# Method idea



## nlCuber22 (Apr 3, 2010)

Steps -
1) Make a cross on any color regardless of the permutation of the edges.
2) Build 3 corner-edge pairs and insert them into their correct slots, similar to what you would do if you were using MGLS.
3) Solve the last slot and use partial edge control if needed. 1 algorithm needed for this step, R' F R F'.
4) Orient the rest of the last layer edges if needed. 2 algorithms needed for this step.
5) Use COLL to permute and orient all last layer corners. 42 algorithms to learn for this step. I recommend Jason Baum's website at jmbaum.110mb.com
6) Permute the remaining edges on the U and D layer with 1 algorithm. 21 algorithms for this step including rotations and mirrors. Working on getting and optimizing algs.

66 algorithms to learn total, a few which are exceptionally easy and you probably already know them.

Example solve -
Scramble - L' R2 F2 R D' U' B L' B D B2 D U' L' F' R' L2 D' L' D' U F' R2 D F2 


Spoiler



x2 y'
F' R' F2
U' R' U R U L' U' L
y U2 R U' R' L' U L
R U2 R' y U L' U' L
U' R U' R'
U' R2 D' R U2 R' D R U2 R 
U2 R2 U' F2 B2 D B2 R2 U' F2 R2 F2 U'



Discuss.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

Umm... why?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 3, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Umm... why?



Is that all you can come up with?
I want to hear other people's opinions on the method, and just in general things I can do to make it better. (if it is even original)


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 3, 2010)

Interesting and original! (To my knowledge)

How many cases for last 8 edges on U and D are there?


Inb4 "cfop is beter lol"


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 3, 2010)

4Chan said:


> Interesting and original! (To my knowledge)
> 
> How many cases for last 8 edges on U and D are there?
> 
> ...



Thank you.

The number of the cases for the last step is something I was hoping someone here could help me find - to be honest I have no idea how to calculate that.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 3, 2010)

As many cases as Sq-1 edge perms? (I think)

Since sq-1 has those U and D perms for edges.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 3, 2010)

I like it. I'm pretty sure it's original. To do step 3 you'd have to know ZBF2L to do it algorithmically though. What's the average move count? The last step would use a lot of D moves though, wouldn't it.

@4Chan: Over 50.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

Well, you can have parity or not.

If not parity, on U you can have either Ua, Ub, H, Z, or solved. On D you can have Ua, Ub, H, Z, or solved. That is 24 cases (+ solved).
If there is parity, you can have Adj, Opp, Oa, Ob, or K on U and D. That is 25 cases.

Total of 49 without mirrors, inverses, and rotations. So unless I am mistaken, Cola is wrong.

EDIT: Oh and nlCuber, about my original post, I was wondering if you had thougt about it's advantages/disadvantages yet.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 3, 2010)

Okay, I was including mirrors. Either way, I still like the method, I just think it would be a bit Algorithm heavy, unless you were to do some parts (like a 3 edge cycle incorporating both the U & D faces, & you used set-up moves,) intuitively.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Okay, I was including mirrors. Either way, I still like the method, I just think it would be a bit Algorithm heavy, unless you were to do some parts (like a 3 edge cycle incorporating both the U & D faces, & you used set-up moves,) intuitively.



With mirrors it would be significantly less, I might calculate that now.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 3, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I was including mirrors. Either way, I still like the method, I just think it would be a bit Algorithm heavy, unless you were to do some parts (like a 3 edge cycle incorporating both the U & D faces, & you used set-up moves,) intuitively.
> ...



What? Wouldn't mirrors almost double it?


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> What? Wouldn't mirrors almost double it?



Nonono, my 49 count is without using mirrors. Meaning that the Ua Perm and Ub Perm are completely different cases. With mirrors they would be the same (well actually, mirrors).


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 3, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Well, you can have parity or not.
> 
> If not parity, on U you can have either Ua, Ub, H, Z, or solved. On D you can have Ua, Ub, H, Z, or solved. That is 24 cases (+ solved).
> If there is parity, you can have Adj, Opp, Oa, Ob, or K on U and D. That is 25 cases.
> ...



Yep, that's what I was thinking (that you couldn't have an irregular case and a regular case on U & D, unlike Square-1)


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

So far, for the non-parity case, I have 10 non mirror/rotation/solved cases.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

Wow.

24 non-parity non-mirror/rotation --> 10 non-parity mirror/rotation
25 parity non-mirror/rotation --> 11 parity mirror/rotation
----------------------------------------------------------------
49 non-mirror/rotation --> 21 mirror/rotation

How's that?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 3, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Wow.
> 
> 24 non-parity non-mirror/rotation --> 10 non-parity mirror/rotation
> 25 parity non-mirror/rotation --> 11 parity mirror/rotation
> ...



You should feel accomplished.

And I feel like I just did something useful.

So, 40 COLL + 21 PEBL (Permute Edges Both Layers)
= 61 algorithms total+algs for orienting last layer edges which would make 63, 64 if you count R' F R F' for partial edge control.

The 3rd step is probably unnecessary.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

Yea, you could probably try and throw ZZ or Petrus into it to give you the EO'd LL, not sure how well that would work though...

Don't forget 2 additional algs for COLL when the corners are already oriented. And some of the 21 algs are extremely easy and well known, such as the U Perm and U2 M2 U2 M2.

Anything else you want? How about my list of COLL's?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 3, 2010)

Nlcuber, are you actually going to use this, or are you just theorizing?


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 3, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Yea, you could probably try and throw ZZ or Petrus into it to give you the EO'd LL, not sure how well that would work though...
> 
> Don't forget 2 additional algs for COLL when the corners are already oriented. And some of the 21 algs are extremely easy and well known, such as the U Perm and U2 M2 U2 M2.
> 
> Anything else you want? How about my list of COLL's?



Not sure about that either, maybe someone who uses ZZ or Petrus could help with that.

Okay, so that would make 66 algs, minus things like U2 M2 U2 M2 and R' F R F'.
Also, sure, you can give me your COLL's if you want, however, I'm using Jason Baum's site for the time being.

@Cyrus - Depends. I want to find all of the pros and cons before I make a decision to use it as my main method. I already know several of the algorithms for it from previous knowledge. Even if I don't use it all the time, I will for some cases, such as a 1 move cross (which would only be useful with this method, as in it would be a normal cross for a CFOP solve because the pieces aren't permuted correctly). Plus, knowing COLL is helpful anyway. And what if I made a mistake with my cross while doing a CFOP solve? I could just continue solving because I know this method.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 3, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> maybe someone who uses ZZ or Petrus could help with that.


How could they help? I use Petrus.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> Not sure about that either, maybe someone who uses ZZ or Petrus could help with that.
> 
> Okay, so that would make 66 algs, minus things like U2 M2 U2 M2 and R' F R F'.



Haha, I would still count U2 M2 U2 M2 as an alg, just an easy one. 

I have dabbled in ZZ, Petrus is basically the same concept only with blockbuilding, which I'm not too sure would work with this.

ZZ:
EOline - Orient all edges, DB and DF must have the D colour on D.
Blockbuilding - Create two 1x2x3 blocks on R and L, D edges are interchangable.
COLL - Orient and permute the corners of the last layer.
PEBL - Permute edges of both layers.

Cola, LL edges would be automatically (or automagically as Thom might say) oriented.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 3, 2010)

Petrus: 
2x2x2 - Make a 2x2x2 block, although there may be one unsolved sticker.
2x2x3 - Make a 2x2x3 block, although there may be three unsolved stickers, as long as the other side of the edges are solved, & they are all the same colour sticker.
Orient edges - Orient the remaining 7 unsolved edges using commutators.
2x3x3 - Build a 2x2x3, minus bottom edges permutation.
COLL - Orient & permute the corners of the last layer.
PBEL - Permute both last layer edges.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

See, now Petrus is just silly. Making a 2x2x2 block with "one unsolved sticker" is just, not practical (In my opinion) for speedsovling. I think ZZ/MGLS would be the best approach for this method idea.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Apr 3, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> See, now Petrus is just silly. Making a 2x2x2 block with "one unsolved sticker" is just, not practical (In my opinion) for speedsovling. I think ZZ/MGLS would be the best approach for this method idea.



I think it would be easier actually, when I'm looking ahead for my 2x2x3 I will only have to worry about 1 colour on the edge piece, not two.

For the 2x2x2, I really don't see what you're talking about, it could be so easy. By the way, I made a typo, you can have 2 messed up stickers on the 2x2x2.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 3, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> I think it would be easier actually, when I'm looking ahead for my 2x2x3 I will only have to worry about 1 colour on the edge piece, not two.
> 
> For the 2x2x2, I really don't see what you're talking about, it could be so easy. By the way, I made a typo, you can have 2 messed up stickers on the 2x2x2.



I just think that with so many possible 2x2x2 blocks, it would be harder to look for which edge piece is the best with which block, instead of just the block. For ZZ, you have 12 ways of building your EOline (compared to just 1 before) and 2 different ways of doing the blockbuilding (again, as compared to just 1). Of course, I have no practical experience with Petrus, so I guess my opinions aren't really valid.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

Working on algs for PEBL. Help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## richardzhang (Apr 5, 2010)

Average of 5 with this method: 34.61, 17.88, 26.09, 26.54, 23.31=25.31


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

richardzhang said:


> Average of 5 with this method: 34.61, 17.88, 26.09, 26.54, 23.31=25.31



Do you know COLL? And for PEBL I'm assuming that you did 2 seperate algorithms.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

richardzhang said:


> Average of 5 with this method: 34.61, 17.88, 26.09, 26.54, 23.31=25.31



Yeah, I'm sure you know ZBF2L, COLL, and all those other random algs. 
Doing it in several steps doesn't really count; I could do that and easily get a sub 15 average, but that defeats the purpose.

Edit: Ninja'd, and for once, I agree with nlcuber.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

Anthony said:


> richardzhang said:
> 
> 
> > Average of 5 with this method: 34.61, 17.88, 26.09, 26.54, 23.31=25.31
> ...



Just curious - what do you think max potential for this method is?

Yay for agreeing.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> Just curious - what do you think max potential for this method is?



I could give you a guess, but it really wouldn't mean much. 7 years ago I'm sure that most people thought sub 10 averages were out of reach with Fridrich.

Note: I am not saying that this is going to be the next big thing like Fridrich was.


----------



## Ashmnafa (Apr 5, 2010)

I actually really like this idea.

The algorithms count is really not very high, you don't have to worry about cross permutation, it really is very cool.

And Petrus/ZZ/MGLS could just be variations.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 5, 2010)

Except COLL algs suck, and I'm guessing the step6 algs will suck.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Except COLL algs suck, and I'm guessing the step6 algs will suck.



Meh, Jason Baum's aren't that bad.
Hopefully Step 6 algs won't be too suck.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > Except COLL algs suck, and I'm guessing the step6 algs will suck.
> ...



Well, I know most of COLL and the only reason I haven't finished learning it is because the algs for the rest of the cases I have to learn are terrible (and yes, those include the algs on Jason's site).

Also, I can guarantee Step 6 algs are going to fail in comparison to standard PLL algs.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

Anthony said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > DavidWoner said:
> ...



As long as you can exec them sub3 I think they will be ok for speedsolving.

And then you have the opp-opp alg which is pretty win compared to most PLLs.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 5, 2010)

COLL♥


----------



## ErikJ (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> As long as you can exec them sub3 I think they will be ok for speedsolving.



there wont be any gain from this method unless you can execute them faster than the negative time from building a cross that isn't permuted plus regular PLL.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> As long as you can exec them sub3 I think they will be ok for speedsolving.
> 
> And then you have the opp-opp alg which is pretty win compared to most PLLs.



I just gave it a quick shot and after a couple tries did every PLL in at least 1.5x. Sub 3 is pretty meh. Plus, sub 3 was just a guess. We won't know how fast they can be executed until they've been found.

Also, one fast all doesn't make up for 10 slow ones.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

Anthony said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as you can exec them sub3 I think they will be ok for speedsolving.
> ...



That's true.


----------



## stinkocheeze (Apr 5, 2010)

4Chan said:


> How many cases for last 8 edges on U and D are there?



IT'S OVER 9000!


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

stinkocheeze said:


> 4Chan said:
> 
> 
> > How many cases for last 8 edges on U and D are there?
> ...



You're doing it wrong.

The number of cases for that step is not even high, so you just basically,

what is,

what is this I don't even.


----------



## ManasijV (Apr 5, 2010)

Ok this is what I thought. (comparing it to CFOP in each step)
1) I did an average of 12. 4 moves. CFOP 7 moves.
2) Same as CFOP.
3) I think this makes up for the moves lost during the cross. R' F R F' is not the only algorithm required by the way.
4) Orient edges. CFOP orient LL
5) COLL. Permute LL
6) Well CFOP is already done.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 5, 2010)

Interesting idea, but I can't see any way this would be an improvement over a Fridrich-type version (i.e. cross, 3 F2Ls, VHF2L, COLL, EPLL). Recognizing the two separate EPs is icky - especially considering you can't do it by just looking at two faces, like you can for PLLs - and I really doubt you'll be finding any good algs for most cases. I think you'd be much better off just wasting the extra ~2 moves to make a proper cross, and then doing EPLL at the end, which is really fast.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

Mostly what I was meaning for it to be was something useful to know so you can take advantage of easy cases. I will still probably be developing algs and learning the full method for that very purpose.

Plus, bragging rights.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 5, 2010)

Lol, since the recent Cube Explorer with slice moves came out, making edge perm algs should be easier than back in the day. xD xD


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

4Chan said:


> Lol, since the recent Cube Explorer with slice moves came out, making edge perm algs should be easier than back in the day. xD xD



Haha, yeah.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> Mostly what I was meaning for it to be was something useful to know so you can take advantage of easy cases. I will still probably be developing algs and learning the full method for that very purpose.
> 
> Plus, bragging rights.



I *highly* doubt that you're going to generate all the algs and actually learn this method and use it. You may start, but you won't pull through.

The main reason people have been coming up with all these spinoff methods lately is simply for "bragging rights", which is silly. You guys aren't really trying to come up with something good, just something that is a bit different so you can call it your "own method."

Although, you could prove me wrong.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

Anthony said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > Mostly what I was meaning for it to be was something useful to know so you can take advantage of easy cases. I will still probably be developing algs and learning the full method for that very purpose.
> ...



I'm going to at least try to learn it. I was going to learn COLL anyway.

Notice the wink emoticon after bragging rights. I'm not about to brag about something as insignificant as this. Also, I posted this because I thought it would be an interesting idea. It's different than any other (decent) 3x3 method that I've seen, anyway. Plus, I'm sure at the very least sub-12 averages are attainable with it. I've been playing around with it all day, it really is fun.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> It's different than any other (decent) 3x3 method that I've seen, anyway.



It's still CFOP, so it's really just a Fridrich spinoff.


----------



## ianini (Apr 5, 2010)

Anthony said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > It's different than any other (decent) 3x3 method that I've seen, anyway.
> ...



As are most of these new methods.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

ianini said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > nlCuber22 said:
> ...



That's my point.
No one's really thinking of anything new. The majority of people posting these methods are doing it simply because they want to be able to say they have their own method.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

ianini said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > nlCuber22 said:
> ...


I decided to compose some freeform poetry, just for you.

```
oh


                                look it's

ianini he's
                         a cool cat

           
                                                   doin 

it wrong on
                                                                 forums

                              and doesn't

 
          afraiding of
                      
                                           anything 
 
 

                             you're

trying  too                                                                                                hard
 



                        especially to 


agree 


                                                                                                  with Anthony

in                                                                                                                   this  thread



       it's ianini
```


----------



## ianini (Apr 5, 2010)

Anthony said:


> ianini said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony said:
> ...



But that's not to say that there aren't some good, experimental methods. But the majority are just CFOP variations.


----------



## Anthony (Apr 5, 2010)

ianini said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > ianini said:
> ...


----------



## ianini (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> ianini said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony said:
> ...



I wasn't insulting your method, I was just stating that most of these new methods are variations of CFOP.


----------



## nlCuber22 (Apr 5, 2010)

ianini said:


> nlCuber22 said:
> 
> 
> > ianini said:
> ...




I was and am fully aware of that.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Apr 5, 2010)

nlCuber22 said:


> ianini said:
> 
> 
> > Anthony said:
> ...



Shut up, seriously.


----------



## riffz (Apr 6, 2010)

Well seeing as the cross can be solved with proper permutation in usually 6 moves or less, I don't think I'll bother learning a bunch of cases with tougher recognition and more algorithms to drop my cross times.


----------



## Ton (Apr 6, 2010)

I see that you can do edge in like 4-5 move where I normally use 6-7 moves
That's why I do not think do the edges last will be very beneficial 

But still interesting concept. Why not extend this with also the corner of the first layer, e.g. do F2L but do not care about corner orientation


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Except COLL algs suck, and I'm guessing the step6 algs will suck.


COLL algs dont suck actually most of them are really nice.
although CMLL algs are sooo much better.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

As for step 6, you can do it intuitivley pretty fast. 
And considering all you REALLY need for that step is <MUD> moves, the PEBL shouldnt be that bad.

EDIT: meant <MUD>


----------



## ErikJ (Apr 6, 2010)

what you should do is keep your method secret like I did until you learn it yourself and are good at it. Then you can show people that it a valid way of solving rather than just an idea.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

Example solve -
Scramble - L' R2 F2 R D' U' B L' B D B2 D U' L' F' R' L2 D' L' D' U F' R2 D F2 


Spoiler



x2 y'
F' R' F2
U' R' U R U L' U' L
y R U L' R' U2 L' y U R U' R' y'
D R U R' D'
U' R U R' U2 F' U F
U F R U R' U' F'
M2 D M' U2 M U2 M2 D'
U' M' U2 M' U' M2 U'


 
im really bad at F2L and i think my LSE type step could be improved with algs but you get the idea.


----------



## Joël (Apr 6, 2010)

My opinion;

And ending with 8 edges U/D layers (separated) is not a bad idea. There will probably be a lot of good algs for it. It will be slightly more difficult to recognise and adjust U or D layers before executing the alg, though...

The way to get to such an ending however seems a bit of a waste of time. Starting a solve by placing edges incorrectly just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. When nothing is solved, the first step should place some pieces correctly right away, because the start is THE best time in the solve where placing pieces correctly right away doesn't take many moves, and any good method should take advantage of that. That's just my humble opinion of course...


----------



## CubeDust (Apr 6, 2010)

i got a parity alg idea:

M2 U2 M2


----------



## Diniz (Apr 6, 2010)

CubeDust said:


> i got a parity alg idea:
> 
> M2 U2 M2



Thats take out the point of the method.

And about the PBLE its easy to recognize the case because you know the edge cross permutation on the inspect time.

And nlCuber, that alg is not enough to do full edge control.


The "advantage" of this method is that it saves like 2.8 moves on the cross, we will only know if it will really save move count if the algs on the last step are good enough..


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

Diniz said:


> CubeDust said:
> 
> 
> > i got a parity alg idea:
> ...


umm parity? if you use <MUD> theres no parity?


----------



## Diniz (Apr 6, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> umm parity? if you use <MUD> theres no parity?



I think he (Cubedust) meant like a impossible permutation case on U or D (separately), like a parity case on 4x4... if you use that alg (M2 U2 M2) you will make both U and D permutation solvable (separately again). But the idea of the method is solve both permutation together so doesn't exists the idea of parity.

edit: its really hard for me to explain things in english hahaha


----------



## jms_gears1 (Apr 6, 2010)

Diniz said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > umm parity? if you use <MUD> theres no parity?
> ...


i didnt mean just MUD its not parity, its an odd cube and centers are fixed, therefore no parity.

However i understand what you mean. Just saying i think the most effecient move group for PEBL is <MUD>


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 6, 2010)

How about just F2L, CMSLL, LEE (last eight edges)? What a minute, that's columns first...


----------

