# Noah's CP Block Method 2.0



## Noahaha (May 14, 2013)

As some of you may remember, I proposed a Petrus based CP-block method a while back. The problem with it was that it made Petrus even more inefficient than it already was just in order to have a 1LLL.

I never dropped the idea of CP-blocks, however...

...and today I bring you my NEW AND IMPROVED CP-block method. Unlike the last one, it is its own method. It shares characteristics with Petrus, Roux and OBLBL, but the end result is definitely something entirely different and hopefully new. I say hopefully, because all "new" methods must come with the disclaimer that someone may have discovered them before.

_*Onto the method:*_

*Step 1: CP (Roux) Block*

The goal of this step is to reach a state where there is a Roux block solved on the left and the corners are permuted. 

It can be divided into three parts:

*1a* - SOLVE A ROUX BLOCK on the left (note that you can mirror the entire method) just like the first step of Roux. I recommend doing the same block every time.

*1b* - PLACE, but do NOT orient the FDR and BDR corners. This should take 4 moves at most.

*1c* - CP. 

Recognition: figure out which two U-layer corners need to be swapped.
If no corners need to be swapped, you're done!
If two adjacent corners need to be swapped, place them at UFR and UBR, and do *F' U F* or *y R U' R' y'*.
If two diagonal corners need to be swapped, make them adjacent and then do what's above. 

Cases:
- UFL UFR = F' U' F
- UFR UBR = F' U F
- UBR UBL = F' U2 F
- UBR UFL = U' F' U' F
- UFL UBR = R' F' U' F
- UBL UFR = R F' U2 F


Ideally, 1a and 1b would both be planned in inspection, or at the very least the positions of the last two D-layer corners would be noted.


*Step 2: EDGES!*

This step has two parts, although ideally they should merge into one step. Step 2 is where this method has a LOT of freedom.

Step 2 brings the cube to a state where the bottom left 2x2x3 is solved, the edges are oriented and the corners are permuted. As long as you only use *U, R and r* moves during this step, the corners will remain permuted from the CP-block.

*2a* - ORIENT ALL EDGES

I haven't found a way to break this down yet, so people who are not familiar with Roux might struggle a little bit here. A Roux approach seems best to me, using moves like M' U M to orient 4 edges at a time. If you have two edges left, just put them at UB and UL and do M' U M U2 M' U M. Note that an M/M' move changes the orientation of all edges on the M-slice. You should start by placing your U/D centers into place or opposite places because in the end you have to have them oriented along with the edges.

As qq pointed out, there are 5-move 2-flips:
DR and UF: r U R U' r'
FR and UF: M' U R U' r'
etc. they all follow the trend of slice, replace an edge, slice back.


*2b* - FINISH THE 2x2x3 by placing the DF and DB edges.

This is extremely easy and should only require 3-6 moves depending on where your edges are at the end of 2a. A good strategy is to connect them at UL and UR, and then insert them between the correct two centers. Remember, you can only do double turns involving the M-slice in order to preserve EO, so other than M U2 M' type things, the moves you can make are: R, R2, R', M2 and r2. 

NOTE: you can start step 3 before finishing 2a if it's convenient.

*Step 3: Right Block*

This is the same as the right block in ZZ and step 4 of Petrus. Just use R and U to finish F2L.

*Step 4: 2GLL*

Yay! We have finally reached our 1LLL, and it only requires 85 algs. That's not much more than CFOP 


_*Summary*_

Step 1 - CP block
-1a = Roux Block
-1b = Place last two D-layer corners
-1c = CP in 0, 3, or 4 moves
Step 2 - EDGES
-2a = EO
-2b = Finish Petrus Block
Step 3 - Right Block
Step 4 - 2GLL


_*Analysis*_

*Pros:*
- REALLY fingertrick friendly (only uses M, U, R and r after step 1)
- Practically rotationless
- Many substeps can be solved in very few moves
- 1LLL
- Lots of freedom
- It's really fun!!!


*Cons:*
- A lot needs to be planned in inspection
- Lots of sub-steps
- Potentially really high movecount
- 85 algs to learn
- Although there are often really quick solutions, they are not always easy to see in a speedsolve.

Feel free to give me more pros and cons to add 


*Example Solve*

Scramble (in solving orientation): B2 U2 L2 R2 D' R2 D' B2 D' B2 U2 L B F2 L2 D' L' F2 R' D F2 

1a: U2 L' U L2 D F U' L2 (8)
1b: U' R' U R (4)
1c: U2 B U' B' (4)
2a: R' U2 M' U M (5)
2b: R2 U' r' U2 r (5)
3: R U2 R' U2 R' U R U2 R' U R (11)
4: U2 R' U R' U' R' U' R' U R U R2 (12)

Move count: 49


*Conclusion*

I don't think anyone will end up using this to speedsolve because it is pretty complicated, but I hope people enjoy the method and use it for fun sometimes. If you like it, please post an example solve. A lot of the fun of this method is finding shortcuts and ways to accomplish two things at once.

Sorry for the long read, and sorry if this has been thought of already!


----------



## YddEd (May 14, 2013)

Looks good. I may learn a bit after I finish learning Roux and ZZ


----------



## ottozing (May 14, 2013)

B' R2 D L F2 U' F R F D F L2 B R2 B' R2 U2 B' D2 F' D2

x' y'
D' F r U x' U r U r' B (1x2x3)
U' R r (Place corners)
(CP skip)
R U R r U2 M' U2 M' U r (EO)
U2 r' U2 r' (DF DB)
R U2 R U' R' U' R' U R U2' R' U R U' R' (Finish F2L)
U R' U2 R2 U2 R U2' R' U2 R U2 R2' U2' R' (2GLL)

Not very efficient, but that's probably my fault XD Cool method :tu


----------



## qqwref (May 14, 2013)

It's interesting! I like it. Definitely worth playing around with, although I don't exactly plan to learn 2GLL. There are going to be a lot of steps no matter what you do, but it should be sub-15-able.


----------



## erikoui (May 14, 2013)

B2 R2 L2 U2 F2 D' L2 F2 U' F2 U L' D2 F D U2 F L D2 B U R2

UR'U'RU DRDR'L (FB)
U'R'U'R (2Corners)
U2 BU'B (CP)
I might have messed up.


----------



## Smiles (May 14, 2013)

i came up with a really inefficient method once, and it included the roux block + <R,r,M,U> for EO. a big problem was recognition for bad edges since the centers move around so much, as well as just locating all of them and orienting them since it's pretty much impossible to find them during inspection.

and i like the whole 2-gen thing including LL, and <M,U> (+R?) is also a great restriction imo. however, i think 2 gen LL is probably a bit much even though it's 1LLL, cause not all the algs are that great anyway. this method could be interesting for OH since almost the whole thing is RrU with table abuse for M.


----------



## CubicNL (May 14, 2013)

For the CP part it would be really much better if you would fix CP when you finish the block, without having to place FDR and BDR first.
And I can assure you it's possible, I have worked out half a system so far, but I would loook into that, for that would improve the method a lot.

And for the CP fixes, I would like to add some 
Given that the two pieces that need to be swapped are adjacent:
UFL UFR : F'U'F
UFR UBR : F'UF
UBR UBL : F'U2F

These can be done with B moves too, but I prefer them with F in a solve.


----------



## applemobile (May 14, 2013)

Sweet, I love CP.


----------



## aznanimedude (May 14, 2013)

Not bad. Kinda reminds me of what porkynator tried to do with zz-rainbow. His step is kinda similar to your first step except if came after eoline. Still pretty interesting


----------



## Noahaha (May 14, 2013)

CubicNL said:


> For the CP part it would be really much better if you would fix CP when you finish the block, without having to place FDR and BDR first.
> And I can assure you it's possible, I have worked out half a system so far, but I would loook into that, for that would improve the method a lot.
> 
> And for the CP fixes, I would like to add some
> ...



Thanks for those! I updated the section on 1c, and now the longest case is 4 moves. I'd be interested to see how you'd solve CP without placing DFR and DBR.


P.S. I'm going to start calling it NCPB because it sounds good


----------



## A Leman (May 14, 2013)

Cool!This is better than The last one. I have also been developing a method, but I'm too lazy/busy to document it.


----------



## CubicNL (May 14, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Thanks for those! I updated the section on 1c, and now the longest case is 4 moves. I'd be interested to see how you'd solve CP without placing DFR and DBR.
> 
> 
> P.S. I'm going to start calling it NCPB because it sounds good



No problem  I'm planning on releasing it someday, but it is not quite ready yet as if now. I'd be much more interested in other people looking into it as well, with unspoiled eyes xD


----------



## Kirjava (May 14, 2013)

You just need to fix that nasty CP step for actual viability. :c

Having to place two corners is ugly. Placing one results in 15 cases + AUF (if my math is right).

This is only a minor improvement (maybe) and still doesn't fix the issue. I was looking for something nice for this when CPLS was all the rage, but I'll take another look tonight when I have a cube on me. Maybe something flowcharty could be useful.


----------



## Noahaha (May 14, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> You just need to fix that nasty CP step for actual viability. :c



What are your thoughts on 2a? I have a lot of trouble with it, but I imagine it's easier as a Roux user. Do you think it's worth breaking down?


----------



## Kirjava (May 14, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> What are your thoughts on 2a? I have a lot of trouble with it, but I imagine it's easier as a Roux user. Do you think it's worth breaking down?



Yeah, it's crazy easy. Here's my 8flip; r'UR'U2r2U2RU'r

If it gets decent, I'd enumerate all the cases for you - CP is the worry for now though.


----------



## Noahaha (May 14, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> CP is the worry for now though.



If someone can do 1a and 1b in one look though, won't it not add that many moves and make CP pretty easy? The only better approach I can think of would be predicting CP from inspection. Is that what you're thinking of? Recognition seems really bad for a CPLS kind of thing.


----------



## Renslay (May 14, 2013)

It's probably not a good speed method, but I have to admit, it's quite fun!


----------



## qqwref (May 14, 2013)

I don't know if you mentioned this, but there's an easier way to flip two edges. You can just do something like r U R U' r', or M' U' R' U M, or whatever. You can also use r U r' to flip four edges.


----------



## Noahaha (May 14, 2013)

New step 1 approach: 

1a: Solve DBL and DFL while permuting the corners, place DL with a slice move when convenient.
1b: Place BL and FL along with the left center.

I have very little 2x2 experience, but I imagine that 15 second inspection is enough time figure out which two corners need to be swapped to solve CP. Does that sound reasonable?



qqwref said:


> I don't know if you mentioned this, but there's an easier way to flip two edges. You can just do something like r U R U' r', or M' U' R' U M, or whatever. You can also use r U r' to flip four edges.



I'll add those. Thanks!


----------



## antoineccantin (May 14, 2013)

Pros and cons of 2gll:

Pros:
-1LLL
-most cases are only R and U
-lots of cases are sune+anti sune combos

Cons:
-crappy recog on some cases
-most cases are only R and U (can be crappy for 2H)
-algs are either long, or super long and RU or okay length and super crappy

judging by my experience with them


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 14, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> New step 1 approach:
> 
> 1a: Solve DBL and DFL while permuting the corners, place DL with a slice move when convenient.
> 1b: Place BL and FL along with the left center.
> ...



Placing BL and FL is ugly. Besides, not bad.


----------



## Noahaha (May 15, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Pros and cons of 2gll:
> 
> Pros:
> -1LLL
> ...



If 2GLL is not a worthy goal to work towards, then I guess we'd have to consider what the method would look like without the CP step.

1: Left Roux block
2: EO + Finish Petrus block
3: Right block
4: LL (OCLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL)

I guess the question to ask is whether that's better than Petrus.

Step 1: Roux Block vs 2x2x2
Step 2: Roux-style EO + Two edges vs 2x2x3 + Petrus EO

I'm probably biased, but to me it looks equal at the very least and likely better because of no rotations and much less awkward.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 15, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> If 2GLL is not a worthy goal to work towards, then I guess we'd have to consider what the method would look like without the CP step.
> 
> 1: Left Roux block
> 2: EO + Finish Petrus block
> ...



2GLL seems great in theory. But for example all L cases take 15 moves. All U and T require at least 13. The idea without cp might be good. It is just recog is bad (why cpls was shot down).


----------



## BaMiao (May 15, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> If 2GLL is not a worthy goal to work towards, then I guess we'd have to consider what the method would look like without the CP step.
> 
> 1: Left Roux block
> 2: EO + Finish Petrus block
> ...



Swapping 1 and 2 basically gets you ZZ. I'm definitely biased, but I would prefer doing the EO at the beginning of the solve, and keep the flexibility in the f2l that ZZ has. This is from a ZZ solver, so feel free to ignore.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 15, 2013)

I meant cp is hard to recognize, not 2gll.


----------



## Kirjava (May 15, 2013)

Tried looking for something nice for CP detection last night. Nothing good enough to be useful.



Noahaha said:


> 1a: Solve DBL and DFL while permuting the corners, place DL with a slice move when convenient.
> 1b: Place BL and FL along with the left center.



Solving three edges after placing two centres makes the first step way uglier. Does it make CP that much easier? Not sure if worth it.



Noahaha said:


> If 2GLL is not a worthy goal to work towards, then I guess we'd have to consider what the method would look like without the CP step.



Could be a minor improvement to Petrus. At least, an alternative 2x2x3 strat.



TheNextFeliks said:


> 2GLL seems great in theory. But for example all L cases take 15 moves. All U and T require at least 13.



2GLL *is* great. Do you know it all? 2GLL is pretty much better than any two look system.


----------



## Escher (May 15, 2013)

Hm, this is a good idea, but I've been thinking about how to improve the CP step here. How does permuting but not orienting any two adjacent corners sound? Recognition of the slightly less simple cases could be done easily with hyper-orientation (or whatever it's called). I believe with enough practise this would eventually develop into an intuitive understanding of how to permute 6 corners (obviously quite suboptimally). Recog of UFL/UBL, and UFR/UBR would be trivial anyway. Once the user roughly understands how to do 6 corners intuitively then the transition from the Roux block to a completed 2x2x3+CP would feel much less artificial, though I'm not sure it's the right thing to make a case-by-case system to learn.

I'm also not sure I like the 2-gen finish of f2l, so I wonder if any compromises can be made to mix the two stages. Even the fastest people rarely get sub 4 on average with 2-gen + 2gll - I would rather be able to do last 2 slots + LL in about 3, if we're using the power of CP -> 2gll properly.


----------



## Kirjava (May 15, 2013)

can't we just work out how to do hyperorientation on 6 corners somehow


----------



## antoineccantin (May 15, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> 2GLL *is* great. Do you know it all? 2GLL is pretty much better than any two look system.



Well, I know about 60% of it, and there is a reason I don't know it all. Most of the algs I haven't learned is because the alg really isn't great.
Take the H no-permute case for example. The shortest 2-gen alg is R U R2 U' R2 U' R U2 R U2 R U' R2 U' R2 U R. If you find it too long to be useful, you could also learn this shorter alg; R U2 F2 R' U' F R' U2 F' U2 R2 F U R' F which isn't any better. For that case, and others, I don't find it worth it to do a proper 2gll, and just do OLL/PLL (R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' z U2 R U R U' R' U' R' U' R U').

PS: I talking about it for OH, and it's even less good for 2H.


----------



## Kirjava (May 15, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Well, I know about 60% of it, and there is a reason I don't know it all. Most of the algs I haven't learned is because the alg really isn't great.
> Take the H no-permute case for example. The shortest 2-gen alg is R U R2 U' R2 U' R U2 R U2 R U' R2 U' R2 U R. If you find it too long to be useful, you could also learn this shorter alg; R U2 F2 R' U' F R' U2 F' U2 R2 F U R' F which isn't any better. For that case, and others, I don't find it worth it to do a proper 2gll, and just do OLL/PLL (R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' z U2 R U R U' R' U' R' U' R U').



So the worst 2GLL case ends up being just a good OLL/PLL case that you execute like it's one 2GLL alg anyway.

Fail to see the issue?


----------



## Brest (May 15, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Well, I know about 60% of it, and there is a reason I don't know it all. Most of the algs I haven't learned is because the alg really isn't great.
> Take the H no-permute case for example. The shortest 2-gen alg is R U R2 U' R2 U' R U2 R U2 R U' R2 U' R2 U R. If you find it too long to be useful, you could also learn this shorter alg; R U2 F2 R' U' F R' U2 F' U2 R2 F U R' F which isn't any better. For that case, and others, I don't find it worth it to do a proper 2gll, and just do OLL/PLL (R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' z U2 R U R U' R' U' R' U' R U').
> 
> PS: I talking about it for OH, and it's even less good for 2H.



R U' R U R U R' U' R' U' R2 U' R U R' U' R U' R' (20q)
R' U R' U' R' U' R U R U R2 U R' U' R U R' U R (20q)
R U R' U R U' R' U R2 U R U R U' R' U' R' U R' (20q)
R' U' R U' R' U R U' R2 U' R' U' R' U R U R U' R (20q)


----------



## Renslay (May 15, 2013)

I don't know if it is mentioned earlier, but I have to:



> 1b - PLACE, but do NOT orient the FDR and BDR corners. This should take 4 moves at most.



You can also put the FDR corner to BDR and the BDR corner to FDR. (So the two corners is a swap from each other.) In that case, you have to solve CP for the top corners in a way that there has to be an opposite swap.


----------



## elrog (May 16, 2013)

I proposed a method that solved CP early on in the solve weeks ago also...

I was thinking you could solve CP during inspection to save on recognition time. The only way I have found to do this is doing something similar to the BRASS 2x2 method.
https://sites.google.com/site/devastatingspeed/2x2x2/brass

My method was to solve a 1x1x3 block and corner permutation during inspection, then expand it to a 1x2x3 and build another on the other side. Then place the DF and DB edges while orienting the top edges and finish with 2GLL.


----------



## Noahaha (May 16, 2013)

elrog said:


> I proposed a method that solved CP early on in the solve weeks ago also...
> 
> I was thinking you could solve CP during inspection to save on recognition time. The only way I have found to do this is doing something similar to the BRASS 2x2 method.
> https://sites.google.com/site/devastatingspeed/2x2x2/brass
> ...



The problem with that it is just Roux with extra steps.

Roux vs. Your method
First block vs. First block + CP = Roux wins by a lot
Second block vs. Second block = same
LSE vs. Orient + place DF, DB = You win by a little bit
CMLL vs. 2GLL = Roux wins by a lot.

The problem is that you are making your CP block and then trying to do Roux. Roux already contains a CP step, however, so there's really no reason to make a CP block. That's why my method transitions to a Petrus-style approach, because Petrus does not already come with a CP step.

I'm not saying my method's any good, just saying that adding a CP step to an existing method and changing the ending a little bit to result in a solve with more and slower steps does not count as coming up with a new method. This was the same problem that my Petrus-style CP-block "method" from a year ago suffered from. It added a step to Petrus that was significantly longer than the LL step saved.

Also, the new thing about my method is not the solving of CP early but the use of Roux-style EO to _preserve_ CP on the way to a Petrus block with EO.

Either way, the challenge is to come up with a good way to do CP from inspection.


----------



## elrog (May 16, 2013)

I get your point. I never expected my method to be quicker than Roux, but I think it can come close.

You know, when I first read CP blocks I was thinking about doing psuedoblocks like in Heise, but instead of solving edge orientation while you fix them, solve CP. Just an interesting idea to throw out there.


----------



## Veerexx (May 16, 2013)

This has been an interesting read  About the method itself, I'm not fast enough to have too much insight and I'm only just learning Roux, so I can't really compare it to that. CP from inspection would be great to figure out I think.


----------



## ottozing (May 16, 2013)

I know a lot of what people are talking about is a good way to do CP, but I just feel like saying that 1x2x3 > 2x2x3 isn't as bad as I initially thought it was. After reading Noah's explaination of doing step 2c by setting up the 2 edges at UL and UR, I thought to myself "Hey, doing 1x2x3 > 2x2x3 using mostly that approach could actually be a good idea". Here's some examples using qqtimer's <R,r,U> scramble option.

1 - R' r U R U2 R2 U' r U' R U2 R r' U' R r2 U2 r2 R' U2 R2 U2 R U' R'

R U M' U' R U r2'

Not bad. Not too great either, and kinda hard to see in a speedsolve.

2 - R U r U r' U' R2 U r' U2 R' U' R2 r U R2 U2 r U' r' U' r R2 U' r 

r' U M2' U' r

Pretty efficient again, but still kinda complex. Didn't use the UL UR approach because it was sucky for that case.

3 - U2 R' r2 U r2 R' U' R U' r2 U' r2 U R2 r2 U2 r' R' U R' U' r U2 R' U2

M U r U2' r2'

Again, didn't use the UL UR approach. This one was obvious though.

4 - U r' U' r R' U R2 r' U2 r U R U' r R U2 r' R' U R2 U' R2 r' U' r2

U2 r U' R' U r2

Efficient, but complex-ish.

5 - r U' r U' R r2 U' r2 U2 R' U' r U' R2 U' r2 U2 R U R' r' U2 r U r

U r U' M U' r2

This one was pretty obvious.

My thoughts on doing 1x2x3 > 2x2x3 are..... meh. Doing the petrus block this was isn't that inefficient, but the solutions are kinda complicated and would be hard to see in a speedsolve (Assuming you only plan as far as the 1x2x3). With that being said, standard Petrus has the same problem in that doing 2x2x2 > 2x2x3 isn't "inefficient", but the efficient solutions are complicated.

Overall, I would say that 1x2x3 > 2x2x3 is just as good as doing 2x2x2 > 2x2x3 because they have pretty much the same pros and cons. I would love to see a fast Roux solver do an ao12 using either Petrus with 1x2x3 > 2x2x3, or FreeFOP always using a 1x2x3 > 2x2x3 start.


----------



## Athefre (May 16, 2013)

Escher said:


> Hm, this is a good idea, but I've been thinking about how to improve the CP step here. How does permuting but not orienting any two adjacent corners sound? Recognition of the slightly less simple cases could be done easily with hyper-orientation (or whatever it's called). I believe with enough practise this would eventually develop into an intuitive understanding of how to permute 6 corners (obviously quite suboptimally). Recog of UFL/UBL, and UFR/UBR would be trivial anyway. Once the user roughly understands how to do 6 corners intuitively then the transition from the Roux block to a completed 2x2x3+CP would feel much less artificial, though I'm not sure it's the right thing to make a case-by-case system to learn.



Hyperorientation is a cool CLL recognition alternative, but how would it apply here?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 16, 2013)

What about CP -> <L,M,U> 1x2x3 on left, etc. That is, do CP before building the first block. Find or make DLF/DLB or DRF/DRB, then do whatever to solve CP. Should be easier during inspection, and you can probably look ahead a little to the first block then trace pieces during the CP execution, and probably not too many moves, especially if you have some degree of colour neutrality. This might be a terrible idea, I really don't know.


----------



## Kirjava (May 16, 2013)

It's not exactly clear what you mean, but I don't think that would even preserve CP.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 16, 2013)

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

y2 R U R' U' F U' F' //CP
l' u' L2 U' l' U L U2 l' U' l L U' M' l' U' l //L block

Horribly inefficient example, but just wanted to show what I meant.


----------



## Renslay (May 17, 2013)

After playing a while with Noah's CP2, I've found this variant:

1) Left 1x2x3 block
2) CP
3) Right 1x2x3 block
4) EO + Insert FD+BD
5) 2GLL

Very similar, just changed the order of some steps. Still not efficient (Roux or ZZ is still superior), but it's kind of a fun.


----------



## Noahaha (May 17, 2013)

Renslay said:


> After playing a while with Noah's CP2, I've found this variant:
> 
> 1) Left 1x2x3 block
> 2) CP
> ...



That's exactly what Elrog proposed a few posts ago.


----------



## Renslay (May 17, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> That's exactly what Elrog proposed a few posts ago.



It seems I looked over that post, but indeed. :fp


----------



## elrog (May 20, 2013)

Mine solved CP in inspection.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 21, 2013)

After screwing around with different variations of the Roux block and my new CP recognition method, I came to the epiphany that Roux is probably the best method, and that my CP recognition might be very well suited for Roux. On a thread, I recall Kirjava saying that they tried all early CP methods for Roux, none of which seemed to work well. As I am not a Roux cuber yet (please forgive my ignorance) I want your opinion on this variation of Roux. Here's a proposal on how early CP might work:
-1x2x3 (9-12 moves)
-CP (5 moves)
-Right block + EO (?)
-2GLL (13 moves)

I know the idea of early CP is not new by any means, but I feel that my CP recognition using only 5 moves might be an efficient solving method. If EOF2L can be solved in around 20-25 moves, this could be a viable speedcubing variation. I am curious how the move count and recognition cases compare with normal Roux. I think the recog is easier this way, but only the numbers will show. 

Here I explain my CP method briefly and talk about my Block => CP => EOF2L => 2GLL system.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...New-Method-Substep-Concept-Idea-Thread/page13


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Aug 21, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> After screwing around with different variations of the Roux block and my new CP recognition method, I came to the epiphany that Roux is probably the best method, and that my CP recognition might be very well suited for Roux. On a thread, I recall Kirjava saying that they tried all early CP methods for Roux, none of which seemed to work well. As I am not a Roux cuber yet (please forgive my ignorance) I want your opinion on this variation of Roux. Here's a proposal on how early CP might work:
> -1x2x3 (9-12 moves)
> -CP (5 moves)
> -Right block + EO (?)
> ...



By 2gll do you mean like variations of OLL and PLL? Wouldn't this completely eradicate the sexy M U Technique?


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 22, 2013)

CheesecakeCuber said:


> By 2gll do you mean like variations of OLL and PLL? Wouldn't this completely eradicate the sexy M U Technique?



Yes, it would be orienting corners and permuting edges. I already have a list of algs that averages 13.2 moves for each of 85 cases. I want to be objective in looking at move count


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 22, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> After screwing around with different variations of the Roux block and my new CP recognition method, I came to the epiphany that Roux is probably the best method, and that my CP recognition might be very well suited for Roux. On a thread, I recall Kirjava saying that they tried all early CP methods for Roux, none of which seemed to work well. As I am not a Roux cuber yet (please forgive my ignorance) I want your opinion on this variation of Roux. Here's a proposal on how early CP might work:
> -1x2x3 (9-12 moves)
> -CP (5 moves)
> -Right block + EO (?)
> ...



1. Not even roux. 
2. 9-12 for first block sucks. 7-10 is average. 
3. Pro idea:
a. 1x2x3
b. zz-porky
c. Right block 
d. CO (could possibly manipulate into full orientation)
e. LSE


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 22, 2013)

CO + EO would probably have way too many algs. I think zz-porky has too hard of a recog system, i think there are just too many corners too look at to be fast. I'm not sure why it would be any better. ZZ-porky: 24 cases, move count "around 5 and the longest 7", recog looks at 5 corners VS my CP: 6 cases, move count under 5 longest is 6, looks at 4 corners. 

I don't fully understand ZZ-porky, but from what I see you would do it after EOLine in ZZ and solve during your "first look" of the solve. Useful for ZZ, but in Roux, you would essentially do ZZ-porky during inspection because there is no EOLine step for Roux. I think it makes more sense to solve the first block with inspection, then do CP with your first look. If you're already at this stage, it probably makes more sense to solve the right block, and instead of doing CO then LSE, incorporate EO into the right block (either during or after) and finish in one look with 2GLL. I want to determine whether doing early CP cuts 1.) the number of moves 2.) the number of looks/cases

1.) To determine this, we must look at how the steps are split up. There is CO, CP, EO, and EP. For regular Roux, it goes CmLL and LSE. For my variation, it would go CP, EO, CO/EP. EO cannot be definite depending if it is incorporated with the right block (EOF2L). I can't find the average moves for LSE, but I read that CmLL is around 9.2 moves on average. *Is Regular Roux: 9.2(CmLL) + (EO) + (EP) less moves than my variation: 5(CP) + (EO) + 13(2GLL) ?*

2.) Roux has three looks: CmLL, EO, and EP. My variation would also have three: CP, EO, 2GLL. EO in my variation could easily be looked-ahead during right block. As far as cases, CmLL has 55 cases, and i dont know about LSE. My CP has 6 cases, i dont know about EO, and 85 for 2GLL. Again, *is 55(CmLL) + (LSE) less than 5(CP) + (EO) + 85(2GLL)?
*
All in all, I think that CmLL is a stupid step for recog, and breaking it up makes life so much easier. Another variation I had in mind could be:
-1x2x3
-CP
-Right block + Winter Variation
-LSE

I think Roux users would be more open to this variation. CP (5 moves) and WV (~8 moves) is significantly more than CmLL at ~9 moves, however WV has inserting the last pair as part of the 8 moves, which usually takes 3 moves, so WV is really only 5 moves, making the variation only one move longer on average. The upside upside to this method is the easy transition from CP to right block, and from right block to WV. The only downside is that using WV forces you to end using a pair insertion, and the edge on the pair must be oriented correctly. These two roadblocks make WV not well-suited for Roux. Maybe it would be useful to make a Roux WV alg set. 

Let me know what you make of all this. I feel that Roux is definitely the blueprint for the best method, but there is still a lot of unexplored territory in Roux.

EDIT: after more thinking, doing CO while finishing right block would probably be the best fit for early CP. LSE would still be the same, but corners overall _could_ have a lower move count. It would be hard intuitively, but I think Roux users would be open to the small change and over time a good CO system would develop.

EDIT 2: intuitive CO with the right block is working real well for me right now. just did three flawless solves at ~45 moves. could be a breakthrough for Roux


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm not sure if 2gen WV is as optimal as you make it out to be. 

But Porkynator was right. What seems to be the best cp method (for movecount and ergonomics) is:

EOL,
left block and cp, 
reduce to <R2,U> (or <R,U2> for OH), 
reduce to <R2,U2>, 
solve

But step 4 is really hard. 

Otherwise, just right block and 2gll.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 22, 2013)

mDiPalma said:


> I'm not sure if 2gen WV is as optimal as you make it out to be.


Definitely not, but the concept of OC during right block could be very useful for Roux with early CP. WV sucks for Roux, but maybe someone could develop a new way of doing right block + CO. Intuitive is working OK for me right now, but i'm sure there's something better than intuitive or OCLL for Roux. Hopefully. 


> But Porkynator was right. What seems to be the best cp method (for movecount and ergonomics) is:
> 
> EOL,
> left block and cp,
> ...


He's right, ZZ-porky is great for ZZ, but not at all for Roux. My CP method is definitely the best for Roux, working in the same way as ZZ-porky: Block => CP => Right Block => LL/LSE

I wish I could post a file with my CP method on it, but i've been having issues with the file uploader. Super frustrating.


----------



## MaikeruKonare (Aug 22, 2013)

Is 2GLL OLL and PLL in one algorithm? Sounds like it could just be a good add change to CFOP.


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 22, 2013)

MaikeruKonare said:


> Is 2GLL OLL and PLL in one algorithm? Sounds like it could just be a good add change to CFOP.



2GLL is OLL and PLL in one algorithm IF the edges are oriented AND the corners are permuted. Pretty much the whole point of these methods is to get to 2GLL instead of any random LL case.


----------



## pijok (Aug 22, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> 1.) To determine this, we must look at how the steps are split up. There is CO, CP, EO, and EP. For regular Roux, it goes CmLL and LSE. For my variation, it would go CP, EO, CO/EP. EO cannot be definite depending if it is incorporated with the right block (EOF2L). I can't find the average moves for LSE, but I read that CmLL is around 9.2 moves on average. *Is Regular Roux: 9.2(CmLL) + (EO) + (EP) less moves than my variation: 5(CP) + (EO) + 13(2GLL) ?*


LSE is 15 moves on average.
9.2(CmLL) + 7(EO) + 8(EP) < 25 moves average
EO+Finish F2L > 7 moves
5(CP) + 7(EO) + 13(2GLL) > 25 moves average
=> Regular Roux is less moves than your variation



AHornbaker said:


> 2.) Roux has three looks: CmLL, EO, and EP. My variation would also have three: CP, EO, 2GLL. EO in my variation could easily be looked-ahead during right block. As far as cases, CmLL has 55 cases, and i dont know about LSE. My CP has 6 cases, i dont know about EO, and 85 for 2GLL. Again, *is 55(CmLL) + (LSE) less than 5(CP) + (EO) + 85(2GLL)?
> *


CMLL is 42 cases. LSE is intuitive.
42(CmLL) + 0(LSE) = 42 algs
5(CP) + ?(EO) + 85(2GLL) > 90 algs
=> Regular Roux is less algs than your variation



AHornbaker said:


> All in all, I think that CmLL is a stupid step for recog, and breaking it up makes life so much easier.


isn't it better recog than CP?


You maybe should describe your method of CO during second block. Examples?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 22, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> CO + EO would probably have way too many algs. I think zz-porky has too hard of a recog system, i think there are just too many corners too look at to be fast. I'm not sure why it would be any better. ZZ-porky: 24 cases, move count "around 5 and the longest 7", recog looks at 5 corners VS my CP: 6 cases, move count under 5 longest is 6, looks at 4 corners.
> 
> I don't fully understand ZZ-porky, but from what I see you would do it after EOLine in ZZ and solve during your "first look" of the solve. Useful for ZZ, but in Roux, you would essentially do ZZ-porky during inspection because there is no EOLine step for Roux. I think it makes more sense to solve the first block with inspection, then do CP with your first look. If you're already at this stage, it probably makes more sense to solve the right block, and instead of doing CO then LSE, incorporate EO into the right block (either during or after) and finish in one look with 2GLL. I want to determine whether doing early CP cuts 1.) the number of moves 2.) the number of looks/cases
> 
> ...



:fp

You say zz-porky is bad. Then you say you never looked at it. 
CMLL has 42 cases not 55. 
You don't know how many algs co+eo would take. Just over a hundred I believe. 
Straight up roux is going to be fastest. Most people can do 40 moves in speedsolves. 45 is inefficient. 
Roux is pretty well explored. ZZ is the one that isn't really explored. 
CMLL recog is not very hard at all. Way easier than 2gll
So all in all:
:fp


----------



## pijok (Aug 22, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Most people can do 40 moves in speedsolves. 45 is inefficient.


whut? who is doing 40 moves average in speedsolves??


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 22, 2013)

pijok said:


> whut? who is doing 40 moves average in speedsolves??



People. Alex lau usually does. 

Like 8-10-9-13 is pretty common.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 22, 2013)

no one is doing 40 moves average. the best roux solvers average about 48


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 22, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> no one is doing 40 moves average. the best roux solvers average about 48



After searching. You are right.


----------



## AHornbaker (Aug 22, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> :fp
> 
> You say zz-porky is bad. Then you say you never looked at it.
> CMLL has 42 cases not 55.
> ...



ZZ-porky is great for ZZ, not for Roux.
Someone had a table with the 8 COLL cases superimposed on 7 ELL cases, making 56 minus the solved state. I now see it is 42.
You dont know how many algs it would take either
Almost nobody solves under 40 speedsolving
ZZ has more variants than Roux
True


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 22, 2013)

AHornbaker said:


> ZZ-porky is great for ZZ, not for Roux.
> Someone had a table with the 8 COLL cases superimposed on 7 ELL cases, making 56 minus the solved state. I now see it is 42.
> You dont know how many algs it would take either
> Almost nobody solves under 40 speedsolving
> ...



True. 
Ok. Whatever. 
6*26+13=169 including mirrors. 
Yeah I looked it up. Not true. More like 45. 
I know. 
Yep.


----------



## pinser (Apr 13, 2014)

I like this method. It's got the M moves, <R, U, L> moves, block building, 1LLL, and an average move count. 
The only problem is that my corners never seem to stay permuted, even though I'm only using R, U, and M moves.


----------



## TDM (Apr 13, 2014)

pinser said:


> I like this method. It's got the M moves, <R, U, L> moves, block building, 1LLL, and an average move count.
> The only problem is that my corners never seem to stay permuted, even though I'm only using R, U, and M moves.


You're doing CP wrong, or you're not using RUr.

Also, about the method itself, I know it would just add more substeps, but with phasing the number of LL algs needed is 30. Fewer cases means easier recognition for LL too. Phasing recognition is bad at first, but I was doing ZZ-porky v1 with phasing for OH previously, and I found phasing recognition took almost no time at all and could usually be seen by lookahead.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Mar 26, 2016)

I may have missed something, but wouldn't the swaps you mentioned and other moves mess up the corner perm? I am completely confused. My fault most likely, looks good though.


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 26, 2016)

That's the magic of solving CP--if you do so, and then only make moves in 2-gen (in this case, <R,U>), CP won't change. THere's a proof of it here: http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm


----------

