# Hawaiian Kociemba 3x3x3 TUTORIAL - Method of Michael H.



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 2, 2016)

So most of your are probably familiar with Micheal Humuhumunukunukapua'a's debut video(I didn't copy and paste the name, I memorized it...). In this video, he does a few solves, claiming the method he uses is "Hawaiian Kociemba". The first solve was reconstructed on Reddit, and I have decided to try and decipher his method as no one knows for sure how it works. Keep in mind that this is mostly a theory, and that this could all be totally wrong, but if this is correct, then it is a pretty decent method.
EDIT: This is an amazingly efficient method, and great for both speed solving and FMC. Read some of the later replies.



Spoiler: Brief Overview



1. Create EO arrow (only orient F2L pieces, arrow is 3 cross pieces. Missing piece is placed on right.)
2. F2L-1 edge: Use RUL moves, like in ZZ, to do F2L-1 edge. Use temporarily free R slice to your advantage.
3. HKOLL: This is mostly similar to normal OLL, except you also orient RD.
4. HKPLL: 149 cases, 21 PLL, 128 new.
Cube is solved.





Spoiler: (More) Detailed Tutorial



1.EO "Arrow": If you are familiar with ZZ, this should be pretty easy. Orient all or just F2L edges, if you orient all you will get an easy corner OLL. The best choice is probably just F2L. This allows you to do F2L with just RUL moves like in ZZ. After edges are oriented, place in 3 D edges, and place the incorrect one at RD (or LD, if you want, but later algs will have to be mirrored).
2. F2L-1 edge: Pretty easy step, uses only RUL moves. The -1 edge is the missing D edge. BE SURE to use the free R slice to your advantage in the beginning, it will help your F2L.
3. HKOLL: Use 1 algorithm. Self explanatory. Similar to normal OLL.
4. HKPLL: Use 1/149 algorithms (21 PLL, 128 HKPLL) to permute everything and solve the cube .





Spoiler: Algorithms



I am currently having trouble generating HKOLL algorithms, so I'll add them later.
HKPLL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3dxhlcnskzj5wfc/HKPLL.LUR.txt?dl=0
EHKPLL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1vhumt0nrz9q8tc/EHKPLL.LUR.txt?dl=0
L5E MU: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7mogt7yvgojnjye/L5E MU Cases.txt?dl=0
L5E RU: https://www.dropbox.com/s/88ktri1azi972v5/L5E RU Cases.txt?dl=0
Thanks to Cale S for generating these L5E algs.
Load this in Cube Explorer for visual (for now), I'll add pictures later. The HK algorithms only use RUL moves, and some of them are pretty long, but I'll fix them later. You may also have to AUF, especially for EHKPLL.
PLL: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/i...gDB?mode=view&view=default&puzzle=3&group=PLL
2-gen OLL: https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/OLL#OLL_24 (only use the 2-gen ones, r moves are fine. Can also use the COLL Algs where all you have to do is twist the corners.)
L5E Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing 
Thanks to Alex Maass for making this.



HKPLL can also be solved using commutators. You can also try COLL and then just do a conjugated EPLL, but you would have to orient all edges in the beginning. 


Spoiler: Example Solves



Scramble: R2-B2-F-L'-B2-U'-B2-R-D2-R2-F-R2-U-F-D2-B-U
z y' //
D' L' U x // Cross (without the green white edge piece
R' U' R U' R' U' R // Green-Orange Pair
L U2 L' // Blue-Orange Pair
L' U L U' L' U L // Green-Red Pair
R U' R' // Green-Red Pair Insert
r U R' U R U2 r' U // Basically OLL
R' U' R U R U R U' R' U' // Basically PLL

This is the actual reconstruction for the first solve by vikktorz, exactly as he posted it.

Scramble: R2 B L2 B' R' U B R' D' B R' U' R' D B' D U' L' D'
y R' U' R U' R' U R //F2L-1
R U' R' U' R U R' y' //F2L-2
R U2 R2' F R F' R U2 R' //HKOLL
U' R U' R' D R U R' D' R U R' D R U' R' D' //PLL
Second solve reconstruction by JTWong71.

Scramble: U F U D L' U B' U R R L U' R U L' B U' R2 U2 R2
y r x' U2 U' // Stuff?
u' R U' R //Stuff?
F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' // OLL?
U2 R' D' R U R' D R // PLL?
Third solve reconstruction by TheFearlessPro.

Giant List: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7a6vJc_eflZn1LDt9GAq4lPGQiD8HEm7oJFe2CmhfA/mobilebasic
Thanks to JTwong71 for making this.



Pretty cool method, the reconstruction is 41 moves... seems efficient, too.
EDIT: Actually, every solve so far is 45 moves or less... This is a really efficient method. Check other solves in the replies, and post your here.


Spoiler: Variations



Here are a bunch of variations to decrease the number of algorithms used or to make the method more efficient. I'll add them as I think of them.


Spoiler: CP+EO Variation



This will probably be THE MOST complex variation but can be VERY fast and significantly improve recognition. You will want to plan it in inspection. During the explanation, pretend the E slice is divided in half - left and right.
1. Solve a 2x2x3 block (preferably on the left) while leaving 2 edges disoriented. Be sure to track these edges.
2. Now it gets pretty tricky, and reliant on look ahead. Pre mute the bottom corner on the right, they do not need to be oriented. Pair the front one with one of the disoriented edges.
3. Figure out which adjacent corners needs to be swapped. Put them on the left, while making sure the other disoriented edge is at UR or UL. If corners need to swapped diagonally, do this step but use a conjugate to move the corners adjacent to each other.
4. Do either F' U F (if the edge is at UR) or F' U' F (if the edge is at UL) to reduce the cube to an entirely 2-gen state. Yes, all R U moves the entire way (if you want, I wouldn't recommend it as some 2-gem EHKPLLs are pretty long). Solve the other 2 pairs on the left (cube is in F2L-1 state) and use 1/7 Algs to orient corners whilst keeping permutation, then 1/7 EHKPLLs.
This sounds like a lot, but it can be executed pretty quickly. The reason for doing all this is when you finish F2L-1, you will only have to orient corners (only use 2 gen algorithms) and the corners will be solved. You will then be left with a EHKPLL, which there are only 7 of and are pretty easy to recognize and execute. This makes the last layer only use 14 algorithms, beating ZZ-R, DRASTICALLY improving recognition, and takes the cake for fewest number of algs for 2LLL.





Spoiler: COLL(Easier LL)



Just basically orient all edges in the beginning and use COLL when you get to the last layer to be left with an easy EHKPLL. That makes the last layer only require 49 algorithms.





Spoiler: L5E



Use CLL to finish the corners, then do a D move to place the incomplete D edge in the back and do L5E.





Spoiler: Petrus Variation



Thanks to Alex Maass for creating this variant.
1. Make a 2x2x3 block.
2. Solve other 2 pairs, not RD.
3. COLL or CLL.
4. L5E, or orient edges as you would in FreeFOP or Roux then do EHKPLL.






Thanks to everyone who helped with solve reconstructions and algs.


----------



## sqAree (Apr 2, 2016)

So essentially it's a kind of "half-ZZ"?

Pretty sure it's only efficient because they used a very lucky scramble. Try out a random scramble and count the moves with the method.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 2, 2016)

sqAree said:


> So essentially it's a kind of "half-ZZ"?
> 
> Pretty sure it's only efficient because they used a very lucky scramble. Try out a random scramble and count the moves with the method.


He used this method several times and got sub 8,sub 6 actually, 3 times in a row... watch his debut.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 2, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> He used this method several times and got sub 8,sub 6 actually, 3 times in a row... watch his debut.



You know it was an edited video released on April fools day, right?


----------



## goodatthis (Apr 2, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> You know it was an edited video released on April fools day, right?


^^^^ this


----------



## sqAree (Apr 2, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> He used this method several times and got sub 8,sub 6 actually, 3 times in a row... watch his debut.



I've watched it. Didn't know he was always using the same method (can't reconstruct at all, and there is only one published reconstruction). So if you know his other solves you can tell if it was especially "lucky" there too?

As there is a pretty high chance those are fake solves we don't want to examine his solves to decide if the method is worth/efficient. Try doing a solve with that method by your own.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 2, 2016)

His solves after the partial first two layers were all slightly different, but showing partial CFOP.
The first and third solve used the standard OLL's used by most people, such as F (R U R' U') (R U R' U') F', and (r U R' U) (R U2' r')
What was strange was that after doing the OLL, it also permuted move of the last layer, leaving around 3-4 pieces left to solve.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 2, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> You know it was an edited video released on April fools day, right?



March 31st, actually. And, according to xTownCuber, it is immoral and disrespectful to judge if someone is fake or not based on the date of their debut...


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 2, 2016)

I have tried reconstructing his second solve, but it was a lot faster and there some "Hidden" moves that I couldn't tell happened like D or D'


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 2, 2016)

Before anyone makes anymore judgements, go look at the thread and read through everything and watch the video.


----------



## sqAree (Apr 2, 2016)

I think everyone read the thread and everyone watched the video..

For me it doesn't even matter if it was an April Fool's joke or fake or nothing of both ; just look at the essence of the method. And the essence of a method is definitely not a bunch of example solves that may or may not be set up.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 2, 2016)

sqAree said:


> I think everyone read the thread and everyone watched the video..
> 
> For me it doesn't even matter if it was an April Fool's joke or fake or nothing of both ; just look at the essence of the method. And the essence of a method is definitely not a bunch of example solves that may or may not be set up.


thank you, that's exactly what this thread is about.


----------



## TheFearlessPro (Apr 2, 2016)

ima try reconstructing second solve ill edit this post when i do it! wait how do i know what the scramble is?  anyway
y
R' U' R U' R' 
something somthing.... ill try later anyone else wanna build on this?
Third solve reconstriuction attempt
y'
r2 x' U2 nvm again too much cuts and stuff dem it wut is up -.- I will keep atempting second solve
As far as the cube goes it flexes a lot i can see  Purple replaces red. ok So third solve is un reconstructable. Time to work on the second solve now that I know what his color scheme is!


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 2, 2016)

TheFearlessPro said:


> ima try reconstructing second solve ill edit this post when i do it!



Thanks, that might make this theory more accurate.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 2, 2016)

this actually seems somewhat viable...

I'll try genning L5E EPLL algs later


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

I currently have...

R' U' R U' R' U R //F2L-1
R U' R' U' R U R' y' //F2L-2
R U R' U R' F R F' R U2 R' //HKOLL (Checking to make sure it is correct still)
U' R U' R' D R U R' D' R U R' D R U' R' D' //PLL

For solve 2


----------



## TheFearlessPro (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I currently have...
> 
> R' U' R U' R' U R
> R U' R' U' R U R' y'
> ...


Alright ill add on, time stamp plz?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

I think I can finish it, just one more step to figure out.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> this actually seems somewhat viable...
> 
> I'll try genning L5E EPLL algs later



ooo thanks for the new variation idea .


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> ooo thanks for the new variation idea .



what exactly is the variant?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> what exactly is the variant?



L5E, check the variants section.


----------



## sqAree (Apr 3, 2016)

He most certainly did prepared solves. The fun is just to see if we can derive a viable method. 

I think those who know who he is won't tell for now to maintain the joke.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> L5E, check the variants section.



Yeah, this seems quite similiar to two look pll, also i just came up with another idea, the DRF and DLB corners could be swapped,, and you could do CP of the top and bottom layer corners, not sure if the algs for them being swapped would be any good


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

sqAree said:


> He most certainly did prepared solves. The fun is just to see if we can derive a viable method.
> 
> I think those who know who he is won't tell for now to maintain the joke.


Well now I don't have to support the "fact" that he is real because the method we have developed is actually really good.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Well now I don't have to support the "fact" that he is real because the method we have developed is actually really good.



I don't think its sure yet that its a really good method, but it does seem viable.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Finished reconstructing the second solve:

y R' U' R U' R' U R //F2L-1
R U' R' U' R U R' y' //F2L-2
R U2 R2' F R F' R U2 R' //HKOLL
U' R U' R' D R U R' D' R U R' D R U' R' D' //PLL
40 STM

Part of the problem is the cutoff, so technically in the reconstruction he already solve the Cross + Partial EO


----------



## TheFearlessPro (Apr 3, 2016)

Third Solve Reconstruction
r x' F2 U' // Stuff?
u' R U' R //Stuff?
F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' // OLL?
U2 R' D' R U R' D R // PLL?
Im not completely sure what each step does 
Im also not sure if the pll is right, the D moves were hard  Well daz all btw the lower case means a wide turn
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=r_x-_F2_..._R-_U-_F-_//_OLL?
U2_R-_D-_R_U_R-_D_R_//_PLL?
Pretty sure this is wrong in some spots, anyone mind to check ? I did mai best


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Finished reconstructing the second solve:
> 
> y R' U' R U' R' U R //F2L-1
> R U' R' U' R U R' y' //F2L-2
> ...


Nice 
What's the scramble again?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

R2 B L2 B' R' U B R' D' B R' U' R' D B' D U' L' D'
I generated it using Cube Explorer


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

TheFearlessPro said:


> Third Solve Reconstruction
> r x' U2 U' // Stuff?
> u' R U' R //Stuff?
> F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' // OLL?
> ...



Awesome job.
Scramble pliz?


----------



## TheFearlessPro (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Awesome job.
> Scramble pliz?


uhh idk how to make it? 
btw, need help with creating this method?  Kinda wanna do this method along with other people, learn some stuff about the cube along the way


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Scramble: U F U D L' U B' U R R L U' R U L' B U' R2 U2 R2
Also Using Cube Explorer

r x' U2 U' // Stuff?
u' R U' R //Stuff?
F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' // OLL?
U2 R' D' R U R' D R // PLL?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

TheFearlessPro said:


> uhh idk how to make it?
> btw, need help with creating this method?  Kinda wanna do this method along with other people, learn some stuff about the cube along the way


In Cube Explorer, input the solve backwards, then click generate. I can do it if you want.

EDIT: Nvm someone else did it. This is how you do it for future reference, though.


----------



## TheFearlessPro (Apr 3, 2016)

Oops I made a mistake with this, y rotation at the start sry


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

I can try to help you with that.
I am currently trying to find a method other than CFOP that has the potential to be fast.


----------



## TheFearlessPro (Apr 3, 2016)

Third Solve Reconstruction
y r x' U2 U' // Stuff?
u' R U' R //Stuff?
F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' // OLL?
U2 R' D' R U R' D R // PLL?
So yeh in the end thats that


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Ok, so here's the new link:
y r x' U2 U' // Stuff?
u' R U' R //Stuff?
F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' // OLL?
U2 R' D' R U R' D R // PLL?

The New Scramble: U R U D F' U L' U B B F U' B U F' L U' B2 U2 B2


----------



## Cale S (Apr 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> I'll try genning L5E EPLL algs later





Spoiler: <RU>



R' U' R2 U R U R U2 R' 
R2 U R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' R2 
R' U' R U R U R U' R' 
R U R' U' R' U' R' U R 
R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 
R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 
R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R 
R' U' R U' R U R U R2 U2 R' 
R U R' U R' U' R' U' R2 U2 R 
R2 U' R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U R2 
R' U' R U' R' U R U R U2 R U2 R'
R U2 R' U2 R' U' R' U' R U R' U R





Spoiler: <MU>



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


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Spoiler: <RU>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Awesome, thanks 
what are the cases they go along with, though?


----------



## Cale S (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Awesome, thanks
> what are the cases they go along with, though?



I just chose a random order, but it's the same between the two lists


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

R' U' R2 U R U R U2 R' (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R' U' R2 U R U R U2 R'U')
R2 U R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' R2 (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R2 U R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' R2)
R' U' R U R U R U' R' (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R' U' R U R U R U' R'U')
R U R' U' R' U' R' U R (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R U R' U' R' U' R' U RU)
R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2 U' R2U')
R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 U R2 U R2U)
R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R)
R' U' R U' R U R U R2 U2 R' (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R' U' R U' R U R U R2 U2 R'U')
R U R' U R' U' R' U' R2 U2 R (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R U R' U R' U' R' U' R2 U2 RU)
R2 U' R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U R2 (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R2 U' R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U R2)
R' U' R U' R' U R U R U2 R U2 R' (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R' U' R U' R' U R U R U2 R U2 R'U')
R U2 R' U2 R' U' R' U' R U R' U R (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R U2 R' U2 R' U' R' U' R U R' U RU)


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

based on these 3 solves

step 1 orient f2l edges and do cross w/ 3 edges
step 2 do 2 f2l pairs next to each other
step 3 do some of the next two f2l pairs
step 4 hawaiian hacks



JTWong71 said:


> R' U' R2 U R U R U2 R' (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R' U' R2 U R U R U2 R'U')
> R2 U R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' R2 (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R2 U R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' R2)
> R' U' R U R U R U' R' (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R' U' R U R U R U' R'U')
> R U R' U' R' U' R' U R (http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php?fmt=svg&size=200&case=R U R' U' R' U' R' U RU)
> ...



are you sure these are all of the L5E cases? I'll make a doc with algs for these if thats the case


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> based on these 3 solves
> 
> step 1 orient f2l edges and do cross w/ 3 edges
> step 2 do 2 f2l pairs next to each other
> ...


So basically this method... lol
I already made text files for Cube Explorer for them.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Those are the ones that Cale S has generated at the moment, but with correct orientation of the edges, it is possible that that is all.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Those are the ones that Cale S has generated at the moment, but with correct orientation of the edges, it is possible that that is all.



oh, tell me when you got all of the cases listed


----------



## Cale S (Apr 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> are you sure these are all of the L5E cases? I'll make a doc with algs for these if thats the case



you can define each case by what EPLL you get when you insert the edge with M' U2 M, so 8 U perms, 2 Z perms, H perm, and skip = 12


----------



## adimare (Apr 3, 2016)

TheFearlessPro said:


> Third Solve Reconstruction
> y r x' U2 U' // Stuff?
> u' R U' R //Stuff?
> F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' // OLL?
> ...




Scramble: U R U D F' U L' U B B F U' B U F' L U' B2 U2 B2
y r x' U u' // 2x2x3
R U' R //F2L-1
F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' U' // AB3C
[U', R' D' R] // Last 3 corners

That's how I'd label it. I'd love to learn that method. 3 move 2x2x3, 6 move F2L-1, 25 move solutions... why aren't we all using this???


----------



## Chicken Noodle (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> March 31st, actually. And, according to xTownCuber, it is immoral and disrespectful to judge if someone is fake or not based on the date of their debut...



He was being sarcastic.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

adimare said:


> Scramble: U R U D F' U L' U B B F U' B U F' L U' B2 U2 B2
> y r x' U u' // 2x2x3
> R U' R //F2L-1
> F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' U' // AB3C
> ...


It was a setup, but check out the method... it's pretty good, especially the CP+EO variation.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> March 31st, actually. And, according to xTownCuber, it is immoral and disrespectful to judge if someone is fake or not based on the date of their debut...





wir3sandfir3s said:


> it is immoral and disrespectful to judge if someone is fake or not based o





wir3sandfir3s said:


> it is immoral and disrespectful





wir3sandfir3s said:


> immoral


lol k


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

Ross The Boss said:


> lol k



Have you read my other comments? Lol


----------



## Ross The Boss (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Have you read my other comments? Lol


dont plan on doing so


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zSHsnNOpfEQP7qYrX_plR0YIqtEnx9Q9rvjCJe8URco/edit?usp=sharing finished this! the algs in the middle row are eh, so tell me if you got any good alternatives for those


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Looking through some of the algorithms, it seems a little hard to recognize.
Some look like at the front an H-Perm, then in the back a U-Perm.
It will probably have to take the look of 3-4 pieces to know which case to perform.

Reconstruction trying to see if it is a possible method (Not from the video):
z' //Inspection
U R' B' U F R2 U2 L //EO Arrow (Cancelled out L2)
R2 U R2 U L //2x2x3
R2 U R' U' R U R' U R' //F2L-1 Edge
U2 R2 D R' U R D' R' U R' U' R U' R' //OLLCP
U2 y M' U2 M U //L3E

41 STM (I oriented all of the edges, it was only 5 moves to orient + 2 edge pieces + Pair for the last EO Arrow)


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Looking through some of the algorithms, it seems a little hard to recognize.
> Some look like at the front an H-Perm, then in the back a U-Perm.
> It will probably have to take the look of 3-4 pieces to know which case to perform.
> 
> ...



Cool, so it is pretty efficient based on this solve . Thanks for posting this


----------



## Cale S (Apr 3, 2016)

my first attempt with this

edit: second attempt, 35 HTM, 32 STM if you use M' U2 M at the end


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

Cale S said:


> my first attempt with this
> 
> edit: second attempt, 35 HTM, 32 STM if you use M' U2 M at the end



Wow, this is really efficient. Nice job to everyone who contributed .


----------



## JRKyewbs (Apr 3, 2016)

I am creating visual HKPLL for visual algorithm learners  Do you have an email/Hangouts I can use to send them to you?


----------



## sqAree (Apr 3, 2016)

So the method has proven to be efficient, great job!

Interesting would be a test of using it in a speedsolve though, because recognition may or may not be good.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

JRKyewbs said:


> I am creating visual HKPLL for visual algorithm learners  Do you have an email/Hangouts I can use to send them to you?


My gmail is [email protected] hangouts or email is fine  thanks!


----------



## JRKyewbs (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> My gmail is [email protected] hangouts or email is fine  thanks!



I just added you on Google Hangouts.


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 3, 2016)

sqAree said:


> So the method has proven to be efficient, great job!
> 
> Interesting would be a test of using it in a speedsolve though, because recognition may or may not be good.



I wouldn't say it has been proven to be efficient yet. I think we need to try it on some more random scrambles.

I will admit it looks promising though.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I wouldn't say it has been proven to be efficient yet. I think we need to try it on some more random scrambles.
> 
> I will admit it looks promising though.


I agree, I'll have some more example solves up later today.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

I will be trying this method out as a speed solving method to see fast it can be.
And with the solves we have up at the moment, they either have only edges or corners to swap for HKPLL

Random Solve:

First Attempt...
y' x //Inspection
U2 r U' r U r //EO Arrow
U' R U R L' U2 L' U R U' L' U2 L' //2x2x3 + Influence on Right Pairs
R' U R' //F2L-1 Edge
U2 F U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' F'//COLL
y U M2 U M' U2 M U M U2 M //L5E


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

i need to learn zz eo so i can properly use pure HK

i got 13.91 with a petrus variant of hawaiian kociemba, and also this ao12
Generated By csTimer on 2016-4-3
avg of 12: 18.64

Time List:
21.96, 18.09, 17.22, 18.64, 20.32, 20.83, (25.27), 16.36, 19.11, 17.64, (14.39), 16.20


the variant is this: instead of f2l eo at the start, petrus block, solve the 2 f2l pairs without the last cross edge, coll, m slices for eo, and then hawaiian l5e


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> i need to learn zz eo so i can properly use pure HK
> 
> i got 13.91 with a petrus variant of hawaiian kociemba, and also this ao12
> Generated By csTimer on 2016-4-3
> ...


Nice  did you learn EHKPLLs?


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Nice  did you learn EHKPLLs?



yeah I used the list of algs i made, also i might just switch to using cfop for building the 2x3x3, though that may just still be HK petrus

im not sure if doing eo arrow instead of this would be better, i'll have to find out


----------



## Cale S (Apr 3, 2016)

more random examples

attempt 3

attempt 4

attempt 5


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> This makes the last layer only use 14 algorithms, beating ZZ-R, DRASTICALLY improving recognition, and takes the cake for fewest number of algs for 2LLL.


Well zz-d has fewer algs when using a 2LLL. It has only 11 compared to the 14 your variation requires.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

Cale S said:


> more random examples
> 
> attempt 3
> 
> ...


Nice  thanks for these!


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Well zz-d has fewer algs when using a 2LLL. It has only 11 compared to the 14 your variation requires.



ZZ-D requires setup. 14 still is very good.


----------



## Cale S (Apr 3, 2016)

cool 34 STM solve


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

Cale S said:


> cool 34 STM solve


Do you plan on switching?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Just got a 33 STM or 34 HTM Solve:

x2 y //Inspection
D L F' U S2 D2 f z //2x2x3
U R' f U R U' f' U R' U R' //F2L-1 Edge + EO
U R2 D' R U' R U R' D R' U' D' R2 D R' //Last 5 Pieces


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Just got a 33 STM or 34 HTM Solve:
> 
> x2 y //Inspection
> D L F' U S2 D2 f z //2x2x3
> ...


Awesome! I think it's safe to say this is a great FMC method as well.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Yeah, looks like it.
I'm surprised by the results of this method.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Yeah, looks like it.
> I'm surprised by the results of this method.



Me too, I created this mostly as just a theory...


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Somewhat representing a "Petrus" variation:

x2 //Inspection
U R2 B R2 U2 R' D //2x2x3
y' R U2 f' U f U R //F2L-1 Edge
U R U2 R' U2 R' F R2 U R' U' F' //HKOLLCP
R' U2 R2 U R U R U' R U' R' //HKEPLL

37 HTM/STM

Another 37 HTM/STM

y x' //Inspection
D' F' L B L2 U F' //2x2x3
U' F R2 F' //EO + 1 Pair
R U' R2 U R2 U //F2L-1E
x2 z' R U R' U R U r' F R' F' r //HKOLLCP
R U R' U' R' U' R' U R //HKEPLL


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Somewhat representing a "Petrus" variation:
> 
> x2 //Inspection
> U R2 B R2 U2 R' D //2x2x3
> ...


So many examples... Can someone make a Google doc of all these please? Thanks for posting this!


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

Generated By csTimer on 2016-4-3
avg of 5: 16.09

Time List:
16.18, 15.65, (15.42), 16.43, (21.66)

done on cam with petrus variant (probably what JTWong showed previously), I can't do pure HK because I don't know zz :/

I'll upload the video right now


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 3, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Awesome! I think it's safe to say this is a great FMC method as well.



Hardly. Edge orientation strategies and block building have already been utilized in FMC for a while now, and saying that a method that restricts how you approach and balance these two ideas as being good for FMC is like saying running with one leg is effective. 

Even if you take this from the perspective of leaving edge insertions rather than doing the last edges step, edge insertions are nowhere near as move efficient as corner insertions, so I feel doing a standard EO approach with solving all edges and leaving a corner skeleton is normally far better than this approach.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 3, 2016)

Reconstructions:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7a6vJc_eflZn1LDt9GAq4lPGQiD8HEm7oJFe2CmhfA/edit?usp=sharing

Think I fixed it.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 3, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Reconstructions:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7a6vJc_eflZn1LDt9GAq4lPGQiD8HEm7oJFe2CmhfA/edit



can't view the document rip


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> Hardly. Edge orientation strategies and block building have already been utilized in FMC for a while now, and saying that a method that restricts how you approach and balance these two ideas as being good for FMC is like saying running with one leg is effective.
> 
> Even if you take this from the perspective of leaving edge insertions rather than doing the last edges step, edge insertions are nowhere near as move efficient as corner insertions, so I feel doing a standard EO approach with solving all edges and leaving a corner skeleton is normally far better than this approach.


An interesting way to look at it. My argument:
1. Several variations, you are talking about pure HK. Other variations are better for certain things including FMC. I would say this is quite a free method, as there are many possibilities, and the boundaries are loose.
2. Just look at the example solves...
3. You can use commutators with CP+EO to make this very move efficient.
4. Balance between the two ideas of block building and EO? Like ZZ? And this one is more efficient? Then ZZ must really suck, if your are correct.
5. Um this method doesn't take advantage of edge insertions, it includes the RD edge in Algs and frees the R face for a little while, making this very move efficient.
6. Actually, back to 4, balancing between the 2 things that are being used in FMC sound very good to me, perhaps why EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE SOLVE HERE (notice the caps) is 41 moves or less, making this a very ideal method for FMC.
(Please let this be a friendly argument )
Also, even if it isn't good in FMC for whatever reason, at least it is good in Speedsolving.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 4, 2016)




----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Reconstructions:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7a6vJc_eflZn1LDt9GAq4lPGQiD8HEm7oJFe2CmhfA/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> Think I fixed it.


Thanks


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyatOuLJgwc&feature=youtu.be



Very nice, thanks for posting this!


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 4, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Reconstructions:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l7a6vJc_eflZn1LDt9GAq4lPGQiD8HEm7oJFe2CmhfA/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> Think I fixed it.



might want to credit all of the people who did it


----------



## adimare (Apr 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> An interesting way to look at it. My argument:
> 1. Several variations, you are talking about pure HK. Other variations are better for certain things including FMC. I would say this is quite a free method, as there are many possibilities, and the boundaries are loose.


It's still way more restricted than standard FMC approaches to solving the cube.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> 2. Just look at the example solves...


They're quite meh for FMC standards.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> 3. You can use commutators with CP+EO to make this very move efficient.
> 4. Balance between the two ideas of block building and EO? Like ZZ? And this one is more efficient? Then ZZ must really suck, if your are correct.
> 5. Um this method doesn't take advantage of edge insertions, it includes the RD edge in Algs and frees the R face for a little while, making this very move efficient.
> 6. Actually, back to 4, balancing between the 2 things that are being used in FMC sound very good to me, perhaps why EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE SOLVE HERE (notice the caps) is 41 moves or less, making this a very ideal method for FMC.
> (Please let this be a friendly argument )


You completely misunderstood what Kit was trying to say. He's not saying that balancing EO and blockbuilding is a bad thing for FMC (that's actually the core of FMC). What he's saying is that this method brings nothing new to the table regarding EO/block building, it only restricts the way in which those two things are done, so it is not a good approach for FMC (the same can be said about ZZ, CFOP, and most speedsolving methods).


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

> It's still way more restricted than standard FMC approaches to solving the cube.


Again, that's pure HK, other variants are less restricted... 


> They're quite meh for FMC standards.


Those are speed solves...


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 4, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> might want to credit all of the people who did it



Added the names of the people who reconstructed.
I am also working on putting links to alg.cubing.net for each of the solves.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Added the names of the people who reconstructed.
> I am also working on putting links to alg.cubing.net for each of the solves.



Thanks!


----------



## Knut (Apr 4, 2016)

That CP+EO variation though... Has anyone tried speedsolving with it yet? I don't know enough about ZZ EO to do the first couple steps, but I really want to try it out.


----------



## Renox (Apr 4, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> the variant is this: instead of f2l eo at the start, petrus block, solve the 2 f2l pairs without the last cross edge, coll, m slices for eo, and then hawaiian l5e


Rip, I thought of this a couple months ago but I thought it was bad. Probably because I'm not very efficient and I can't blockbuild very well either


----------



## adimare (Apr 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Again, that's pure HK, other variants are less restricted...


What makes you think I was talking about pure HK? FMC standard approaches at EO/blockbuilding are less restricted than any of the variations that have been discussed in this thread.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Those are speed solves...


Then why bring them up as evidence of this being a good method for FMC?


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> An interesting way to look at it. My argument:
> 1. Several variations, you are talking about pure HK. Other variations are better for certain things including FMC. I would say this is quite a free method, as there are many possibilities, and the boundaries are loose.
> 2. Just look at the example solves...
> 3. You can use commutators with CP+EO to make this very move efficient.
> ...



As already stated, mid 30s are hardly proof for the method's utility in FMC. I've had a couple 30s before that essentially use CFOP, and could get a 41 or less using CFOP on just about any scramble. Still, I'd never argue for CFOP being an effective FMC method.

And yes, normally the goal of FMC is to effectively balance orienting edges with building blocks in an efficient manner. I don't mean to say that this method is taking a potentially poor approach to FMC, as in some cases it could very well be effective. It's just that this one tool is far too narrow to be used in FMC, and it lives in a much larger field of approaches that should be considered when doing FMC. ZZ is another example of a method that is too narrow to be efficiently used in FMC -- although simply adapting EOLine to just EO would be more in line with many top FMC solves now, so it's much closer.

I know the method does not take advantage of edge insertions itself, but since L5E is the last step, using this method as a skeleton for edge insertions is a viable argument for this being a method for FMC. I still don't think it's worthwhile, given the arguments I have already made. 

Also, I hardly believe the burden of proof is provided for this being a viable speedsolving method. A (potentially joke/setup) video with a few solves and a list of solutions that were not found in a speedsolve setting is far from it. There's potential for it to be a competitive, but move efficiency does not always translate into speed. Otherwise, Petrus or Heise would be far more viable as speedsolving methods than they actually are.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 4, 2016)

you guys think the original variant of this method would be more efficient than the petrus variant? gonna try learning zz eo


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 4, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Thanks to Alex Maass for creating this variant.
> 1. Make a 2x2x3 block.
> 2. Solve other 2 pairs, not RD.
> 3. COLL or CLL.
> 4. L5E, or orient edges as you would in FreeFOP or Roux then do EHKPLL.



Technically if we're solving edges in the last step, we might as well leave LD for this step as well, so we don't spend extra (wasted) moves solving it in step 1. Probably don't have to solve the centers on the S slice, either.
1. Make a 2x2x3 block, but with any edge/center on LD/D face
2. Solve two pairs
3. CLL, y rotation
4. Now we have two fully solved 1x2x3 blocks +corners, so we can solve the last 6 edges with <M,U>


The CP+EO variation seems interesting though, albeit insane to inspect for. But I'm not understanding how CP is solved given the process you've described. Could you explain how it works?

As far as practicality goes, I think the best variant is likely the orient all edges/COLL/HKEPLL (can we have better names for these, by the way? PLL = Permute last layer, which is certainly incorrect here) approach, since the solve would go eoline, RUL 2x2x3+pairs, COLL, 2gen finish, which sounds quite nice (and avoids having to learn all >100 algs).


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 4, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Technically if we're solving edges in the last step, we might as well leave LD for this step as well, so we don't spend extra (wasted) moves solving it in step 1. Probably don't have to solve the centers on the S slice, either.
> 1. Make a 2x2x3 block, but with any edge/center on LD/D face
> 2. Solve two pairs
> 3. CLL, y rotation
> ...



can i see an example solve of the proposed variant?

also i dont think it would make much difference doing either eo of all edges or eo of only f2l edges


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

Teoidus said:


> Technically if we're solving edges in the last step, we might as well leave LD for this step as well, so we don't spend extra (wasted) moves solving it in step 1. Probably don't have to solve the centers on the S slice, either.
> 1. Make a 2x2x3 block, but with any edge/center on LD/D face
> 2. Solve two pairs
> 3. CLL, y rotation
> ...


Yeah when I learned CP I must have missed something because I can't do CP in anything anymore, I'll fix that soon.
And regarding the names of algorithm sets, it's just for now so they can be called something and not "that other alg set".


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> As already stated, mid 30s are hardly proof for the method's utility in FMC. I've had a couple 30s before that essentially use CFOP, and could get a 41 or less using CFOP on just about any scramble. Still, I'd never argue for CFOP being an effective FMC method.
> 
> And yes, normally the goal of FMC is to effectively balance orienting edges with building blocks in an efficient manner. I don't mean to say that this method is taking a potentially poor approach to FMC, as in some cases it could very well be effective. It's just that this one tool is far too narrow to be used in FMC, and it lives in a much larger field of approaches that should be considered when doing FMC. ZZ is another example of a method that is too narrow to be efficiently used in FMC -- although simply adapting EOLine to just EO would be more in line with many top FMC solves now, so it's much closer.
> 
> ...



Now I believe I see what you mean with the restrictions. I plan on adding a FMC variant soon with a much less restricted F2L -1 and a move efficient commutator based LL. Hope it works 
So for speed solving, I believe we have already seen proof that this is quite a good method for speed.
1. Alex Maass's video 
2. Reconstructions of other people's solves (can be found on the master list)
I would still like to hear any thoughts or arguments you might have, as they might help me in the future and I just like (friendly) arguing with people.


----------



## Teoidus (Apr 4, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> can i see an example solve of the proposed variant?


https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?48028-The-Roux-quot-Example-Solve-quot-Game!
I think if you're going to solve unoriented edges last and start the solve with pure blockbuilding, it might be better to stick with Roux--LSE is pretty good and FB/SB is (or at least has been so far proven to be) faster.



AlexMaass said:


> also i dont think it would make much difference doing either eo of all edges or eo of only f2l edges


Disagree. I think the main advantage of a step like eoline is not so much the rotationless F2L (theoretically, a standard CFOP solve needs only 1 rotation) as it is the options you get on LL with all the edges oriented already. In this case, you can use COLL to reduce the cube to <R,U>, and then finish with a nice edge perm.


----------



## G2013 (Apr 4, 2016)

Let's do an example solve
Random scramble from Cubetimer:
B2 L U' F' R2 L2 U' D2 L2 R2 D B' F2 D' F' U2 D2 R D B' F L R' B2 U2

x2 R2 D F L' F U2 F' B2 y2 //EOArrow
R' U' R' U R' //1st pair
R' U R U2 L U L' //2nd pair
L' U L R' U R //3rd pair
U L' U2 L U2 L' U L //4th pair
l' U' L U R U' L' U x' //HKOLL
d' M' U2 M U2 R' U2 R U2 l' U l U R' U' R' F' R2 U //HKPLL + AUF

63 moves HTM, 61 with cancellations
I used reduced HKPLL


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 4, 2016)

How about like this:

F D' F' L2 F R U D' l //2x2x3
R2 U R' U' R B U f' U' L //Psuedo-F2L
U' r U R' U R U2 r' //HKOLL(CP)
M2 U' M U2 M' U' R2 //HKEPLL

34 STM


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

G2013 said:


> Let's do an example solve
> Random scramble from Cubetimer:
> B2 L U' F' R2 L2 U' D2 L2 R2 D B' F2 D' F' U2 D2 R D B' F L R' B2 U2
> 
> ...



You used the method to the very least of its efficiency... Still thanks for the solve.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 4, 2016)

Although when I am doing most of the reconstructions, I am not doing the "Standard" way by making an EOArrow, but instead a 2x2x3 block (Like Petrus).


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Although when I am doing most of the reconstructions, I am not doing the "Standard" way by making an EOArrow, but instead a 2x2x3 block (Like Petrus).



Petrus variation  it's HK, your fine lol


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 4, 2016)

Fixed CP+EO variant, was not working before.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 12, 2016)

After using the Petrus Variant of Hawaiian Kociemba, I believe it is still possible to save even more moves past 40 (Average), but will probably take either more algorithms or more intuition. Most times after you solve the EO step, a CE pair is either made or is one move away from being solved, and you might want to use that. Sometimes if you see that easy pair, it will have the last bottom layer edge, and HK doesn't suggest you solve the whole F2L before the Last Layer. What may save some moves is solving the F2L-1 Piece, but that piece doesn't have to be that edge, it could be a corner. Then, where possible algorithms come and/or intuition, you could solve up to the point where there are 3 pieces left to solve, and a commutator can be used to solve the Last 3 Pieces.

Example:
z2 //Inspection
D' F D' B2 U' L D2 F D' //2x2x3
U2 F R' F2 U F U //EO + Block
R D2 R F' D2 R D2 R' F R' //AB3C (Cancelled 'D' Move)
D R' D F2 D' R D R' F2 R //L3C

36 STM

I also have a 32 STM Solve, but really it was easier to just solve the whole F2L and leave 3 Corners to solve, making it technically Petrus with a L3C Variant.

z2 //Inspection
R U D2 B D //2x2x2
R' U F U F' R F' //2x2x3 + EO
U R2 U2 R' U R' U R U2 R2 U' //F2L + LLE + 1C
L2 D L' U2 L D' L' U2 L' //L3C


----------



## G2013 (Apr 12, 2016)

(Replying to who replied to my example solve) I know xD Anyway, it's an example solve.

I'm still trying to understand this new layout :S


----------



## adimare (Apr 13, 2016)

This method seems to be ZZ without solving one of the cross pieces. What's the point of doing that? You save very little time and moves by not solving one piece and in exchange you get a much more complicated oll/pll phase. Also, in 1 out of every 6 solves the last edge needed to finish the F2L is trapped in place of the cross piece.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 13, 2016)

I think the main point of the HK method is to solve F2L-1 Piece. Some of the variants require you to solve full EO. Leaving the 'R' moves to move as much anywhere can help save a few moves. Since I am using the Petrus Variant, I build the 2x2x3 first, then solve EO, but then leave one F2L piece unsolved, and solve the rest with different HK algorithms or using a Heise type way to leave 3 corners left to solve if my missing F2L piece is a corner.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 13, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> After using the Petrus Variant of Hawaiian Kociemba, I believe it is still possible to save even more moves past 40 (Average), but will probably take either more algorithms or more intuition. Most times after you solve the EO step, a CE pair is either made or is one move away from being solved, and you might want to use that. Sometimes if you see that easy pair, it will have the last bottom layer edge, and HK doesn't suggest you solve the whole F2L before the Last Layer. What may save some moves is solving the F2L-1 Piece, but that piece doesn't have to be that edge, it could be a corner. Then, where possible algorithms come and/or intuition, you could solve up to the point where there are 3 pieces left to solve, and a commutator can be used to solve the Last 3 Pieces.
> 
> Example:
> z2 //Inspection
> ...


All your ideas have been great so far, thanks for posting this  this will probably be part of the FMC variant which us coming soon.
I also thing any F2L piece on the R face can be left unsolved to be solved using a commutator.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 13, 2016)

adimare said:


> This method seems to be ZZ without solving one of the cross pieces. What's the point of doing that? You save very little time and moves by not solving one piece and in exchange you get a much more complicated oll/pll phase. Also, in 1 out of every 6 solves the last edge needed to finish the F2L is trapped in place of the cross piece.


You are somewhat correct, but there are benefits. It's helps the F2L flow easier and gives more option for LL, most algorithm sets can be used from various methods, even method specific ones. The main point of this method is freedom, which you can see in the example solves (especially JTWong71's).

Also, if you read the beginning of the thread more closely, k oringally posted this thread as a THEORY of what Michael H's method could be, and that's what he appeared to do. Pure HK does not seems to be the most efficient, and that's when I made variants which made this method awesome.


----------



## adimare (Apr 13, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> It's helps the F2L flow


 It doesn't. Have you tried speedsolving with this method? Quite often an edge piece you need for f2l is trapped in the position of the cross piece that you inexplicably refuse to solve in the first stages; when that happens your f2l flow is completely destroyed.


wir3sandfir3s said:


> easier and gives more option for LL


 Having to solve 9 pieces instead of 8 during the LL just increases the amount of algs you need to memorize from dozens to hundreds, makes recognition way harder, and greatly reduces the chances of skipping any of the steps.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> The main point of this method is freedom, which you can see in the example solves (especially JTWong71's).


 Have you paid attention to his example solves? First of all, let's be clear about the fact that they're FMC attempts, not speed solve reconstructions. Also, they have nothing to do with this method... I'm pretty sure he's just trolling you by presenting mediocre FMC attempts and calling them HK variants. He's just doing standard AB3C skeletons and solving the last 3 corners with a commutator.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Pure HK does not seems to be the most efficient, and that's when I made variants which made this method awesome.


 Please name a variant that is "awesome" for speedsolving and provide at least one example solve of such variant.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 13, 2016)

adimare said:


> Have you paid attention to his example solves? First of all, let's be clear about the fact that they're FMC attempts, not speed solve reconstructions. Also, they have nothing to do with this method... I'm pretty sure he's just trolling you by presenting mediocre FMC attempts and calling them HK variants. He's just doing standard AB3C skeletons and solving the last 3 corners with a commutator.



When I do reconstructions, I don't spend an hour doing an FMC solve (Around 5-10 Minutes). What I do is different than in a Speedsolve, because I don't have to keep of pieces as quickly. Also, for the L3C-Setup, I will mainly use Cube Explorer to solve till that point. I have been testing blockbuilding for a bit, and I can usually solve a 2x2x3 in around 10-13 moves, depending on my inspection. What I am trying to do is mainly see how far the method can go. The step before L3C is to see how the move count is affected by doing a different type of step, other than HKOLL, HKPLL. Right now Speedsolving methods average around 50-60 moves. I have never done FMC before or any cubing competition. I am just testing out ways to solve the cube that could possibly be used in a Speedsolve. I got the LLE+1C, L3C Step, mainly based off on looking at the Snyder method and Heise method, not FMC techniques.

Edit: Also, if Speedsolves were to lower movecount to around 35, what techniques do you think we would use? Some FMC techniques are already applied to Speedsolves, such as Blockbuilding. SSC/ECE, a method that averages around 45 moves, is a speed-optimized method from the Two-Phase Computer System. It can later be possible to lower the speed-optimized system even lower, by changing some things. I am mainly saying that when a Speedsolve's movecount lowers, they will likely resemble FMC, at least a little more than the usual 50-60 move Speedsolves.

I am not trying to troll.


----------



## adimare (Apr 13, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> When I do reconstructions, I don't spend an hour doing an FMC solve (Around 5-10 Minutes).


You still shouldn't call them "reconstructions". That word makes it seem as though you did a speed solve, recorded it, and then reconstructed the steps you followed. 15 minutes or an hour, an FMC solve is an FMC solve.



JTWong71 said:


> Also, for the L3C-Setup, I will mainly use Cube Explorer to solve till that point.


Sequences generated by Cube Explorer usually don't translate into viable speed solving approaches.



JTWong71 said:


> I have been testing blockbuilding for a bit, and I can usually solve a 2x2x3 in around 10-13 moves, depending on my inspection.


That's a solid start for FMC. If you take a couple of hours to look into NISS, pseudo blocks and commutator insertions you'll be coming up with <30 move solutions in no time.



JTWong71 said:


> What I am trying to do is mainly see how far the method can go.


Seems to me that in doing so you've completely deviated away from the proposed method and are currently rediscovering FMC techniques while giving false hope to people who have faith in this method.



JTWong71 said:


> I have never done FMC before or any cubing competition.


You should, you seem to have a talent for it.



JTWong71 said:


> I got the LLE+1C, L3C Step, mainly based off on looking at the Snyder method and Heise method, not FMC techniques.


I'm not too familiar with Snyder, but Heise is pretty much the core method used for FMC, I don't think anyone considers it a speed solving method.



JTWong71 said:


> I am mainly saying that when a Speedsolve's movecount lowers, they will likely resemble FMC, at least a little more than the usual 50-60 move Speedsolves.


The problem is that the things that make an FMC method good are not the same things that make a speedsolving method good. Otherwise, everyone would be using Heise for speed solving instead of CFOP. A good approach to FMC solves as many pieces as possible in a few moves; but in speed solving, dealing with more than 2 pieces at a time (sometimes 3 in Roux or ZZ) completely destroys lookahead.



JTWong71 said:


> I am not trying to troll.


I believe you now, I apologize for saying that. But I do think you're misleading the proponents of this method by posting solutions with low move counts that you got by using Cube Explorer.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 13, 2016)

adimare said:


> But I do think you're misleading the proponents of this method by posting solutions with low move counts that you got by using Cube Explorer.



The only time where I will use Cube Explorer is when there is something that isn't always the easiest to solve intuitively with close to optimal moves for the step.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 13, 2016)

adimare said:


> dealing with more than 2 pieces at a time (sometimes 3 in Roux or ZZ) completely destroys lookahead.



After thinking a little bit, I saw that look ahead would be difficult. When I think about it, only solving 2 pieces at a time on F2L will take at most 6 looks. I think it is possible to tracks 3-4 pieces at a time, with practice and as long as all the places that the pieces can be are in sight without having to slightly turn your head (Such as a 2GF2L). I am mainly trying to figure out a possible way that could bring down the move count and be a fast Speedsolving method. I try to throw out some ideas, and I will look at them later. I should probably then just think about the idea a little more before proposing them, as I believe I try to think too hard on how to lower move count than on lookahead.

Edit: I do think it is possible to get Speedsolving move count around 40 or below on average.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 13, 2016)

adimare said:


> It doesn't. Have you tried speedsolving with this method? Quite often an edge piece you need for f2l is trapped in the position of the cross piece that you inexplicably refuse to solve in the first stages; when that happens your f2l flow is completely destroyed.
> Having to solve 9 pieces instead of 8 during the LL just increases the amount of algs you need to memorize from dozens to hundreds, makes recognition way harder, and greatly reduces the chances of skipping any of the steps.
> 
> Have you paid attention to his example solves? First of all, let's be clear about the fact that they're FMC attempts, not speed solve reconstructions. Also, they have nothing to do with this method... I'm pretty sure he's just trolling you by presenting mediocre FMC attempts and calling them HK variants. He's just doing standard AB3C skeletons and solving the last 3 corners with a commutator.
> ...


Lol you seem to have this thought in your head that you absolutely have to not solve an edge piece for this method to work...
Dozens to hundreds? For pure HK, but there is a 14 alg 2LLL for one variant. Again,more HK isn't practical and I'm aware. That's all you are talking about so far.
The Petrus variant is the best so far. evidence is Alex Maass's video of him Speedsolving with the method And getting times faster than he usually gets with a good average for him, better than his main method, only a few minutes after learning the method. 

I am not exactly sure where your argument is, what you have against the method, and why. You are just repeating yourself.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 13, 2016)

adimare said:


> Seems to me that in doing so you've completely deviated away from the proposed method and are currently rediscovering FMC techniques while giving false hope to people who have faith in this method.


The basis of this method is freedom, is completely okay that he is doing this, as there will always be new variants and new ideas. Here he is just using a different way to finish cube.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 13, 2016)

Trying to combine with ECE/SSC:
I. 2x2x2 Block (In BL)
II. EO + Extend to 2x2x3 Block (Full block at DL)
III. 2x2x1 Block + CP (Not sure if CP is worth doing)
IV. Solve last E-Slice Edge while Orienting Corners
V. Solve LL + F2L Corner (2G, CP+EO Solved, along with a 2x2x3 Block)

31 STM Example Solve (Somewhat lucky):
R U2 D' F' D' //2x2x2
F2 R U2 F2 R U R2 //EO + 2x2x3
y' U2 R' U2 F U R' U' R F' U' R2 //2x2x1 + CP + F2L Skip
U M2 U M' U2 M U M2 //EPLL

Edit:
Maybe combining like:
I. 2x2x2 Block
II. EO + Extend to 2x2x3 Block
III. E-Slice + CO
IV. CP+EP (Not sure exactly how many algorithms there would be... All pieces oriented, 5 Edges, 6 Corners left to solve)

Same Scramble 38 STM Solve:

R U2 D' F' D' //2x2x2
F2 R U2 F2 R U R2 //EO + 2x2x3
y' R U R U2 R' U R U2 R2 //E-Slice + EO (Cancelled 'R' Move)
D' R' U2 R' U R2 U' R D R U R' U D' R D R' //CP+EP

The second combination looks less efficient, but easier to execute.


----------



## adimare (Apr 14, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Lol you seem to have this thought in your head that you absolutely have to not solve an edge piece for this method to work...


It's in the description of pretty much every variant of the method in the OP... also, if you remove that and say that you should solve that piece, then this method is just ZZ if you orient the edges in the first step, or CFOP if you don't...



wir3sandfir3s said:


> I am not exactly sure where your argument is, what you have against the method, and why. You are just repeating yourself.


How am I repeating myself? My arguments should be clear from my posts: 1) The main idea of this method (which seems to be extra freedom in the F2L by ignoring one of the cross pieces) is terrible and 2) The so-called variants of the method have absolutely nothing to do with the original ideas and bring nothing new to the table, they're just regular Heise or Petrus solves.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> The basis of this method is freedom, is completely okay that he is doing this, as there will always be new variants and new ideas. Here he is just using a different way to finish cube.


You're basically saying that any solve can be counted as HK. Take a look at this HK-NISS variation solve I did a few days ago for the FMC weekly competition:

Scramble: D2 F2 B' U' F' D' U2 R2 L' D' F L' R2 D' F' L' U' L B2 F
{F U L} // EO
U' L2 F' R2 D' L2 U2 L2 // 2x2x3
{U' * F'} // F2L-1
{F' B U B' U B U2 F B'} // AB3C
*: [R', U L' U']

23 htm!!! Imagine how great this will be for speedsolving


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 16, 2016)

adimare said:


> It's in the description of pretty much every variant of the method in the OP... also, if you remove that and say that you should solve that piece, then this method is just ZZ if you orient the edges in the first step, or CFOP if you don't...
> 
> 
> How am I repeating myself? My arguments should be clear from my posts: 1) The main idea of this method (which seems to be extra freedom in the F2L by ignoring one of the cross pieces) is terrible and 2) The so-called variants of the method have absolutely nothing to do with the original ideas and bring nothing new to the table, they're just regular Heise or Petrus solves.
> ...


Alright I think I finally see what you mean, sorry. Correct me if I am wrong.
So we are talking about two different things: FMC and Speedsolving. For FMC, you are totally correct then. I haven't really done FMC too much so don't quote me on this, but the steps kind of tend to mold together and it the methods are really free (thinking of getting into FMC, seems fun). So, it is basically impossible to make variations or hybrids of a method, because it would be too one sided, so you are definitely correct there.
For this method in Speedsolving, I am not trying to take any FMC technique and apply it to Speedsolving. Speedsolving methods are more restricted which help look ahead and you always know what to do next. Because of this, it is better to make variations, and that's what i have been doing with this method - creating Speedsolving variations. I corrected myself a little while ago (a few pages back in the thread replies) and said this method wasn't good for FMC quite yet and I would work on a variation for it (and am still doing so). I thought JTWong71 was actually doing Speedsolving reconstructions and just using different LL techniques, but you have helped bring to my attention that this is incorrect (thanks). Now, the variations/hybrids are HK variations/hybrids because they share traits with both HK and whatever else.
So this argument has gotten quite off topic from where it started, so if I still haven't made a valid argument for anything please tell me. Also, if this goes on any longer, I think we will have to agree to disagree (lol).
Perspective matters, sorry. My bad


----------



## PurpleBanana (Apr 16, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> The only time where I will use Cube Explorer is when there is something that isn't always the easiest to solve intuitively with close to optimal moves for the step.


Unless you generally use Cube Explorer during speedsolves, an example solve you did with Cube Explorer is not an accurate representation of the potential of a method during a speedsolve. 

How about you do some speedsolves with this method, post the video, and let someone else reconstruct them. Then we'll see how efficient this method really is.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 16, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I don't have anything to film my solves or to upload it on, as my parents don't want to me put things on Youtube.





JTWong71 said:


> but do you think I wouldn't already have a channel if I am able to get 12 second averages? One of the solves was also a couple days before I posted it on the forums.





PurpleBanana said:


> Unless you generally use Cube Explorer during speedsolves, an example solve you did with Cube Explorer is not an accurate representation of the potential of a method during a speedsolve.
> 
> How about you do some speedsolves with this method, post the video, and let someone else reconstruct them. Then we'll see how efficient this method really is.



Out of all of the example solves I did, only 1 of them I used Cube Explorer for 1 of the steps. All of the other ones I used without the aid of software.


----------



## PurpleBanana (Apr 16, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Out of all of the example solves I did, only 1 of them I used Cube Explorer for 1 of the steps. All of the other ones I used without the aid of software.


Why don't you do some speedsolves and post the video?


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 16, 2016)

PurpleBanana said:


> Why don't you do some speedsolves and post the video?



Um... Did you read my first 2 quotes?
My parents won't allow me to have a Youtube channel or record because "Everyone" can see.


----------



## PurpleBanana (Apr 16, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> Um... Did you read my first 2 quotes?
> My parents won't allow me to have a Youtube channel or record because "Everyone" can see.


I see.


----------



## Hssandwich (Apr 16, 2016)

PurpleBanana said:


> I see.


So does everyone.


----------



## Hssandwich (Apr 16, 2016)

U2 F2 L2 U' F2 D R2 U L2 D' U' B U B2 U L U F2 L' F R

R' L2 F' U' B U B' F2 B2 y2 //EOarrow
R U2 R L' U2 L 
R' U' R U R' U' R
U' L U L' U2 L U L'
U R U2 R' U R U' R' //F2L-1 Edge
z D' R U' R2 D R' U D' R U' R2 D R' U z' //HKOLL + preserving blocks
R U R' U' R' U' R' U R U //HKPLL

60HTM, where is the efficiency in this method? I can see how it might work if you did the petrus 'variant'.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 16, 2016)

Hssandwich said:


> U2 F2 L2 U' F2 D R2 U L2 D' U' B U B2 U L U F2 L' F R
> 
> R' L2 F' U' B U B' F2 B2 y2 //EOarrow
> R U2 R L' U2 L
> ...



Was the last two things you did in that solve just a normal PLL and HKEP?

I pretty much just think of this method as a subset type thing.
Leaving one unsolved F2L-Piece is pretty much the idea of this method.
I don't really like the Non-Variant HK as much as the Variants.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 20, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> I can try to help you with that.
> I am currently trying to find a method other than CFOP that has the potential to be fast.


yea, this seems like it has potential to be fast. What's the most algorithm-efficient version? and also what do the EHKPLL algorithms do and what are the cases(It means edges Hawaiian kociemba Pll right?)


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 20, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> yea, this seems like it has potential to be fast. What's the most algorithm-efficient version? and also what do the EHKPLL algorithms do and what are the cases(It means edges Hawaiian kociemba Pll right?)


The most alg efficient variation is the CP+EO variation, some people say it's complex to learn but I found it pretty easy to pick up. EHKPLL are the edge HKPLLs, like EPLLs. HKPLL is Hawaiian Kociemba PLL. So yes, you are correct.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2016)

Hey guys, I made an easier algorithm list for EHKPLL, its here. I also came up with names for the cases, if you don't like the names tell me and I'll change them


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 21, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> Hey guys, I made an easier algorithm list for EHKPLL, its here. I also came up with names for the cases, if you don't like the names tell me and I'll change them


Thanks  I'll add this soon.
EDIT: the sixth one is missing


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Thanks  I'll add this soon.
> EDIT: the sixth one is missing


what sixth one? which case?
I didn't see which one was missing, theres five algs. But whichever one it is, let me know and Ill fix it!


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 21, 2016)

I fixed it and now its there, its good now


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

What are the algorithms for the "mirrors?"(by mirrors I mean the case is completely mirror image of the regular case)? 
nothing I try works...


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> What are the algorithms for the "mirrors?"(by mirrors I mean the case is completely mirror image of the regular case)?
> nothing I try works...


Are you solving with the incomplete edge in the left or right?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

right


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> right


Then the Algs should work fine, no mirrors needed.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Then the Algs should work fine, no mirrors needed.


well, I got some cases where they were wiiierd... like none of the algs would work


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> well, I got some cases where they were wiiierd... like none of the algs would work


and they all seemed like they were mirrors of the other algs. I ended up having to do the algs 2x. remember this is for EHKPLL not HKPLL


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> well, I got some cases where they were wiiierd... like none of the algs would work


Which variation? Also, try AUFing, cube explorer filters and unfilters pretty weird stuff for me.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

petrus variation, and yes i tried AUFing, to no avail.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> petrus variation, and yes i tried AUFing, to no avail.


And which alg set?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

EHKPLL, and the algorithm list I made, remember


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> EHKPLL, and the algorithm list I made, remember


Try the L5E Algs.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

when i try i get "404 not found.
"


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

how do you change that?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 22, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> how do you change that?


Idk, that's a tech problem, sorry


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 22, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Idk, that's a tech problem, sorry


then pleeease can you figure out a way of publishing the algs online plz? ive looked everywhere and there are no L5E algs anywhere online


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 24, 2016)

hey guys ive almost completely transitioned over to this method because I can get insanely fast times with the petrus variant.
to get times about 8 seconds lower than my former main I do(im learning algs to make this faster):
1.petrus 2x2x2(plan during inspection)->2x2x3
2.solve final 2 pairs
3.2-look corners(OCLL+T and Y perm)
4.L5E EO(roux-like EO, but with only 5 edges)
5.insert the DF edge with M' U2 M' and EPLL

comparison:
average:31-32 secs
avg. with roux:38 secs

and this long sequence still allows me to get averages lower than my main(Roux)
This method is _Really _fast, i like it! Im learning OCLL and Im going to learn L5E/EHKPLL algorithms too. that will take a lot off my time.

Thank you Wirsandfirs3! youre awesome!


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 24, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hey guys ive almost completely transitioned over to this method because I can get insanely fast times with the petrus variant.
> to get times about 8 seconds lower than my former main I do(im learning algs to make this faster):
> 1.petrus 2x2x2(plan during inspection)->2x2x3
> 2.solve final 2 pairs
> ...



Congrats!
How far do you think your times can go down if you stick with the method variant?

I am currently trying to make a speedsolving method consisting of ZZ, Petrus, and little to no CFOP (Averaging around 37 moves).


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 24, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hey guys ive almost completely transitioned over to this method because I can get insanely fast times with the petrus variant.
> to get times about 8 seconds lower than my former main I do(im learning algs to make this faster):
> 1.petrus 2x2x2(plan during inspection)->2x2x3
> 2.solve final 2 pairs
> ...


Glad this works for you 
Further proof this is 
a. A decent method
b. The Petrus variant is best for Speedsolving.
The EO with 5 edges is actually FreeFOP step 3. I have all the cases, if you want them. They are easy.


----------



## IwantCubingTips (Apr 24, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So most of your are probably familiar with Micheal Humuhumunukunukapua'a's debut video(I didn't copy and paste the name, I memorized it...). In this video, he does a few solves, claiming the method he uses is "Hawaiian Kociemba". The first solve was reconstructed on Reddit, and I have decided to try and decipher his method as no one knows for sure how it works. Keep in mind that this is mostly a theory, and that this could all be totally wrong, but if this is correct, then it is a pretty decent method.
> EDIT: This is an amazingly efficient method, and great for both speed solving and FMC. Read some of the later replies.
> 
> 
> ...


Its Fake Solves. The solves are from Rowe


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 24, 2016)

IwantCubingTips said:


> Its Fake Solves. The solves are from Rowe



I think almost everyone knows about that now.
But one of the similar concepts done in all three of his solves gave us a decent "Subset" of leaving 1 F2L piece out.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Apr 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hey guys ive almost completely transitioned over to this method because I can get insanely fast times with the petrus variant.
> to get times about 8 seconds lower than my former main I do(im learning algs to make this faster):
> 1.petrus 2x2x2(plan during inspection)->2x2x3
> 2.solve final 2 pairs
> ...



What you described is almost exactly the T-CELL method, except I think in that method, you leave out a corner out of F2L as well, and do TCLL to solve the remaining 5 corners. My point is, that method isn't exactly new or revolutionary.

In fact, I think I can improve it a bit. So I'm fairly certain that doing L5E the way your doing, and doing LSE Roux style is about the same amount of moves, and IMO, LSE Roux style has better lookahead, so the method could be revised as:

1. Build 2 2x2x1s (At least 1 planned in inspection)
2. Solve final 2 pairs
3. CMLL
4. LSE

At this point, this method is Roux with a different way of building the blocks. And in my opinion, building one block at a time is better anyway, due to no rotations and the moveset quickly being limited to [R,r,M,U].

But if you're better with the method that you proposed, good for you .


----------



## theawesomecuber (Apr 25, 2016)

IwantCubingTips said:


> Its Fake Solves. The solves are from Rowe



I don't think that's really relevant to this. Sure, the solves were faked, but the point is that it gave people the (not so new) idea of leaving a part out of F2L to solve while solving LL.

Slightly irrelevant thought, I don't think it's good to put all of these very diverse methods under the umbrella term "Hawaiian Kociemba", considering how different some of the variations are.


----------



## adimare (Apr 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> hey guys ive almost completely transitioned over to this method because I can get insanely fast times with the petrus variant.
> to get times about 8 seconds lower than my former main I do(im learning algs to make this faster):
> 1.petrus 2x2x2(plan during inspection)->2x2x3
> 2.solve final 2 pairs
> ...



How would you finish this solve?

Scramble: x B2 L' D2 L2 U2 B2 L F2 L' U2 B' R' D' L2 U L' U' L' U2
D' F L' F2 D' L2 // 2x2x2
x U' R' U R2 U' R' y // 2x2x3
y U' R U' R' y' U R' U2 R' U' R // F2L pair

The piece you need to finish the F2L is trapped in DR, what to do? (You will run into this issue one out of every 6 solves using the method you described).


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2016)

theawesomecuber said:


> I don't think that's really relevant to this. Sure, the solves were faked, but the point is that it gave people the (not so new) idea of leaving a part out of F2L to solve while solving LL.
> 
> Slightly irrelevant thought, I don't think it's good to put all of these very diverse methods under the umbrella term "Hawaiian Kociemba", considering how different some of the variations are.


I kind of agree. we could consider pikashit to be a hawaiian Kociemba method if we don't categorize them.
but then, they all include leaving one edge out of the F2L and solving it at the end.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2016)

adimare said:


> How would you finish this solve?
> 
> Scramble: x B2 L' D2 L2 U2 B2 L F2 L' U2 B' R' D' L2 U L' U' L' U2
> D' F L' F2 D' L2 // 2x2x2
> ...



You gotta think like a roux solver. Try M' (U or U' or U2) M. 

If you set up the corner right then you can often pair them up by executing this.


----------



## JTWong71 (Apr 25, 2016)

If I were doing it, I would do:
y U M' U2 L' U' l


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2016)

JTWong71 said:


> If I were doing it, I would do:
> y U M' U2 L' U' l


I didn't actually put the solve in, i just answered the question of the trapped f2L edge, but yeah that works.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

theawesomecuber said:


> What you described is almost exactly the T-CELL method, except I think in that method, you leave out a corner out of F2L as well, and do TCLL to solve the remaining 5 corners. My point is, that method isn't exactly new or revolutionary.
> 
> In fact, I think I can improve it a bit. So I'm fairly certain that doing L5E the way your doing, and doing LSE Roux style is about the same amount of moves, and IMO, LSE Roux style has better lookahead, so the method could be revised as:
> 
> ...


TCELL isn't very original either, then, because there are literally dozens of methods like that...
The L5E is a lot better IMO because you can actually do the EO while inserting the edge, and at that point you are left with an EPLL which all have awesome recog and execution. L5E is definitely better here, but L6E is better for a roux setup.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

adimare said:


> How would you finish this solve?
> 
> Scramble: x B2 L' D2 L2 U2 B2 L F2 L' U2 B' R' D' L2 U L' U' L' U2
> D' F L' F2 D' L2 // 2x2x2
> ...


You wouldn't even solve the pair if it is there, insert it so that the edge doesn't end up in DL. Simple... Unless I completely misinterpreted you which I am very good at.


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 25, 2016)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zSHsnNOpfEQP7qYrX_plR0YIqtEnx9Q9rvjCJe8URco/edit?usp=sharing 
updated link, broke for some reason oops


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 25, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zSHsnNOpfEQP7qYrX_plR0YIqtEnx9Q9rvjCJe8URco/edit?usp=sharing
> updated link, broke for some reason oops


Cool thx


----------



## adimare (Apr 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> You gotta think like a roux solver. Try M' (U or U' or U2) M.
> 
> If you set up the corner right then you can often pair them up by executing this.





wir3sandfir3s said:


> You wouldn't even solve the pair if it is there, insert it so that the edge doesn't end up in DL. Simple... Unless I completely misinterpreted you which I am very good at.


That makes no sense. You guys should try opening the link before responding next time.



JTWong71 said:


> If I were doing it, I would do:
> y U M' U2 L' U' l


Exactly, you're forced to do a y rotation and use M' to take the piece out. In a speedsolve that is terribly inconvenient. What's the advantage of not solving the piece again? All I notice is it leads to worse lookeahead, less chances of LL skips, and a ridiculous amount of algs needed to solve the LL in 2 algs... Have you seen the Mike H expose video? Rowe even says at some point "I solved F2L but left an edge out, which you should never do".


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 25, 2016)

It is efficient, and lookahead isnt that bad.
If you can get lower TPS but also lower movecount and can get decentlyfast(sub-20), then all you need to do to get sub-10 is to speed up TPS slowly


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 25, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> It is efficient, and lookahead isnt that bad.
> If you can get lower TPS but also lower movecount and can get decentlyfast(sub-20), then all you need to do to get sub-10 is to speed up TPS slowly


It's not that efficient. You are only saving like 3 moves during f2l (assuming the edge doesn't get trapped). Doing all the complicated ll stuff isn't really worth it.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> It's not that efficient. You are only saving like 3 moves during f2l (assuming the edge doesn't get trapped). Doing all the complicated ll stuff isn't really worth it.


Not if you do it correctly, you can easily avoid getting the edge trapped...


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> It's not that efficient. You are only saving like 3 moves during f2l (assuming the edge doesn't get trapped). Doing all the complicated ll stuff isn't really worth it.


explain the insanely fast times then.


----------



## adimare (Apr 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> explain the insanely fast times then.


Did I miss something?


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

adimare said:


> Did I miss something?


The times on this are really good...
That kind of outclasses all evidence of it being bad, but correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## adimare (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> The times on this are really good...
> That kind of outclasses all evidence of it being bad, but correct me if I'm wrong.



Are you talking about Shiv3r's alleged 32 second averages? What times are you getting with this wir3sandfir3s? I must have missed evidence of these "insanely fast times".


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

adimare said:


> Are you talking about Shiv3r's alleged 32 second averages? What times are you getting with this wir3sandfir3s? I must have missed evidence of these "insanely fast times".


Just because they aren't fast for you doesn't mean they aren't fast for other people...
He claimed that he dropped about 10 seconds off his times with Roux, and Alex Maass made a video on his YouTube channel using the SAME variant and got some good times as well.


----------



## adimare (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Just because they aren't fast for you doesn't mean they aren't fast for other people...


Ok then, let's look at the two examples you used.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> He claimed that he dropped about 10 seconds off his times with Roux


Was Roux his main? Don't you find it hard to believe that someone would drop 10 full seconds with a new method regardless of how good the method is? This claim is also ridiculous because the Petrus variant heavily relies on being decent at Roux (which he's not).



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Alex Maass made a video on his YouTube channel using the SAME variant and got some good times as well.


That's because of good TPS. Take a look at a reconstruction of his 16.43 second solve from that video:

Scramble: y' z U L U2 B2 D' F2 B L D' R F R2 D2 L2 B' R2 F' B2 U2 D2
z' // Inspection
R F R' U' R L' U L // 2x2x2
l R M' U R' U' R U r U' L' U r' // 2x2x3
U2 R U R' U y R U' R' // Pair
y' d R' U' R // Pair
y R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'// CMLL
y U' M' U M // EO
y' U2 R2 U2 M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' R2 U2 // L5E
(72 moves)

Now, had he solved the cross piece after the 2x2x3 he would have had to execute 2 algs to finish the LL (OLL and PLL). Instead of that, he had to do CMLL, then Roux style EO, then a conjugated Z-Perm to solve the 4 unsolved edges... do you really think not having to solve one piece is worth all that?


----------



## Kit Clement (Apr 26, 2016)

Tangentially relevant: 




It's totally possible to make an absolutely garbage method and still get sub-20 on it. This doesn't obscure the fact that this said method would be completely outclassed by any real speedsolving method, just like this method is.

I'm still amazed people are arguing over the validity and usefulness of a method that fabricated itself out of an April Fools' Day joke. The solves that inspired this whole discussion were made by _undoing a solved cube_.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

adimare said:


> Ok then, let's look at the two examples you used.
> 
> 
> Was Roux his main? Don't you find it hard to believe that someone would drop 10 full seconds with a new method regardless of how good the method is? This claim is also ridiculous because the Petrus variant heavily relies on being decent at Roux (which he's not).
> ...





Kit Clement said:


> Tangentially relevant:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not even arguing that how this method works is good, I'm just using a popular trend...
I honestly don't see the problem of the edge getting trapped a big deal because it can be easily avoided, however. 
The majority of people at least say this method is somewhat viable, all I am arguing is that it's not as terrible as you say. I am not in any way arguing that this is the ultimate method to conquer CFOP...
The method is at least decent, but heavily outclassed by other methods like ZZ or Roux. It can work better than these methods for a few people.
The one thing I honestly don't understand is the hate against this method. The vast majority of people clearly say that this method does not suck as much as you describe.
Also, I believe Shiv3r dropped 10 seconds... Not sure why don't. On the internet you have to take someone's word most of the time, and in pretty sure there is one on this forum who would lie.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I'm not even arguing that how this method works is good, I'm just using a popular trend...
> I honestly don't see the problem of the edge getting trapped a big deal because it can be easily avoided, however.
> The majority of people at least say this method is somewhat viable, all I am arguing is that it's not as terrible as you say. I am not in any way arguing that this is the ultimate method to conquer CFOP...
> The method is at least decent, but heavily outclassed by other methods like ZZ or Roux. It can work better than these methods for a few people.
> ...



Using this method and algorithms I already knew, I can get sub-30 instead of sub-40. Yesterday I tied my PB (21 seconds)
and got a 31 sec Ao5.
this method is very viable.

but if youre looking for a method that'll conquer CFOP, look at LCMF or ECE or (ABC method). that method has been proven to be able to get sub 10, and when the creator does a 10-sec solve his TPS is that of a sub-20 CFOP solve
Im using this method instead of that one because im faster at this method, thats it.


----------



## adimare (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> I'm not even arguing that how this method works is good, I'm just using a popular trend...


It's not a popular trend, there's like 4 people (yourself included) that haven't been able to figure out that this method is terrible.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> I honestly don't see the problem of the edge getting trapped a big deal because it can be easily avoided, however.


Do you actually use this method?
If the idea is to add a bit of freedom to the F2L by being able to ignore one cross piece, you're completely negating that by having to make sure the remaining edge is not trapped in its place.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> The majority of people at least say this method is somewhat viable, all I am arguing is that it's not as terrible as you say.


No, the majority of people are ignoring this thread.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> I am not in any way arguing that this is the ultimate method to conquer CFOP...
> The method is at least decent, but heavily outclassed by other methods like ZZ or Roux. *It can work better than these methods for a few people.*


No it can't. This is why I argue against this method. If an unexperienced cuber comes and sees this thread, he might be tricked into thinking that HK is viable for speedsolving, and might end up wasting a lot of time trying to learn L5E algs that he could spend learning something actually useful.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> The one thing I honestly don't understand is the hate against this method.


No hate, this is just criticism. If the method is actually good, you should be able to respond to it.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> The vast majority of people clearly say that this method does not suck as much as you describe.


If I start a thread titled "Eating cat hair is freaking awesome", most people will ignore it, but a few weirdos might come in and say "ZOMG you too??? I luvz eating sum cat hair!!!". Could I then say that the vast majority of people clearly love eating cat hair? (Even by looking only at the people that have posted in this thread, you can't say the vast majority of them support this method).



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Also, I believe Shiv3r dropped 10 seconds... Not sure why don't. On the internet you have to take someone's word most of the time, and in pretty sure there is one on this forum who would lie.


Some people would rather be right than stay truthful, I'm surprised he's not claiming he's getting sub-10 averages yet. An Ao12 video from him would be useful for your cause.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2016)

adimare said:


> It's not a popular trend, there's like 4 people (yourself included) that haven't been able to figure out that this method is terrible.
> 
> 
> Do you actually use this method?
> ...


I am actually, truthfully getting 31 second Ao5's. My main, Roux, gets me about 39 on a good day. Im just somewhat good at blockbuilding.
And before you jump to conclusions about this method, try out the petrus variant, and after you orient edges insert the D edge and do EPLL. No new algs to learn, so its pretty decent.


----------



## adimare (Apr 26, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> I am actually, truthfully getting 31 second Ao5's. My main, Roux, gets me about 39 on a good day. Im just somewhat good at blockbuilding.


Then try ZZ or Petrus, you'll be basically skipping a full step if you stop using this method.



Shiv3r said:


> And before you jump to conclusions about this method, try out the petrus variant, and after you orient edges insert the D edge and do EPLL. No new algs to learn, so its pretty decent.


I have tried it, probably more so than wir3sandfir3s. After the initial 2x2x3 It's a lot faster for me to properly solve the F2L then do COLL+EPLL than to not solve the remaining cross piece and then have to do COLL+EO+Insert D edge+EPLL.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

adimare said:


> It's not a popular trend, there's like 4 people (yourself included) that haven't been able to figure out that this method is terrible.
> 
> 
> Do you actually use this method?
> ...


Clearly we have different ways of thinking (lol).
By vast majority of people or popular trend I mean out of the people who have tried this method out... 
Not popular??? In the first 1-2 days this was up, this thread has gotten more views and replies than threads that have been around for 1-2 YEARS (SSC, ECE)(not saying this method is better because it probably isn't).
I have NEVER said that this method is amazing, except for a while ago on past thread edits. It is just average.
Who ever said this method was supposed to be for beginners? It is just another one of those extra meow you can learn, like if CFOP is your main then it is still a good idea to learn ZZ, Petrus, Roux, etc..
Also, I would like to point out that your whole argument has been from YOUR perspective. Maybe 30 seconds is slow for you but fast for someone else. Maybe you like CFOP but other people hate it. Maybe you can't see why this method is decent but a bunch of other people can. It is just another one of those methods that depends on your style of solving, like Roux.
It also is most likely that on paper it doesn't seem like it would work out but it does. CP seems good on paper but the recog is terrible (on paper it seems like you would just ignore orientation and it's all good). Roux seems like it wouldn't be as good as it turned out because CMLL recog would be bad (and it kind of is) and L6E solves a lot of the cube, it would be hard to make and follow a set way of doing it. These are just examples.
I also still don't understand what you mean by the last F2L getting trapped and being problem... It is easily avoidable.


----------



## Cale S (Apr 26, 2016)

This method isn't something you should do every solve, but if you see that you could really easily solve the last two pairs missing the edge, the L5E algs are a cool thing to know


----------



## adimare (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Clearly we have different ways of thinking (lol).
> By vast majority of people or popular trend I mean out of the people who have tried this method out...


It's easy to be right when you change the meaning of sentences to fit your needs.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Not popular??? In the first 1-2 days this was up, this thread has gotten more views and replies than threads that have been around for 1-2 YEARS (SSC, ECE)(not saying this method is better because it probably isn't).


Those didn't have a hoax video attached to them of someone getting sub6 averages using the method...



wir3sandfir3s said:


> I have NEVER said that this method is amazing, except for a while ago on past thread edits. It is just average.


You did a good job of countering yourself there, so I'm not needed.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> Also, I would like to point out that your whole argument has been from YOUR perspective.


That's a lie. My main argument against this method is that not solving a cross piece leads to a more complicated and inefficient last layer. How is that something that's only valid from my perspective?



wir3sandfir3s said:


> It also is most likely that on paper it doesn't seem like it would work out but it does. CP seems good on paper but the recog is terrible (on paper it seems like you would just ignore orientation and it's all good). Roux seems like it wouldn't be as good as it turned out because CMLL recog would be bad (and it kind of is) and L6E solves a lot of the cube, it would be hard to make and follow a set way of doing it. These are just examples.


Those are terrible examples. On paper it's easy to see why CP recog is terrible, and Roux seems good on paper.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> I also still don't understand what you mean by the last F2L getting trapped and being problem... It is easily avoidable.


Have you used this method? It's way easier to solve the edge piece than to avoid trapping your last edge piece, and it leads to a faster LL (not just for me, for anyone, unless you argue that it's easier to solve 5 edges with one on the D layer than just 4 on the U layer).


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 26, 2016)

yeah tbh the way to determine if a method is good is to just get fast with it, which hasnt been quite done for this method, it may not be fast speedsolving (i can average sub 20 on it though) but its cool, and the l5e algs seem useful to know, could be helpful for fmc


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 26, 2016)

guys I have a solve i recorded, its terrible angle(I shot it with a laptop webcam) but here it is.(mute the volume please, its annoying)


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

adimare said:


> It's easy to be right when you change the meaning of sentences to fit your needs.
> 
> 
> Those didn't have a hoax video attached to them of someone getting sub6 averages using the method...
> ...


I seriously hate when no one takes my word on something. That was the original meaning, I did not change what it meant in any way, you misinterpreted it because I failed to specify out of which group.
It's the method that counts. Not a clearly fake video...
EDIT: Sorry, missinterpretation. Please find the video in my originak post.
Seriously? I've claimed this in the past before NUMEROUS times.
From your perspective, you have claimed that it is impossible to get fast at. Countered by video evidence (not the fake one) from more than one person, as well as just general claims. I hate CFOP, but that's from my perspective. I like the more free F2L of FreeFOP and HK. But many people would unequivocally argue that it is commendable.
Yeah, I agree in retrospect. I'm not very good at providing valid examles. A better one would probably he something like WV, which seems like it would be good with 27 algs and free CO While finishing F2L, but really all it does is add more moves than necessary, which makes normal OLL faster. ECE seems bad on paper (just a generic belt followed by generic columns) but clearly turned out a lot better.
I must be seriously missing something, or we are talking about 2 different things. The last edge can be easily avoided from being trapped. No rotatiins into M moves it anything. Even if it does get trapped, you can use 5 2-gen moves to fix it.


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 26, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> From your perspective, you have claimed that it is impossible to get fast at.


He's not saying that it's a bad method or that it's impossible to get fast at. He is just pointing out that it is not as good as just normally inserting the last cross edge and finishing like normal.


wir3sandfir3s said:


> The last edge can be easily avoided from being trapped.


Avoiding trapping the last f2l edge is just about as easy as just inserting the last cross edge. You are also being less efficient because you can't make pairs with the corner and cross edge together.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 26, 2016)

gyroninja said:


> Avoiding trapping the last f2l edge is just about as easy as just inserting the last cross edge. You are also being less efficient because you can't make pairs with the corner and cross edge together.


COLL into L5E has less algs than PLL+OLL and probably just as efficient. The freedom during F2L makes up for aby inefficieny, if any. Also, if the edge piece is solved randomly, you can just leave it there and do an EPLL or OLL into PLL. This was more pointed towards adimare but I thought I would mention it anyway. If you want to make pairs with the cross piece, go ahead. At that point it's just normal ZZ though.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2016)

adimare said:


> Ok then, let's look at the two examples you used.
> 
> 
> Was Roux his main? Don't you find it hard to believe that someone would drop 10 full seconds with a new method regardless of how good the method is? This claim is also ridiculous because the Petrus variant heavily relies on being decent at Roux (which he's not).]



dude. Roux is my main method. the Petrus variant relies on being good at blockbuilding, not roux. please don't insult me, Ive been cubing for about 2 months now.
okay, I'll do an Ao5 right now just to show you
Ao5 with roux: 41 secs.
Ao5 with HK petrus: 31 secs.

this is mostly because I can solve a petrus 2x2x3 in less time than step 1 of either fridrich or Roux. Ive always been fast at petrus-based methods.


----------



## gyroninja (Apr 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> dude. Roux is my main method. the Petrus variant relies on being good at blockbuilding, not roux. please don't insult me, Ive been cubing for about 2 months now.
> okay, I'll do an Ao5 right now just to show you
> Ao5 with roux: 41 secs.
> Ao5 with HK petrus: 31 secs.
> ...


What do you average with normal petrus?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2016)

35 seconds


----------



## adimare (Apr 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> please don't insult me, Ive been cubing for about 2 months now.


Ok, I believe you after seeing that solve, I apologize.



Shiv3r said:


> dude. Roux is my main method. the Petrus variant relies on being good at blockbuilding, not roux.


Roux is all about block building for the first 2 steps. You know, the Roux *blocks*.



Shiv3r said:


> this is mostly because I can solve a petrus 2x2x3 in less time than step 1 of either fridrich or Roux. Ive always been fast at petrus-based methods.


Ever considered trying Petrus? It's way better than this HK nonsense.

Here's a reconstruction of your solve:

Scramble: x2 y D2 B2 D' B2 U B2 L2 D2 B2 R2 U B D2 L' D2 F2 L R U B U2
x y' // Inspection
U' R U' R' U2 F R U y x' U3' x' y' d x y L U L' x' U3 y' z U3' r U2 L' // 2x2x2
B' x' U' R2' U' U2 x R x' U R' U' R U R' U' U2 z' R' U' R // 2x2x3
U U' x' U U' y U' x' U y' l' R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U' R2 // F2L-1
y z' M' U' M // Unsolve cross piece
U U3' U2 L' U2 L U2' L' U L // Last pair
U U' R U2 R2' U' R2' U' R2 U2 R // OCLL
U2 R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' // PCLL
U U' U M' U M U2 M' U M // EO
U' U2 M' U2 M // Solve DF
U3 y2' R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' // EPLL

Notice that you had solved F2L except for one pair, and could have finished by just solving the pair, then applying OLL+PLL. Instead, you took out an already solved cross piece, solved a pair, then did COLL, then EO, then solved back the piece that you had taken out, then EPLL. If you had not taken out that solved piece, after solving the pair you could have done OLL+PLL and be done with the solve.


----------



## vcuber13 (Apr 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> guys I have a solve i recorded, its terrible angle(I shot it with a laptop webcam) but here it is.(mute the volume please, its annoying)


You literally solved the white-orange edge, took it out, and solved the green-orange pair as you would in CFOP. Then for L5E, you oriented them, placed the white-orange edge, and did a U-perm.
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just leave the white-orange edge solved?

Edit: Ninja'd a bit.


----------



## adimare (Apr 27, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> From your perspective, you have claimed that it is impossible to get fast at.


I never claimed that, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I can get sub-20 with this method, which apparently qualifies as fast in this thread. I can also get sub-20 with LBL, would you say that means that it's a viable speed solving method and some people should use it over CFOP because it fits them better?[/QUOTE]


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 27, 2016)

adimare said:


> I never claimed that, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I can get sub-20 with this method, which apparently qualifies as fast in this thread. I can also get sub-20 with LBL, would you say that means that it's a viable speed solving method and some people should use it over CFOP because it fits them better?


[/QUOTE]
Yes, you did not claim that, I apologize. Looking back, the post I was remembering was that you said that it doesn't work better than other popular methods for other people. Still, it is very similar to what I thought you said and it is still from your perspective. Shiv3r has gotten faster times with this than with Roux, a very popular method.


----------



## adimare (Apr 27, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Still, it is very similar to what I thought you said and it is still from your perspective.


You keep saying that, doesn't make it true. I've presented objective arguments for why this method's only original idea (not solving a cross piece) is nonsensical.



wir3sandfir3s said:


> SShiv3r has gotten faster times with this than with Roux, a very popular method.


Shiv3r has been cubing for 2 months and does 120 move+ solves using this method (can't imagine what his Roux solves are like).

When a novice cuber first learns F2L, his times increase. Would you use that fact as an argument to say that solving F2L by doing corners first and then edges can be more viable for some people than doing edge+corner pair insertions?


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2016)

that was a really bad solve and i didn't solve the 2x2x2 during inspection like I usually do.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2016)

LADIES, LADIES!!!
calm down, you're both pretty!
I think that if we wanted a personal insults to other people's skill thread there would already be one.
So calm down and stop acting like youre always right!
if you can't handle that then go find some other thread to terrorize.


----------



## theawesomecuber (Apr 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> LADIES, LADIES!!!
> calm down, you're both pretty!
> I think that if we wanted a personal insults to other people's skill thread there would already be one.
> So calm down and stop acting like youre always right!
> if you can't handle that then go find some other thread to terrorize.


No one ever insulted your skill, adimare was just pointing out that at your skill level, having a faster time on a different method doesn't necessarily mean it's a better method.

The reason you are slower at Roux than this method is not because this method is better than Roux. It's because Roux is simply a harder method. It's analogous to learning F2L. The reason why a person learning F2L has slower times is because F2L is harder than a LBL approach. However, the important thing is how fast the method can be taken, not how fast you are at it immediately. That's why even thought F2L is undoubtedly faster than LBL, beginners are faster at the latter.

The only person insulting anyone is you insulting adimare, by saying that he is terrorizing this thread. Please never do that again.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 27, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> LADIES, LADIES!!!
> calm down, you're both pretty!
> I think that if we wanted a personal insults to other people's skill thread there would already be one.
> So calm down and stop acting like youre always right!
> if you can't handle that then go find some other thread to terrorize.


I don't see exactly what you mean by terrorization, I just see a normal, friendly argument. And I don't see the insulting of one's skill anywhere either... Neither of us are acting like we are right, either.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2016)

I just hate when people think that I'm a noob because my times aren't as low as theirs. remember, Lars Petrus himself hasn't broken 20 seconds.


----------



## adimare (Apr 27, 2016)

Sorry if you felt insulted. You're fast for someone that's only been cubing for 2 months, probably way faster than I was at that time. My point was that you haven't been using any method long enough for us to consider the results you get with each one as evidence for how good or bad a method is.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 27, 2016)

okay.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 28, 2016)

Hey guys here's a crappy Ao5(I wasn't warmed up till the last 2 solves). but here it is:




times:
1. 34.72
2. 35.77
3. 38.18
4. 32.65
5. 31.39

Ao5: 34.38


----------



## crafto22 (Apr 29, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> Lol you seem to have this thought in your head that you absolutely have to not solve an edge piece for this method to work...
> Dozens to hundreds? For pure HK, but there is a 14 alg 2LLL for one variant. Again,more HK isn't practical and I'm aware. That's all you are talking about so far.
> The Petrus variant is the best so far. evidence is Alex Maass's video of him Speedsolving with the method And getting times faster than he usually gets with a good average for him, better than his main method, only a few minutes after learning the method.
> 
> I am not exactly sure where your argument is, what you have against the method, and why. You are just repeating yourself.


The Petrus variant is literally just Petrus but you don't insert the RD edge, which isn't move-efficient or good for lookahead. Sure it can give you 20 second times, but what could regular Petrus get you? Certainly better. The Petrus variant is literally just a worse Petrus (worse lookahead, move-efficiency, more algs)


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 29, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> The Petrus variant is literally just Petrus but you don't insert the RD edge, which isn't move-efficient or good for lookahead. Sure it can give you 20 second times, but what could regular Petrus get you? Certainly better. The Petrus variant is literally just a worse Petrus (worse lookahead, move-efficiency, more algs)


not as much efficiency, but I think it can be faitrly fast(petrus always slows me after the 2x2x3 block
)


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 29, 2016)

crafto22 said:


> The Petrus variant is literally just Petrus but you don't insert the RD edge, which isn't move-efficient or good for lookahead. Sure it can give you 20 second times, but what could regular Petrus get you? Certainly better. The Petrus variant is literally just a worse Petrus (worse lookahead, move-efficiency, more algs)


EO is skipped.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 29, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> EO is skipped.


I agree its faster


----------



## adimare (Apr 29, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> EO is skipped.


It's not. Both Alex and Shiv3r still do EO by performing a y turn and doing Roux-style EO.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 29, 2016)

adimare said:


> It's not. Both Alex and Shiv3r still do EO by performing a y turn and doing Roux-style EO.


In my case, I dont regrip. The missing edge is always in front during F2L, so I have no regrips after the begining.

I also try to manipulate the EO so it solves the final edge at the same time, so I am only left with EPLL cases


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 29, 2016)

adimare said:


> It's not. Both Alex and Shiv3r still do EO by performing a y turn and doing Roux-style EO.


Actually, you are supposed to D and move for it, so don't blame me on the rotation.


----------



## adimare (Apr 29, 2016)

Either way, the point is that you're not skipping EO. You're doing a restricted version of Roux-EO where you have to maintain the DB piece solved.


----------



## Shiv3r (Apr 29, 2016)

adimare said:


> Either way, the point is that you're not skipping EO. You're doing a restricted version of Roux-EO where you have to maintain the DB piece solved.


thats not too hard, instead of being able to continually do M' moves, you alternate between M' and M. Its pretty decent, really. faster than 2LOLL, for sure.


----------



## Teoidus (May 1, 2016)

Seems like you'd be better off learning Pikashit at this rate--Petrus-like block building, then Roux-like finish.


----------



## Vexatious (May 3, 2016)

Argh bad words!! Also in Pika, the setup moves before roux style is really confusing, I still don't get it


----------



## Shiv3r (May 3, 2016)

Vexatious said:


> Argh bad words!! Also in Pika, the setup moves before roux style is really confusing, I still don't get it


pikashit, you setup roux LSE by doing(if the not-paired corner is on the right): D' R' D R
and then do a strange variant of roux LSE.
then undo it: R' D R D'


----------



## Listrix (Dec 15, 2016)

I understand that this thread is pretty much dead but I've been experimenting with Hawaiian Kociemba for about a week now. I want to make it my main method, mainly because I'm getting bored with CFOP and to prove that Hawaiian Kociemba is a viable method. (long story short when I said I was looking in to Hawaiian Kociemba my friends laughed at me so now I'm going to get sub 15 with it)

I've come up with a few different ideas on how to reduce the amount of algs the LL has because simply put I have trouble learning algs. I still haven't finished CLL after nearly a year. Here's the ideas that I think would be best:

WV/L5EOP:
1. Make 3/4 of a cross (I don't like the idea of doing EO for F2L edges, it restricts look ahead)
2. Get to F2L -1 F2L pair, then use winter variation to insert the last F2L pair and orient the LL corners (27 algs)
3. Use L5EOP to orient the LL edges while inserting the last cross piece (20 algs)
4. Normal PLL (21 algs which most people know)

Now you're probably thinking "if you're just going to insert the last cross piece why not just do CFOP?" Well, there's a few reasons:

1. Look ahead is better during inspection, thanks to doing less moves it's much easier to look in to my first or even second pair during inspection
2. Because the RD edge isn't there you can take advantage of the free R slice
3. Taking advantage of the RD edge you can use M slices to pair edges which I enjoy doing

I'm not saying that this method is better than CFOP, I don't expect people to actually use this for speedsolving (although I kinda want to for the lolz) but while we're theory crafting on how to improve Hawaiian Kociemba I think this variation is valid.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 16, 2016)

Listrix said:


> I understand that this thread is pretty much dead but I've been experimenting with Hawaiian Kociemba for about a week now. I want to make it my main method, mainly because I'm getting bored with CFOP and to prove that Hawaiian Kociemba is a viable method. (long story short when I said I was looking in to Hawaiian Kociemba my friends laughed at me so now I'm going to get sub 15 with it)
> 
> I've come up with a few different ideas on how to reduce the amount of algs the LL has because simply put I have trouble learning algs. I still haven't finished CLL after nearly a year. Here's the ideas that I think would be best:
> 
> ...


I had a similar Idea, but What I did instead was pretty much 3cfce, I did 3 cross edges F2L then CLL and then full L5E(L5EO without placing D edge is really nice and the Permutation algs are really just conjugated EPLLs for the most part)


----------



## Athey! (Mar 5, 2022)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> So most of your are probably familiar with Micheal Humuhumunukunukapua'a's debut video(I didn't copy and paste the name, I memorized it...). In this video, he does a few solves, claiming the method he uses is "Hawaiian Kociemba". The first solve was reconstructed on Reddit, and I have decided to try and decipher his method as no one knows for sure how it works. Keep in mind that this is mostly a theory, and that this could all be totally wrong, but if this is correct, then it is a pretty decent method.
> EDIT: This is an amazingly efficient method, and great for both speed solving and FMC. Read some of the later replies.
> 
> 
> ...


I think the dropbox links are not working...


----------

