# New method extension to Fridrich



## Feryll (Apr 6, 2010)

After some thinking and research, I have come up with a new way to (hopefully) speedsolve with. Maybe 'new' isn't the best way to phrase it, as it is a big extension off of the very popular Fridrich method. Basically, you use algorithms as you insert f2l pairs to achieve two things at once, sort of similar to MGLS. This method should be an easy read and idea to intermediate and expert cubers.

1. *Solve the cross + 2 adjacent f2l pairs* - Basically just that. You build the cross and first f2l pair normally, and then solve one more the isn't diagonal from the first solved pair.

2. *Build the 3rd f2l pair and place it above it's slot* - Basically, have the 3rd pair U R U' R' away from it's solved position. One more thing is that, with the bottom, or single color, of the f2l pair facing you, the empty slot should be on that same face. Example: F2 R' F2 R would be a properly made one. R' F R U' F' Would not (The UF edge and URF corner being the pair). If you make an improper one, you would have to learn twice as many algorithms for the next step. It should also be on the right side, or you'll have twice as many algs for the next step (but at least they'd be mirrors)

3. *Perform an algorithm to orient all edges and place the f2l pair* - If I'm correct, there should be 14 algs to learn, being around 7 moves (I haven't taken a real average yet) They are relatively fingertricky, as they use mostly R, U, F moves to do it near optimally. If you don't want to learn the algorithms, this can be done intuitively, but slower (unless you're extremely good at it).

4. *Make the last f2l pair, plus an extra corner* - Basically, have an extra corner on the f2l pair ready to be inserted. Be sure not to make any F, F', B or B' moves, as that disturbs edge orientation. Example: L' U2 L U2 is an extended f2l pair to be inserted.

5. *Insert 1x1x3 block, and solve corners* - This can be done with a one-look or two look. I suggest 2 look, as the one look has 81 algorithms (8-9 moves) and the 2 look only has 9. If you know about commutators, you can orient the corners, while permuting them, but we need not worry about permutation in the first look of the 2 look. You can research commutators if you don't already know about them. Then there are 9 permuting algorithms.

6. *Permute the last four edges* - Remember how we oriented edges in step 3, and solved the corners in step 5? Well, that only leaves a yummy edge permutation ! This will be an average of 10 moves, depending on how long your 2-gen algorithms are, and a big chance to get a skip on this step.

This means that this method solves the cube in 27 algorithms (Or just 13 if you do edge orientation intuitively), or 99 if you choose to go 1-look on step 5 (So I can say my full optimal method requires less than 100 algorithms!), with an average of 30-35 algorithm moves. A variation would be to go Petrus and replace steps 2 and 3 with a block version of the algorithm, not sure how it would work out.

EXAMPLE: Scramble - D2 F' D' R2 B F D2 F' L2 D L' U D' R' U' F2 U2 L' D' R2 L D2 B2 L' U
Step 1 - L' D B' U B' R2 L U' L' U L U L2 U2 L B' U2 B2 U B2 U B
Step 2 - U' L F' L' U2 F
Step 3 - U R B U' B' R'
Step 4 - B U B' U B U2 B' (This is a generated optimal solution; it will be hard to perfect this step)
Step 5a - U R' D R U' R' D' R (*Commutator*)
Step 5b - U R' U L' U' R U' L U
Step 6 - M' U' M'2 U' M'2 U' M' U2 M'2 U

Please give me your ideas and comments on this


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 6, 2010)

> 03:23:10 <+Kirjava> I'm getting sick of random method thread
> 03:23:11 <+Kirjava> because
> 03:23:13 <+Kirjava> you can make one
> 03:23:16 <+Kirjava> in like 30 seconds
> ...



Give up and learn L2L4 already if you want to be useful.

Basically, no one cares unless it's actually interesting.



> 03:28:00 <+Kirjava> qqwref: the thing is
> 03:28:09 <+Kirjava> we could literally reel off liek 20 method ideas
> 03:28:17 <+Kirjava> that are much better than all these threads
> 03:28:23 <+Kirjava> in like 2 mins
> ...





> 03:29:58 < Athefre> Thought I would come here after seeing Thom's post
> 03:30:06 <+qqwref> heh
> 03:30:18 <+Kirjava> the funny part is
> 03:30:23 <+Kirjava> I didn't even read the guy's post
> ...





> 03:33:08 <+Kirjava> gilles didn't post his method on speedsolving.com
> 03:33:10 <+qqwref> yeah corners
> 03:33:13 <+Kirjava> he LEARNT it
> 03:33:17 <+qqwref> it's seriously a ridiculous difficult step
> ...


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 6, 2010)

HAHahahahaha, that's so true that it's hilarious.


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Apr 6, 2010)

Feryll said:


> 4. *Make the last f2l pair, plus an extra corner* - Basically, have an extra corner on the f2l pair ready to be inserted. Be sure not to make any F, F', B or B' moves, as that disturbs edge orientation. Example: L' U2 L U2 is an extended f2l pair to be inserted



And how would you pair up the LL corner with the F2L pair without disturbing the LL edge orientation?


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 6, 2010)

Feryll said:


> Basically, have the 3rd pair U R U' R' away from 'solvation'.



WWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW


----------



## Feryll (Apr 6, 2010)

AndyRoo789 said:


> Feryll said:
> 
> 
> > 4. *Make the last f2l pair, plus an extra corner* - Basically, have an extra corner on the f2l pair ready to be inserted. Be sure not to make any F, F', B or B' moves, as that disturbs edge orientation. Example: L' U2 L U2 is an extended f2l pair to be inserted
> ...


I was putting up an example right after I posted, as it almost slipped my mind. I think this step is a big bullet hole in my method, but with practice, I believe it's possible.


Kirjava said:


> > 03:23:10 <+Kirjava> I'm getting sick of random method thread
> > 03:23:11 <+Kirjava> because
> > 03:23:13 <+Kirjava> you can make one
> > 03:23:16 <+Kirjava> in like 30 seconds
> ...



I am trying to be different from the three sentence stupid new methods by actually putting effort into it. I listed the number of cases, and generally an average move count. And where did I ever even mention naming my method? Here, just for you, I'll name it 'crappy method'. And I've never heard of L2L4 when I searched it...EDIT: I found Chris Hardwick mention it, but the link is broken, and I can't find any real tutorial on it. Suggestions?


DavidWoner said:


> Feryll said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, have the 3rd pair U R U' R' away from 'solvation'.
> ...


Fine, I'll take it down.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 6, 2010)

Feryll said:


> I am trying to be different from the three sentence stupid new methods by actually putting effort into it.




TRY HARDER


----------



## Sir E Brum (Apr 6, 2010)

Solvation is a funny word.

But if you are going to do this why not just do ZZ-VH?
Edge Orientation + Line
3-gen F2L that can have blockbuilding
COLL (40 algs)
EPLL (4 algs) 1/12 chance to skip

Fewer algs and 2LLL

Orientation later in a solve leads to more complex situations. Usually requiring quite a few more algorithms.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 6, 2010)

The example you edited in was a good start. Now your goal is to prove to people that it is as fast or faster than the original. By getting fast.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 6, 2010)

The example is broken.


----------



## Feryll (Apr 6, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> The example is broken.



Fixed.

I always liked ZZ-VH, and I considered switching to it as my main method. I got the idea of putting edge orientation in this crappy method from it. But I think that the COLL algorithms are a bit lengthy and hard to remember, at least from the sites I've seen.

I will be generating the algorithms now, if anyone cares. Hopefully, this idea doesn't bust, as I never meant for my posts to make this thread look mediocre.

Also, I remembered how to apply commutators to corner orientation, so that reduces the number of algorithms to 27. Or, if you choose to do the edge orientation part intuitively, that reduces the algorithms to 13, hardly more than the beginners method.


----------



## Zarxrax (Apr 6, 2010)

It seems like the move count for this method is about the same as normal fridrich. But, fridrich should have much better/easier recognition. So in what ways is this method an improvement?
I think its an interesting idea, but I just don't know if it actually works better than fridrich.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 6, 2010)

Feryll said:


> But I think that the COLL algorithms are a bit lengthy and hard to remember, at least from the sites I've seen.



My COLL algorithms average less than 10 moves, and are optimized for right handed speed.


----------



## ErikJ (Apr 6, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> My COLL algorithms average less than 10 moves, and are optimized for right handed speed.



impossible. are you sure you aren't talking about CLL?


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 6, 2010)

miniGOINGS said:


> Feryll said:
> 
> 
> > But I think that the COLL algorithms are a bit lengthy and hard to remember, at least from the sites I've seen.
> ...



wat

can i has your algs plz


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 6, 2010)

ErikJ said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > My COLL algorithms average less than 10 moves, and are optimized for right handed speed.
> ...



...well, kind of.

-This is not factoring the probabilities of each case.
-This is not factoring the AUF's for recognition.
-This is not factoring the AUF's after recognition.
-This is measured in HTM.
-This is not accounting for when the corners are oriented.

So, I guess I shouldn't post such an audacious remark. I just wanted to point out that COLL algorithms aren't horrible.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 6, 2010)

no wai

A good portion of my algs are optimal, and they're not 10 moves.
(Also HTM without AUF)


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 6, 2010)

4Chan said:


> no wai
> 
> A good portion of my algs are optimal, and they're not 10 moves.
> (Also HTM without AUF)



Yes way. I actually edited that page into my CMLL page, but many algs are the same (or have r switched with R in a few places). I'm going to see if I still have them.

EDIT: Some of my CMLL cases are actually longer than the COLL cases, but for the better. COLL: R U2 R2' U' R2 U' R2' U2 R (9/14) CMLL: F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' (10/10). So although my COLL and CMLL algs have almost the same HTM movecount, the QTM is extremely reduced in the CMLL (under 11 moves).


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 6, 2010)

What's your COLL for R U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R U R' ?
My alg is either optimal or darn close.


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 6, 2010)

There are very short COLL algs here: http://www.speedcubing.com/final_layer_corners_no_edge_flips.html

The shortest algs average out to around 9.95 moves I think...

EDIT: I just realised that this thread has gone rather off topic...

meh... at least it's interesting...


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 6, 2010)

My Sune and Anti cases average less than 9 moves... 

I actually don't know if I have the complete list anymore, but I'm trying to find a good one for Chris.

EDIT: R U2 R’ U’ R U R’ U’ R U R’ U’ R U’ R’ (15/16)
I absolutely hate this case, it is BY FAR the longest one I have, but it's really fast (Anti-Sune + 2 Sexy Moves). I'm pretty sure that all of my 7's and 8's make up for it though.


----------



## 4Chan (Apr 6, 2010)

Ah! I see.
I'm wrong then.

Thank you mister Robert and mister Goings. 0:


----------



## miniGOINGS (Apr 6, 2010)

4Chan said:


> Ah! I see.
> I'm wrong then.
> 
> Thank you mister Robert and mister Goings. 0:



Now I'm really sad that I didn't save the COLL doc for later before converting to CMLL. 

I'll keep looking for it though!!


----------

