# Thread: Possibly a new 3x3 Method...

1. ## Possibly a new 3x3 Method...

Ok to start off let me explain the story behind this new method. About 10 min ago I was looking at the different methods for the 3x3; Roux, Petrus and Fridrich mainly, but also some corners first and stuff... about 2 min later I was back to solving the cube, focusing mainly on learning intuitive F2L. Then I thought to myself, all the cross does is get in the way for this step... That's when It hit me... If you could do the F2L and then do the cross it would open up a lot of new possiblities.

I am still working on a few things that can't normally happen (like when you have 3 pairs finished and the edge piece of the 4th pair is where between two of the other pairs) but I just wanted to see if anyone was interested in trying this out. I don't know about move count or even speed yet, but if someone wants to help that would be great.

I am going to attempt to develop a full list of algs (or possibly concepts if there are too many algs) but first I want to know if this has already been done, thought about, or considered. Basically I want to know if I can call this an ORIGINAL method for the F2L.

2. the whole reason that we make the cross first, is that its reasonably inspectable in 15 seconds and that we dont have to look for the D edges for the f2l

3. It's a good concept, but I agree - searching the D layer for F2L edges would be a pain.

I gave it a try, and believe it or not, all four of my F2L edge pieces were in the D layer hehe

4. I have heard of people doing this before in fact a friend of mine in school independently invented this method over a year and a half ago and used if for a while. I don't think it will work as well...

5. Originally Posted by Eric Limeback
It's a good concept, but I agree - searching the D layer for F2L edges would be a pain.

I gave it a try, and believe it or not, all four of my F2L edge pieces were in the D layer hehe
OMGOMGOMGOMG.
Eric has an accout here.

Anyways, I do this alot in my solves, just because my cross-F2L transition is absolutely horrible. And plus If I see a pair and try to preserve it I won't be able to loook ahead..?
Plus I love M moves.

Still, I dont use this most of the time.

6. it sounds a bit like David Solvia f2l,

http://www.speedcubing.com/DavidJSalvia.html

is it?? what is the difference??

Remi

7. Hey cool! I haven't seen that before... I'll have to check it out in depth when I have more time. The major difference I see is that I do each pair as a pair, not as 2 individual pieces.

I am going to attempt to complete this method anyway... Might as well get it out there!

P.S. what Lotsofsloths said is pretty oxymoronic. Note the words "I do this a lot in my solves" compared to "I dont use this most of the time."
Just thought that was funny...

8. This was actually pretty close to the way I taught myself to do the cube when I was first starting out. I eventually came to the conclusion that it doesn't work as well as the other methods that are out there.

Still, I think it's a good thing to look into and further develop... you never know when you might discover something really useful.

9. Originally Posted by MechaTech84
Hey cool! I haven't seen that before... I'll have to check it out in depth when I have more time. The major difference I see is that I do each pair as a pair, not as 2 individual pieces.

I am going to attempt to complete this method anyway... Might as well get it out there!

P.S. what Lotsofsloths said is pretty oxymoronic. Note the words "I do this a lot in my solves" compared to "I dont use this most of the time."
Just thought that was funny...
I do this alot when the time is right("I do this a lot in my solves"), but overall the time isn't right that much.("I dont use this most of the time.")

10. Look for my BCE methods, it's in a thread in this forum, there you got this style among others...

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•