paired. I learned how to phase intuitively with a very quick look before turning after about 10 minutes, for all cases. The only algs you need are the 167 ZZLL algs.


----------



## Erik (Dec 10, 2013)

Yeah basically this does not improve anything to normal CFOP... instead of: *last pair, alg, alg* you just do: *setup a pair, alg, alg, last pair*... not very worth it I'd say.

Btw. it would be nice if you could try to make a clear description on what you want including at least 1 example solve. Also the wielding sword, forging excalibur, unleashing dragons stuff, does not make your post very readable. I only had to laugh because of it (and not because it's funny). 
Please continue posting your ideas though, it's always interesting to see what people are on to. Who knows, we might find a better way to do CFOP than we use at the moment


----------



## Noahaha (Dec 10, 2013)

TIL: I can plan an EO XXX-cross in inspection.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 10, 2013)

Erik said:


> Yeah basically this does not improve anything to normal CFOP... instead of: *last pair, alg, alg* you just do: *setup a pair, alg, alg, last pair*... not very worth it I'd say.
> 
> Btw. it would be nice if you could try to make a clear description on what you want including at least 1 example solve. Also the wielding sword, forging excalibur, unleashing dragons stuff, does not make your post very readable. I only had to laugh because of it (and not because it's funny).
> Please continue posting your ideas though, it's always interesting to see what people are on to. Who knows, we might find a better way to do CFOP than we use at the moment



What I'm trying to do is setup a F2L pair while trapping a targeted edge - (EO and AUF as needed to copperhead) - alg - solve. The pair goes in at solve. There is no intermediary target between Parsifal and solved. I don't care if the last slot goes in with a U' R' or something different. 

Easier said than done. It may be far away but it's a goal. I'm still gonna keep specific names for specific cases to avoid ambiguity because this is deep with it already. Not just the ambiguity of the the technique itself where your not exactly orienting or permuting during the Forge/Find alg and your not exactly permuting or orienting during the solve step. Not exactly stopping at any exact middle signpost. Ambiguity is natural and I'm trying to work with it not against it.

Recognition is new and images are needed as well as new metaphors. There are other ambiguities right now because it's still being architected. I know TDM just saw how easy it is to recognize phasing at copperhead and that the sexy move changes it. Do I want to select "forging/finding" algs that all preserve phase just for look-a head? Probably - that is way better than an idea I had on the back burner.

I'm lazy & bad at learning algs I'd just execute the sexy move at copper head if needed and skip half the solving/guiding cases for a very long time.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 10, 2013)

TDM said:


> Phasing can be done intuitively very easily. There are only 6 cases (or 8 if you include a LS skip) after the corner and edge are paired. I learned how to phase intuitively with a very quick look before turning after about 10 minutes, for all cases. The only algs you need are the 167 ZZLL algs.



I pulled this from the wiki, i assume 58 is the number of phasing cases for *all* f2l cases and not just inserts, and yes, most of it is intuitive.

I wont completely disregard the potential here, but anything used in this method would have very close to no overlap with any existing LL method. also, until you learn all cases for the last step there is still the potential for a 3LLL. 
With some improvement this could be used, but i think that the near zero overlap of existing methods will turn people off from wanting to bother with it, and the complexity of recognition will be too much for beginners.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 11, 2013)

I calculated some cases and found some bitter disappointment with Parsifal as he stands composed.



It may seem unrealistic but I am actually unhappy with the numbers. Back in forging excalibur I had worked out half the cases where the primary and secondary corners were on the back (what I think would be the hardest cases) and eventually learned to get all of them down to between 8-12 moves.

In this solving from Parsifal I really don't like seeing 13/14f algs and was hoping for better. There may be tons of transcription errors in the algs because I can't copy and paste from cube explorer. The move counts are correct. 

These are reasonably two-gen for what they do and that gives me a lot of hope but I am going to calculate solves for a different character before I return to Parsifal. Try a different idea and do some light multivariate testing.


----------



## pipkiksass (Dec 11, 2013)

As you're going with Mallorian Arthurian names and spellings, how's about Launcelot or Gwinever for the next set?

That said, the names are my favourite part of this method. I'd suggest that full edge control & COLL would be faster, and only leave 2 gen PLLs - U, H, Z, or PLL skip.


----------



## elrog (Dec 11, 2013)

The way your saying everything really just is confusing. I understand that your not just solving parts of the last layer in terms of EO, EP, CO, and CP, but could you not just say something like "Set up a WV case and solve 2 corner and an edge of the top layer while placing the pair which requires X algorithms."? I know thats not what your method is, but I don't really know what it actually is because of the way your wording it, and even if it doesn't just solve a couple pieces at a time, there's got to be a better way to explain it than what your doing.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 12, 2013)

I have most of the architecture done. I made it somewhat fit for human consumption. I have a solving table and the case I'm going to stick with. The architecture is simply cross plus 3 F2L slots. EO if needed. Look. Alg. look. solve. AUF if needed.

The case I'm going to stick with is corner piece that should be clockwise from the trapped edge oriented and permuted in position 1. Other corner piece that shares the trapped edge color in position 4. 

The solve table looks like this. If you see any mistakes let me know. Every case came out of cube explorer rotation free.

Mythology and metaphor is coming back - I think pipkikass will be very happy with it. It can be used as a recognition device.

Kirjava says this is the same thing as solving on the up face and it could be. He asked what the uses would be. If say you had the first two layers and edge orientation and you looked at the back edge (or deduced what it was). Used an ambiguous not quite solving not quite permuting alg A to nail one corner piece in back but only permute a second corner also in the back? A lazy and incomplete third/half of a COLL alg? What might the advantages be? 

1) No Brunos.
2) No Double Sunes
3) Final AUF could be clearly visible before alg A
4) The whole Last layer could be rotation-less if alg A was.
5) Almost everything you need to recognize the case would be clustered up front.
6) Recognition could almost be about corner orientation
The following things I suspect but can't do the math for right now.
7) Limited F & B moves
8) You could do something clever with phasing.

What kind of lookahead could you develop?

I will think some more, dream some more, work some more, and hopefully be back tomorrow with my alg A set.


----------



## stoic (Dec 12, 2013)

I admit I don't quite fully understand your method yet, but just on your advantages:
1 and 2-what's wrong with Brunos and double sunes? They are some fast algs. 
4 - Do you mean AUF-less? I don't see many people rotating to perform LL. Or do you mean for recog? I know PLL recog can be done by just seeing two sides but can OLL?


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 12, 2013)

ellwd said:


> I admit I don't quite fully understand your method yet, but just on your advantages:
> 1 and 2-what's wrong with Brunos and double sunes? They are some fast algs.
> 4 - Do you mean AUF-less? I don't see many people rotating to perform LL. Or do you mean for recog? I know PLL recog can be done by just seeing two sides but can OLL?



On their own they are not that great for move count and sometimes they are mistaken for the other.

AUF's would be minimized. There would be no reason to do one in between alg A and alg B. No need to use one to peek around or reposition between alg A and alg B.

With some look a head and some good practice you might even be able to cancel U moves that happen between alg A and B.


----------



## Ollie (Dec 12, 2013)

Most of these algs are too long and incredibly hard to execute. It's not much of a triumph to say they're rotation free when I have to regrip 2 or 3 times per alg.

Watch this - then start adding restrictions like "no B moves" when generating algs.

EDIT: oh, and UaC1 of solving the dragon is a longer and slower than doing it the normal way. R U' R U' R' U' R U R U R U' R. It isn't a promising indication for the rest of the algs.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 12, 2013)

They are just a lower limit and and a chance to look at the amount of F/B moves. A proof of concept.

They are not as low as I hoped. Everything outside of the C1 row and the S column are incredibly low for their respective OLL+PLL cases. They can be sexed a little up later. We'll see how long the opening moves are and if they are bad. My eyes are not working well right now but I only see 6 14fs in 54 cases while PLL has 7 14fs in 28 cases.

I did something similar to what you suggest but 3x for half the forging cases and got a move count between 8 and 12move that were likable pure 2-gen except for 3 cases where a rotation to make an made an OKish alg. I didn't keep track of absolute lowest number but I never saw a 6. Im gonna add another axis of freedom (swapping non phasing positions) to what I did before (checking each orientation of the secondary corner) see if it can go lower.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 13, 2013)

Did a test case for back porting some of this to the normal last layer. The the idea of nailing a corner with certainty and pinning another with only permutation then solving a PLL with a conflated set of OLLs. That might be a CFOP killer on it's own.

this is an F Perm case conflated. Cube explorer saves these as generators...



Spoiler



F2 L2 B' F2 U B' R2 F D' B R2 B F' U' (14f*) 
R2 D B' L2 D L2 D2 L2 F' D' F L2 B R2 (14f*) 
R2 B' L2 F' D F L2 D2 L2 D' L2 B D' R2 (14f*) 
R' U R U' R' U L' U' L U' F2 R' F2 R2 (14f*) 
F U F R' D2 L B' L' D2 R2 F' R' U' F' (14f*) 
R2 B U2 F R' F' U2 R2 U2 R U2 B' R' (13f*) 
F U2 L2 D F' D' L2 B' U B U2 F' U (13f*) 
R B U2 R' U2 R2 U2 F R F' U2 B' R2 (13f*) 
L U2 R' U' R B2 D L D' B2 U2 L' U' (13f*)



That's the move count for solving an F perm normally then also with sunes, anti-sunes, headlights, chameleons, bow ties. Look at the move counts at the end. Look at number of front and back moves for the separate OLLs & PLLs kinda cancel each other out except for that middle case might be a candidate for rotation.


----------



## Ollie (Dec 13, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> They are just a lower limit and and a chance to look at the amount of F/B moves. A proof of concept.
> 
> They are not as low as I hoped. Everything outside of the C1 row and the S column are incredibly low for their respective OLL+PLL cases. They can be sexed a little up later. We'll see how long the opening moves are and if they are bad. My eyes are not working well right now but I only see 6 14fs in 54 cases while PLL has 7 14fs in 28 cases.
> 
> I did something similar to what you suggest but 3x for half the forging cases and got a move count between 8 and 12move that were likable pure 2-gen except for 3 cases where a rotation to make an made an OKish alg. I didn't keep track of absolute lowest number but I never saw a 6. Im gonna add another axis of freedom (swapping non phasing positions) to what I did before (checking each orientation of the secondary corner) see if it can go lower.



Going back to the Solve the Dragon bit, the whole top row is pointless. Having gone through all the algs on that row they all skip OLL and it is actually faster to solve normally with R U' R' and PLL rather than one alg with U, R, L, F, B and D moves which "could be sexed up later" (to what? An even longer 2-gen alg?)

and 13f as a lower bound seems to be a lot of moves. Especially for something that may/may not create a skip ultimately.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 13, 2013)

Ollie said:


> Going back to the Solve the Dragon bit, the whole top row is pointless. Having gone through all the algs on that row they all skip OLL and it is actually faster to solve normally with R U' R' and PLL rather than one alg with U, R, L, F, B and D moves which "could be sexed up later" (to what? An even longer 2-gen alg?)
> 
> and 13f as a lower bound seems to be a lot of moves. Especially for something that may/may not create a skip ultimately.



I was looking at columns S and F. I didn't like the idea of column S but those algs are like the shorter pure corner orientation algs and somehow fewer moves. Column F is shorter than or equal to a pure F perm.

My thinking is the lower the absolute move count is the shorter the good and executable algs are.


----------



## Ollie (Dec 13, 2013)

SenileGenXer said:


> I was looking at columns S and F. I didn't like the idea of column S but those algs are shorter than or equal to pure corner orientation algs.
> Column F is shorter than or equal to a pure F perm.



Shorter doesn't mean better. And before you say you'll make the algs better later, making them better will probably mean making them longer since all of these algs have come straight from Cube Explorer and are optimal.

As for column S, I have literally gone through every case and using the monoflip commutator or sune or some sort of edges oriented OLL+PLL, and all are faster than the algs you proposed in their rawest form

EDIT: just read back through the whole thread. You seem to be ignoring anything that doesn't support your idea (which was riddled with errors to begin with) including numerous criticisms from people that _really_ know what they're talking about. I'm done.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 13, 2013)

Ollie said:


> You seem to be ignoring anything that doesn't support your idea (which was riddled with errors to begin with) including numerous criticisms from people that _really_ know what they're talking about. I'm done.



I'm not entirely ignoring people who have some knowledge. I have developed a method out of the madness and not stopping because someone else hastily says "you can't - you shouldn't" is part of the method.

Thank you for coming this far.


----------



## SenileGenXer (Dec 16, 2013)

Calling the Dragon All phase perserving algs. All at optimal length. Solving the cube.. Very very slightly sexy solving the cube.

I don't feel like saying anything else about this right now.


----------



## gewinnste (Sep 14, 2015)

You'd be well advised to change your pic - very disconcerting.
Btw, I think if there's anything that beats CFOP, it's ZZ-b+. I don't see any advantage of your proposed method over it, even if you also use ZZLS.


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 14, 2015)

gewinnste said:


> You'd be well advised to change your pic - very disconcerting.
> Btw, I think if there's anything that beats CFOP, it's ZZ-b+. I don't see any advantage of your proposed method over it, even if you also use ZZLS.



What about Roux? Or there are some other minor methods that were never really given a chance that could be at least as good as CFOP.


----------

