Doing the pseudo cross (no center, and unphased axis ) is really quite easy, and after corners the rest of the solve is really a piece of cake.Originally Posted by rice
But having a cross makes corner anticipation during inspection to hard for me, so I think one should solve at least two corner while crossing.
It's still too early to see how many edge pairs should be made (0, 1, or 2 pairs) before solving the corners. I'm trying to track multiple pieces around the cube but too much can be mind-blowing, so I haven't undergone any serious attempts yet. Has anyone tried to track several edge and/or corner pieces through a solve?
Welcome to the 1st Annual Rice Method Revival!
I've been thinking about how to speed up this method, but Cube Explorer isn't really suited for generating and solving ricey cases. Is there any demand for a list of cases? I can cook some up, but some might not be optimal.
Cool. I had an idea for this exact method before. Seems like nearly everything has already been thought of. Concerning speeding this up, doing EG without effecting edges to improve look ahead could be good except for it would vastly increase the number of moves for algorithms. Prahaps you could preserve just enough edges that make it easy to preserve. Even preserving just these edges still limits the possiblitities of where other edges can be. I would suggest doing someing similar to PEG algs. They preserve the middle layer and many can be derived from the standard EG algs by treating the Pairs as a single corner.
This doesn't really partain to this method, but I thought I'd post it here. Could any waterman users tell me if it would be just as good a speedsolving method to solve the corners and then the bottom 4 edges (then proceed as in standard waterman) as it would be do do waterman. I think it could be because all of the corners can be planned out during inspection.
In terms of look-ahead, no. At least that's my experience.
@rice: I was wondering if you'd ever be back on the forums. In of movecount, there isn't much you can do. With the exception of EG for corners, this method is pretty well optimized. I guess in terms of speed, the most important things would be developing more thorough strategies for look-ahead.
Well, the inspection is the best of any 3x3x3 methods out there. EG is solving all 8 corners with inspection. I think this could help make up for some of the slack in recognition.
@ somerandomkidmike's next post: Hey, I'm just trying to look at this with an optimistic point of veiw. Aslo, what other method solves 8 peices orientation and permutation with inspection alone?
Last edited by elrog; 03-25-2013 at 07:13 PM.
I don't think the problem with recognition has anything to do with the corners, so there is really no point in presenting a more complicated corners solution as an "improvement". Sure, you might save 2 or 3 moves and improve your recognition for the first step, but you're just going to make it more difficult for the next step.
Either way, I don't know where you're getting the idea that the "inspection is the best of any 3x3x3 methods out there". I'm sure if that was true, the CFL method would be adopted as a main method by many more cubers- specifically people that have tried Roux or other corners-first variations.
The real downfall for using this as a speedsolving method is the first-six edges. The solutions are very elegant for a highly intuitive corners-first method, but it suffers from a moveset that is awkward for the step with the hardest recognition. No amount of optimization for the corners will help with that.
Having tried CF methods, I agree, but...
...what if you could do them quickly, somehow? I mean, for the best people, the corners can be done in 2 seconds, and so can L6E. If all we have to do is solve 6 edges and the centers in 6 seconds (to get sub-10), maybe there's a way.
Yes, but the WR is 5. That leaves you 1 second for the first 6 edges. Good Luck!!
@ qqref's next post: "6 seconds is a lot of time" Not for all of us my friend...
Last edited by elrog; 03-25-2013 at 07:44 PM.
That's a single solve. Nobody averages 5 seconds.
And besides, even if this method isn't going to be WR level, being able to sub-10 it would be pretty impressive. 6 seconds is a lot of time; if we can do that, great, but if we can make 3 seconds possible, that would be even better, and 7 seconds would be possible for the whole cube. It's unlikely, but hey, who knows?
I'm thinking maybe some way to get the 4 E-layer edges first, then a D move and placing DB and DF (really DR and DL), then ADF/L6E.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks