# Seth - yet another method involving 2GLL.



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

While working on CPLS+2GLL, Cyrus and I came up with a little system we named "Seth" arbitrarily, and this thread is merely to publish the final idea.

Whether this system can be used to benefit ones times, I'm not yet sure.

Here's what a typical CFOP-Seth solve would look like:
Cross
F2L 1, 2, 3
Seth set-up (place DFR and FR, but don't care about orientation)
Seth (81 cases)
2GLL (84 cases)

2 weeks after thinking of this, we've collectively found algs for all of the cases, which will be linked at the bottom. If you can not figure out recognition for corner permutation yourself, please refer yourself to the CPLS+2GLL thread where I've explained it as much as I can for now. The concepts are similar, but is easier for Seth than it is for CPLS (4 edges moving rather than 5, all in LL).

Here are some example solves:


Cyrus on facebook said:


> Scramble: B2 D' F L2 B F2 D' U B2 R2 F D' U F B U L F2 D B' D' F B D' B'
> Cross: F U' B U' F2 D F' R F
> 1F2L: y' U' L2 D2 L2 D2 L2
> 2F2L: z2 D F R' F' R D'
> ...



Without further ado, here are the algs.
Note - these algs are simply a proof-of-concept.
That's my way of saying "they really don't feel nice, but if I looked long enough, I'm sure I could find much much better ones."

Please share how much you hate or love the concept.

-statue and Cyrus C.


----------



## cuber952 (Dec 2, 2010)

this is really cool


----------



## BigSams (Dec 2, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Here's what a typical CFOP-Seth solve would look like:
> Cross
> F2L 1, 2, 3
> Seth set-up (place DFR and FR, but don't care about orientation)
> ...


 
Hmmm. So instead of Slot 4 > OLL > PLL, you're doing Seth-up p I'm so lame) > Seth > 2GLL. I might be wrong but it sounds like more algs for slower times - slower because same number of moves (or not?) but more difficult recognition.


----------



## cincyaviation (Dec 2, 2010)

This could get annoying.
Edit: I like the method itself though, i might just have to learn it.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Hmmm. So instead of Slot 4 > OLL > PLL, you're doing Seth-up p I'm so lame) > Seth > 2GLL. I might be wrong but it sounds like more algs for slower times - slower because same number of moves (or not?) but more difficult recognition.


Seth-up is usually about 4 moves long, compared to ~7?
Seth is usually about 10 moves long, compared to...11? (sorry, guessing) The only problem here is the slightly slow recognition.
2GLL is..well...2gen, and usually about 14, compared to PLL at a bit less than that?

Please check my math.


cincyaviation said:


> This could get annoying.


 Go more in depth?


----------



## cincyaviation (Dec 2, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Go more in depth?


 
You know, the whole method sharing a name with me thing...
Also, i can't get to the algs because i don't have openoffice.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> You know, the whole method sharing a name with me thing...
> Also, i can't get to the algs because i don't have openoffice.


 -Sorry, I just like the name Seth. Perhaps you could change your name? Thanks.

- alright, I'll upload a .doc copy in a minute.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 2, 2010)

The wiki was surprisingly unhelpful in average CE pair, OLL, PLL moves. At this site http://www.freewebs.com/renzolj/fridrichmethod.htm it says CE pairs are 32/4=8, OLL is 10 and PLL is 12. Thus:
CFOP: x + 8 + 10 + 12 = x + 30
Seth: x + 4 + 10 + 14 = x + 28

So I guess it all comes down to whether (save 2 moves on average + recog lags + 2-gen CPLS) will leave one with a faster or slower solve, and if it is faster, is it worth the number of algs. I'll wait and see how Seth disciples fare then.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 2, 2010)

I don't think recognition will be an issue. Just from checking algs, playing with Seth and writing the example solves, my recognition has gone from no idea how to do it to about 1 second. And 2GLL is super easy.


----------



## KYLOL (Dec 2, 2010)

*"Please share how much you hate or love the concept."*

OKAY HOMIE.

Take another look at this ->
Seth: y U2 x' U L' U' R2 U' R' U' L U2 x U2 R'
2GLL: U R' U2 R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2
--------------------------
Seth: y2 U' F' U2 F' U2 R' F' R U2 F2
2GLL: y R' U2 R2 U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R2 U2 R' U
------------------------

Now, ask yourself -Does this look like a good method?
Move count and look ahead would be atrocious on a level I can not even describe. The example solves are already +3-5 moves of CFOP/Petrus/Roux methods, so I don't see how this is an advantage?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 2, 2010)

Please note "they really don't feel nice, but if I looked long enough, I'm sure I could find much much better ones."

Also, how is lookahead atrocious. During F2L, it's no different than CFOP, besides Seth, which is probably easier. In LL, I can't see how it's any more difficult, you just look at the edge cycle.

EDIT: I have a time machine.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

I never said it was an advantage.
I'm pretty sure I made that clear.

This is merely an idea, maybe to spark off others.

Plus, as I *also* said, these algs can be bettered easily.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 2, 2010)

lmfao @ kylol. both comment and dp. Duno if he has a point or not... but damn that is one funny dp.


----------



## KYLOL (Dec 2, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Please note "they really don't feel nice, but if I looked long enough, I'm sure I could find much much better ones."
> 
> Also, how is lookahead atrocious?


 
Seth Setup: L U2 L'
Seth: y2 U' F' U2 F' U2 R' F' R U2 F2
2GLL: y R' U2 R2 U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R2 U2 R' U

Compare that pile of incoherent mess to a CFOP solution.
Like...wat? Why would you do any of that? pointless.


----------



## Toad (Dec 2, 2010)

KYLOL, read and digest information before you spout out trash in the future please. This method has not been advertised as "THE GRATEST MEFFOD EVAH IT WILL MAYK U FAZTER GARUNTEED" therefore should not be treated as such.

According to my Chrome spell checker "meffod", "evah", "mayk", and "fazter" are all words...

Anyway, I approve of this idea. 'Tis cool.


----------



## Diniz (Dec 2, 2010)

KYLOL said:


> Seth Setup: L U2 L'
> Seth: y2 U' F' U2 F' U2 R' F' R U2 F2
> 2GLL: y R' U2 R2 U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R2 U2 R' U
> 
> ...


 
Last Slot: U L U' L' U L U L'
OLL: U' R' F R U R' U' F' U R 
PLL: U2 R' U R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F U 

Same incoherent mess to me...


----------



## MichaelP. (Dec 2, 2010)

This seems live an innovative idea. I'm not sure how you could get you're recognition so low considering you have 2 things two identify, but I haven't read the recognition technique in the other thread.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 2, 2010)

Recognition for Seth?

The way I see it, I'll only be looking for CP. Recognizing the pair orientation can be done before it's paired. Recognition for EO, is almost automatic as well, it can be glanced at, as you check for CP. CP, is just meh.

Recognition for 2GLL?

The way I recognize, simply AUF 'til the corners are solved, check the edgecycle, bam.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

MichaelP. said:


> This seems live an innovative idea. I'm not sure how you could get you're recognition so low considering you have 2 things two identify, but I haven't read the recognition technique in the other thread.


 The edge orientation is essentially automatic, just like when you're doing EOLL. (just those 4 cases of all done, all flipped, adj flipped, opp flipped)
The corner permutation is the only thing you have to think about, and it's the same thing that Dan Brown teaches in his beginner tutorial, iirc. He uses Niklas to do CP, using nearly the same recog method I'm using.
I remember being fast at "Niklas recognition" as I called it back when I did it, so I don't see why this is any different.

Edit: I need to stop being ninja'd


----------



## KYLOL (Dec 2, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> KYLOL, read and digest information before you spout out trash in the future please. This method has not been advertised as "THE GRATEST MEFFOD EVAH IT WILL MAYK U FAZTER GARUNTEED" therefore should not be treated as such.
> 
> According to my Chrome spell checker "meffod", "evah", "mayk", and "fazter" are all words...
> 
> Anyway, I approve of this idea. 'Tis cool.


 
If it isn't supposed to be very fast, or even efficient with move count, then why make an entire thread about it? Go away, troll. /backhanded.

Also, Diniz - Maybe it's incoherent because you typed it wrong. I don't see OLL/PLL riddled with x,y and z moves. Nice try though.
If it's not fast , or efficient...then what is the point?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 2, 2010)

First off, KYLOLolololol. Wanted to do that for a while.

Second, we didn't say that it would be fast. But, we never said that it wouldn't be fast.

Third, just because it's not fast or move efficient doesn't mean it doesn't belong on SpeedSolving.

Fourth, it may seem incoherent to you but it makes perfect sense to Stachu, myself, and probably many others on the forum. 

EDIT: Lolstachu.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, posing new ideas is something to be quite ashamed about; I'll be sure to refrain from original thought henceforth by sticking to what we already know.
Herp derp.


----------



## RyanO (Dec 2, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> KYLOL, read and digest information before you spout out trash in the future please. This method has not been advertised as "THE GRATEST MEFFOD EVAH IT WILL MAYK U FAZTER GARUNTEED" therefore should not be treated as such.
> 
> *According to my Chrome spell checker "meffod", "evah", "mayk", and "fazter" are all words...*


 
That's because you used all caps.


----------



## Toad (Dec 2, 2010)

RyanO said:


> That's because you used all caps.


 
Hmm, yet it still marked out "GARUNTEED" as a typo. It's clearly much cleverer than I thought.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 2, 2010)

Seth algs in .doc format. If Stachu posted one, I can't find it.


----------



## KYLOL (Dec 2, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Yes, posing new ideas is something to be quite ashamed about; I'll be sure to refrain from original thought henceforth by sticking to what we already know.
> Herp derp.


 
So, why did you create a method that is clearly worse than the ones already out there? I guess that is where I am confused.
The cube rotations clearly can't be changed. You'd just be stuck with a bunch of double layer turns. Move count is too high. Recognition is slow.
So, why? Why are some of you people saying "Oh, this is so cool". I'm not trying to be rude, but I just don't get it.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Whether this system can be used to benefit ones times, I'm not yet sure.
> Please share how much you hate or love the concept.


 That's like..."Hey. Check this out and tell me what you think." not "Hey. This is awesome, and we should all use it nao!" nor even "I think this is good."
It's just an idea. Some work, some don't.


----------



## Toad (Dec 2, 2010)

KYLOL, you clearly don't understand the form of idea development.

I highly doubt that Jiri/Jessica Fridrich suddenly had a brainwave and instantly produced the Fridrich method we know and use today, often regarded as the fastest method around. Ideas get thrown about, different people put a spin on them, more ideas are made. The more ideas you have, the more potential there is for a good idea.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 2, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> I highly doubt that Jiri/Jessica Fridrich suddenly had a brainwave and instantly produced the Fridrich method we know and use today, often regarded as the fastest method around. Ideas get thrown about, different people put a spin on them, more ideas are made. The more ideas you have, the more potential there is for a good idea.


 
You're right. http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/history.html#last


----------



## blah (Dec 2, 2010)

What's up with the cross on U and inefficient F2L? I'm honestly confused.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Dec 2, 2010)

statue just sucks at F2L


----------



## jms_gears1 (Dec 2, 2010)

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

z2 D'B'F'D'F'M'U2F'
U'M'U2r'UR2U2RUM'UR
U'M2U2M'U2My
U' F' U' F U B' R B R' U2 R U R2 U R'
U R U' R U2 R U' R U2 R U' R U R2 U'

56
when i figure out how to read the table ill post more.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 2, 2010)

Sorry guys, I suck at F2L. I would've only done LS+LL solves, but I wanted to show that Seth can be done at any time in the solve, not just LS.


----------



## Diniz (Dec 2, 2010)

KYLOL said:


> Also, Diniz - Maybe it's incoherent because you typed it wrong. I don't see OLL/PLL riddled with x,y and z moves. Nice try though.


 
Srlsy... WTF are you saying?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

He's suggesting that you purposely made CFOP look bad, which is lol.

Anyway, yes; those are*not* my F2L solutions. I do cross on bottom and somewhat better F2L


----------



## KYLOL (Dec 2, 2010)

Diniz said:


> Srlsy... WTF are you saying?


 You're trying to say OLL/PLL is an incoherent mess. That is just retarded. You also typed your solution incorrectly. If you can't understand what I am saying then try using a translator.


----------



## Diniz (Dec 2, 2010)

KYLOL said:


> You're trying to say OLL/PLL is an incoherent mess. That is just retarded. You also typed your solution incorrectly. If you can't understand what I am saying then try using a translator.


 
The cubing community keeps getting better and better..


----------



## Forte (Dec 2, 2010)

KYLOL said:


> If it isn't supposed to be very fast, or even efficient with move count, then why make an entire thread about it? Go away, troll. /backhanded.
> 
> Also, Diniz - Maybe it's incoherent because you typed it wrong. I don't see OLL/PLL riddled with x,y and z moves. Nice try though.
> If it's not fast , or efficient...then what is the point?


 
It's just for fun.

Let us have fun


----------



## riffz (Dec 2, 2010)

KYLOL is also forgetting that 2GLL has obvious advantages for OH, although I do think that it fits better with ZZ than CFOP.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 2, 2010)

riffz said:


> KYLOL is also forgetting that 2GLL has obvious advantages for OH, although I do think that it fits better with ZZ than CFOP.


 I'm not sure about my thoughts with this and OH. I've been wondering this for a few days.

One one hand, 2GLL is nice, and much has been proven with CFOP.
For CFOP,
We have the full 81 cases
then 2GLL

For ZZ/Petrus (assuming you do the EO of Petrus and not just build blocks
We have a reduced # of cases, making it fairly pointless to do this method.
then 2GLL

Thoughts?


----------



## a small kitten (Dec 2, 2010)

For ZZ and Petrus adaptations it'll pretty much be similar to CPLS right? Except you don't have to put the corner of the last slot in DFR. And yah. 2GLL is very fast for OH. Most of them can be done sub 2.


----------



## Diniz (Dec 2, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> I'm not sure about my thoughts with this and OH. I've been wondering this for a few days.
> 
> One one hand, 2GLL is nice, and much has been proven with CFOP.
> For CFOP,
> ...



For ZZ and Petrus its reduces to CPLS...


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 2, 2010)

Diniz said:


> For ZZ and Petrus its reduces to CPLS...


 
Hmm? If I were to use Seth with Petrus, it would still reduce the cube to 2GLL. It's just not worth it since one of the advantages of Seth is that you're solving EO, CP, and the final pair at the same time. If used with Petrus or ZZ, you would've done EO in a different step, and all you'd do during Seth is twisting a corner, and CP. Kind of like having to use 2 look PLL for the rest of your solving days...

Also, yes, Seth seems most similar to CPLS. Excluding CPEOLL.

EDIT: Oh wait. You meant it would reduce you to the step after CPLS, 2GLL,


----------



## a small kitten (Dec 2, 2010)

But only the I and Im cases. In CPLS you don't have to place the corner.

I think in the future we can expect ZZf2l with three slots and the last edge going sub 10. imo that's the only way to justify doing CPLS 2GLL.


----------



## Diniz (Dec 2, 2010)

a small kitten said:


> But only the I and Im cases. In CPLS you don't have to place the corner.
> 
> I think in the future we can expect ZZf2l with three slots and the last edge going sub 10. imo that's the only way to justify doing CPLS 2GLL.


 
Yeah, sorry, Seth when used for ZZ/Petrus is a subset of CPLS


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 3, 2010)

Haha! I'm dumb. Considering I'm the one that developed CPLS, you'd think I knew that it would reduce into a subset of it, eh?
Yes, it would be a CPLS subset; sorry for the stupidity.

So basically, if you want to, just use CPLS, and don't call it Seth. 

-statue


To clarify:
For ZZ/Petrus Seth, it's a subset of CPLS. Not CFOP.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Dec 3, 2010)

Only way I can think to apply Seth to Petrus:

1. 2x2x2.
2. 2x2x3.
3. Holding the 2x2x3 in the bottom left, orient the BL and EL edges.
4. 1x2x2.
5. Seth Setup.
6. Seth.
7. 2GLL.

It's decent, but CPLS or MGLS would probably be better. This can of course work for ZZ as well, with some minor alterations. I wouldn't recommend using Seth with Petrus though in this fashion. If anyone has a better idea....


----------



## CubicNL (Jan 3, 2011)

I'm just flashing an idea that I had when reading this thread.

If you would use Seth in CFOP solve (Obviously without O and P)
Why not insert the Seth "CE-pair" as your first pair?
And if would approach it as an X-Cross, you could easily X-Cross every solve.
Maybe even double X-Crosses (sometimes) in 15sec inspection time? (i'm really not the best cuber and actually I hardly ever make an X-cross :fp )
With nicer Seth-algs Seth would be rather fast I guess, because 2GLL is sweet.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 4, 2011)

CubicNL said:


> I'm just flashing an idea that I had when reading this thread.
> 
> If you would use Seth in CFOP solve (Obviously without O and P)
> Why not insert the Seth "CE-pair" as your first pair?
> ...


 This actually looks somewhat promising; I'll look into it for a bit.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 4, 2011)

Mmhm. I called these Sethcrosses in my example solve. They're very easy to do, and spotting them shouldn't be hard. The beauty of Seth is that you don't have to save it for your LS, so if you can't find a good pair, you can just do Seth. 

By the way, if anybody wants some up to date Seth algs, you can find them here: http://tinyurl.com/3ahpl7s I'll still be updating them more before learning, but they're much better than the first version.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jan 4, 2011)

Hmm.....sounds interesting. I plan on learning this for OH, as soon as the algs better.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jan 4, 2011)

I'm not sure this is obvious (or already posted), but to get started with seth it might be a good idea 

- to always place the seth edge oriented , that should cut the alg count in half (roundabout)
- using partial edge control, to enforce two oriented edges, is another starting point I would use.
- I like CLS I/Im (not learned though) but again for somebody new to Seth and CLS it might be better to go with 6 more Seth algs instead of 16 for CLS (I'm not sure this 6 are already a subset of CLS) 

What's the alg count then for seth? 


Sethcrosses - I also missed this Xcross simplifier , sounds good.


----------



## buelercuber (Jan 4, 2011)

Sounds like zeroing IMO


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jan 4, 2011)

buelercuber said:


> Sounds like zeroing IMO


 What?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 4, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> I'm not sure this is obvious (or already posted), but to get started with seth it might be a good idea
> 
> - to always place the seth edge oriented , that should cut the alg count in half (roundabout)
> 
> ...


 
So, a beginner would be able to get by without all the algorithms. To compete with other methods you'll need to learn all of them though. I and Im cases are a good idea, at least learning the fast algs.

P.S. This is a real method. Disregard Buelercuber's post.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 24, 2011)

olook
Macky's on fire; this only proves that he is hot.


----------

