• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 30,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
60
Likes
25
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
Hey @WoowyBaby, thanks for posting info about your ideas for the Kociemba variations.

I'm interested in trying this out, so please keep the info coming! (showing cases in the steps, etc.)

-= Solvador Cubi
I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?

So here goes some full example solves with Isom's Kociemba:

Scramble: B' L' F2 D2 B2 R2 B2 L F2 U2 R F2 R' F' L' R' F L2 R F'
y2
R F2 U2 F D' // EO DF
U2' R2' U' R U' R U' // 2-gen CO
E2 R' D' U2 L E2 L' // E-layer placement
U' R2 B2 U2 R2 U' R2 // CS + CP
M2 U2 M2 U' M2 D' M2 // L/R
D M' U2 M z' M' U2 M U2 M2 // 4c
42 STM

Scramble: L R2 B2 L2 U2 R2 U L2 U F2 D' U' R2 L' F R' B2 L D' F2 L
D' R D L2 F // EO
L D U' R' U // CO
E2 R U2 L E2 L’ // E-layer placement
U D R2 // CS
U x R’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ R2 x’ // CP
M’ U2 M’ D’ M2 y M’ U2 M U2 M2 // L/R
U M’ u2 M x y U2 M U2 // 4c
45 STM

Scramble: L' F2 R' B2 L D2 L2 D2 F2 D2 L' F2 U' B' R F D' R' D F' U
D F R B’ L’ // EO DF (5)
R’ U’ R U2 R’ // 2-gen CO (5)
L E2 L’ D’ B2 U’ R E2 R’ // E-layer placement (9)
y R2 U R2 U R2 // CS (5)
U x R’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ D2 R2 x’ // CP (10)
y U’ M u2 M // L/R (4)
U’ M u2 M E L2 E’ L2 // 4c (8)
46 STM

Scramble: U2 R F' R2 B U2 B R2 B2 R2 D2 F R2 D2 U L' D' U2 F' L U2
z2
U B U’ D’ R’ F D’ // EO DF
U R’ U’ R U’ R U’ R’ // 2-gen CO
D2 R E2 R’ // E-layer placement
y R2 U’ R2 U’ R2 // CS
U’ y’ R2 U’ B2 U2 R2 U’ R2 // CP
U M2 U’ M’ U2 M’ D' M2 // L/R
D U2 M2 R2 x U M2 U2 M2 U R2 x’ U2 // 4c
51 STM

Scramble: R2 L F' U2 L' B U B' R U' F2 L2 U F2 B2 U D2 F2 D' F2 D'
y2
U’ L U F // EO DF
U2 R’ U’ R U’ R’ // 2-gen CO
D L E2 L’ U’ R E2 R’ // E-layer placement
U’ R2 // CS
U l’ U R’ D2 R U’ R’ D2 R2 x’ // CP
U M2 d M2 U’ M2 // L/R (mismatched)
u M2 u U x M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 x’ u2 U // 4c
49 STM

There’s five example solves!

Resources:
These can help with efficiency so much it’s magic!

EO - Many EO cases

CO - All possible 2-gen CO cases

E-layer placement - basically everything revolves around R E2 R’ and L E2 L’, and maybe some R2 F2, and lots of U and D moves to setup to an R E2 R’ case.
See example solves.

CS - So simple, no resources needed

CP -
Diag Top- F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
Diag Bott.- R D' R2 U2 R' U R U2 R U2 R D R'
Adj. Top- l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2
Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R' F2 R2
Double Adjacent- R2 U' B2 U2 R2 U' R2 Double Diagonal- R2 F2 R2
Adj. Top / Diag Bottom- R U' R F2 R' U R' Diag Top / Adj. Bottom- R' D R' F2 R D' R

Permuting Last Edges - For this, you solve a L/R pair just like Roux, then another L/R on the other side, not a lot to learn, but then when you get to 4c step, there are many tricks you can use to finish your solve, such as R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 and Conjugated H-perm.

Stats-
Algorithms: min 5
Intuitive parts that get way better when you learn some efficient algs, cases, and tricks: literally everything
Movecount: about 42-48

This method doesn’t compete for the best speedsolving method, rather, Isom’s Kociemba is a fun novelty method with almost no algorithms and might be useful for FMC as well. (unrelated sidenote: what methods go on the wiki?)
It is possible to be fast with this, but not as easy as with CFOP/Roux.

That’s about it!
Solvador Cubi, hope this is what you’re asking for! If you want me to make a video, I can
~WoowyBaby
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 21, 2019
Messages
12
Likes
8
Location
Massachusetts
WCA
2018TRUD02
Tesseract Method

Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.

I have made a few equivalent Amino posts on it, where I also have videos of the best executions of the algs.

I call this method the Tesseract method. I designed it as an add-on set of algs for any top-first solver, especially one that uses 1-Flip or Oka.
The top consists of a solved edge, and two edges that need to switch. Unlike Nutella, however, these edges don't for a solid block of color on the front.

I'll be honest and say that not all of the algs are the best. I just wanted an alg for every case. Though, some are, in my opinion, are very good.

https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...hod-alg-set/Pr8E_ldtmux8ep3vDRdEBWjagx6Pnqlq6
https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...algorithms/Bqxl_7JIwu56NKZJxzZ6jdJYL1MpKm11mj

I think that some of these algs might help to turn a bad scramble into a very good scramble.

For example: This case with no centers is U' R' U R' U' R U R. If executed correctly, it can be sub-1'ed easily.
tesseract.jpg

I realize that this method might not be great, but I thought that it would be a fun attempt at trying to come up with something new. Let me know what you think!
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
398
Likes
168
Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
Efficient as in movecount.
Definition of efficient: achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense
/ preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
In this case, productivity = solving cube, but resource can mean movecount, as well as ergonomics, number of looks, steps, or time (pauses relates to time).

Most of the time, when people say efficient, they mean moves or something of that nature.

Average ELL cases are “deeper” positions of the cube than average LSE cases, they require more moves, thus less efficient move-count wise.
True. I was just being a bit nitpicky about the wording you used in your post from before, because it gave me the impression that you were saying that any L6E case will be solvable faster than any ELL case.
I disagree with this, because ell has pretty nice algs apart from maybe one case, plus the recog isn't bad. But the main reason why ebl->ell is bad is because you're being less efficient and the lookahead is worse, as many people can do LSE virtually pauseless.
Yeah. I wasn't super clear myself. I was including lookahead as part of recognition, since it really is just pre-recognition, and I meant alg speed rather than efficiency.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
209
Likes
99
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
Tesseract Method

Hey guys, I have recently developed a new Pyraminx top-first method. I would like some feedback on it.

I have made a few equivalent Amino posts on it, where I also have videos of the best executions of the algs.

I call this method the Tesseract method. I designed it as an add-on set of algs for any top-first solver, especially one that uses 1-Flip or Oka.
The top consists of a solved edge, and two edges that need to switch. Unlike Nutella, however, these edges don't for a solid block of color on the front.

I'll be honest and say that not all of the algs are the best. I just wanted an alg for every case. Though, some are, in my opinion, are very good.

https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...hod-alg-set/Pr8E_ldtmux8ep3vDRdEBWjagx6Pnqlq6
https://aminoapps.com/c/rubiks-cube...algorithms/Bqxl_7JIwu56NKZJxzZ6jdJYL1MpKm11mj

I think that some of these algs might help to turn a bad scramble into a very good scramble.

For example: This case with no centers is U' R' U R' U' R U R. If executed correctly, it can be sub-1'ed easily.
View attachment 10108

I realize that this method might not be great, but I thought that it would be a fun attempt at trying to come up with something new. Let me know what you think!
It's probably another useful method to know for top first. Just learn more methods, and if you can come up with your own, great! I'm not good at pyra though, so if someone who was good could give their thoughts too, that'd be great.
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
134
Likes
38
Location
USA
I'm so glad people appreciate my ideas! First I made an alg sheet for 2x2 HD here (self-promotion hehe) that was useful,
now a 3x3 method people are intersted in! I'm not sure what else I can provide, maybe some examples of steps, resources for algs, and explanations for easy cases?
...
Great, Thanks so much! I'm sure all this will help me (and others).

I'll be practicing it, but it will take me some time for me to get good at it, I'm sure.
and I plan to be taking my own notes along the way so I can hopefully make another 1 page reference sheet. :)

It seems like a nice method because even though there are several steps, they are all fairly simple.
(as well as having a low move count!)

In the PCBL step, I'm checking out the "Diag Top" alg you listed, to see if I like it.
It ends in a nice sexysledge, but I've always used: R U’ L U2 R’ U R L’ U’ L U2 R’ U L’ (14 htm)

I'll also need to find a way to intuitively do CO efficiently without memorizing the 72 cases! :)

Lastly, I don't know enough about Kociemba and how much your proposed steps are similar,
but if it's different enough, I say.. name the method anything you want! :)


-= Solvador Cubi
 
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
60
Likes
25
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
Great, Thanks so much! I'm sure all this will help me (and others).

I'll be practicing it, but it will take me some time for me to get good at it, I'm sure.
and I plan to be taking my own notes along the way so I can hopefully make another 1 page reference sheet. :)

It seems like a nice method because even though there are several steps, they are all fairly simple.
(as well as having a low move count!)

In the PCBL step, I'm checking out the "Diag Top" alg you listed, to see if I like it.
It ends in a nice sexysledge, but I've always used: R U’ L U2 R’ U R L’ U’ L U2 R’ U L’ (14 htm)

I'll also need to find a way to intuitively do CO efficiently without memorizing the 72 cases! :)

Lastly, I don't know enough about Kociemba and how much your proposed steps are similar,
but if it's different enough, I say.. name the method anything you want! :)


-= Solvador Cubi
Diag Alg: People do have their preferences for algorithms and I am aware of Diag Top algs besides Y-perm PLL, so I could provide more than one alg per case and slam it on a sheet maybe here- (link)

CO: For CO, understand exactly what an R / R’ move does, then memorize the cases that are only 3 moves, like R U R’.
Then, memorize all 72 cases. This is not too difficult, as many just do a couple moves to reduce it to a 3 move case, so you can memorize a case like: “ok just a Pi OLL on Top is held in back and is “down-left U backhammer”. Boom, memorized. (R’ U’ R U R’ U2 R is the alg you’re wondering)
Not that on Lucas Garron’s Sortega page, every case ends with R, but it can be replaced with R’ if it’s better ergonomically. Ex: R U’ R’ is better than R U’ R

Edit: Doing a single R move changes it to a different case

Idk really what to say about the CO, I’m not an expert or anything.
It’s like looking at a page of all 160 possible F2L cases and thinking it’s impossible to learn, when really, because it’s a semi-intuitive step, it’s far easier to memorize cases than from an algorithmic step.


Kociemba: Kociemba is not a method persay, it’s a computer algorithm used today and invented by Herbert Kociemba.
It is a 2-phase algorithm-
Phase 1: Reduce cube to R2,L2,F2,B2,U,D, state. In other words, Orient all edges, Place middle(equator) layer pieces somewhere in middle layer, and Orient all corners.
Phase 2: Permute the rest of the cube with the restricted move set. Now it’s solved.
The goal of 2-phase algorithms are to split the solve into 2 parts that take roughly the same amount of computing power and moves.

Doing either phase in one step is far too hard conceptually for humans, so there are different methods to do each phase in multiple steps. In the case of Isom’s Kociemba (such a bad name ew), the first three steps are EO DF, 2-gen CO, and E-layer placement. This achieves phase 1. Next phase: CS,CP, L/R, 4c, solves the rest of the cube.
Other methods that do basically this are Orient first, Human Thistlewaite, and SSC.

Just a side note: I’m actually pretty slow with this method.
Holy this is a huge block of text whoops lol.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
14
Likes
11
I tried the method on a 5x5 again and counted my moves this time. I came up with 208 which I think is not too bad, considering that I made some mistakes, was using an inefficient version of the method, and wasn't particularly efficient in general (33 moves to solve the first 2 centers). This seems to be similar to the move count in a reduction speedsolve. It's slightly less efficient than my 4x4 average, at 2.26 moves per piece solved versus 2.17 for 4x4.

The efficiency surprised me at first, because I was expecting this method to be much worse for 5x5. But it actually makes sense, for two reasons. First, solving corners is more efficient and easier because you can solve middle edges at the same time, just as you do in Heise. Second, you can solve 3/4 of the middle slice before the last step, so you end up with a maximum of only 17 unsolved center pieces, compared with 10 on the 4x4. This is about 18% of the total pieces on the cube, which is the same proportion as on the 4x4. Adding the middle slice actually enables us to solve proportionally more of the center pieces before the last step: 65% on the 5x5 vs about 58% on the 4x4.

I modified the methodfor the 5x5 as follows:

1. Opposite centers

2. 1x3x3 block and 1x3x4 block

3. 3/4 of the middle slice

4. Pair (not solve) the last edge of the second 1x3x4 block

5. Orientation of remaining 5 middle edges (this can be done earlier but it doesn't seem to make much difference)

6. Solve all middle edges and corners exactly as in Heise steps 3-4

7. 3/4 of a wing slice

8. 7 wing edges

9. Commutator to solve last 3 wing edges

10. 3-5 center commutators

I also tried a solve on a virtual 7x7, which requires two wing slices to remain unsolved. I ended up with 38 unsolved center pieces in the last step. So, the method will work for any nxnxn cube, but it just gets progressively less efficient as the cube gets larger because there are proportionally more center pieces versus wing edges. But hey, at least you don't have to learn any parity algorithms!


I actually found the5x5 solve to be extremely fun, since there is so much variation in the different techniques used. I never really paid attention to 5x5 because I don't like reduction solves, but now that I have a direct intuitive method, I'm having a heck of a lot of fun! I might actually enjoy it more than the 4x4 version.
 
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
60
Likes
25
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
@dudefaceguy Here's some 4x4 example solves with your method-
"1. Solve two opposite centers.
2. Solve a 1x3x3 block and a 1x3x4 block (similar to Roux) on the opposite face.
3a. Solve two more corners such that the last 3 corners are out of place, then solve the last 3 corners using a commutator.
3b. Solve the last edge pair of the 1x3x3 block to extend it to a 1x3x4 block.
4. Extend one of the 1x3x4 blocks into a 2x3x4 block by solving one middle slice excluding the top layer.
5. Use the unsolved slice to solve exactly 7 of the remaining 10 edge pieces.
6. Solve the remaining 3 edge pieces and some center pieces with a commutator.
7. Solve the remaining center pieces with 2 or 3 commutators."


Scramble: D2 L R2 F2 L2 R2 D2 B L2 U2 B' U2 B2 F' U' F2 D2 L2 R' U' R Fw2 Rw2 R' B2 D2 Fw2 F L' B Uw2 F D2 B' Uw L2 Uw2 L' B2 Uw' B Rw Fw B Uw2 U Fw2
x2
R2 f r U2 r' U R' y r U2 r' z // 2 Opposite Centers (10)
R U R2 L U' r' U' F' L2 F // Red 1x3x3 (10)
R2 U' r L F' L D L2 U R' U' r2 R' F R2 F' R' U R2 U' R2 U' R U r' U2 R U R' U' R y D' R U' R' D // Orange 1x3x4 (36)
y U2 R' F2 R F' R' F2 R2 U R' // Corners (10)
U' R l L R2 D' R2 L2 U R' // Remaining Edge (10)
2R U 2R' m' U m' D2 U m' U m D2 2R U' 2L2 U2 m2 U 2L' U2 2L m U2 m' 2R2 U' 2R2 U m U2 m2 U2 m 2R2 U 2R2 U' m' U2 m // Left M slice (40)
U2 2R U2 2R2 U' 2R2' U2 2R U2 2R2 U 2R' r U R' U' 2R' U R U' R' // Solve 7/10 Edges (21)

// Non-Intuitive Near-Impossible L3E Commutator
// Non-Intuitive Near-Impossible Last 12 Centers Commutators
137 STM + ~40-50 for the rest = 180 ish

This method is extremely difficult to solve with, not for beginners whatsoever, requires a very high level understanding of the cube, many parts are too complex to do efficiently.
I spent actually over an hour on the solve, because how complicated it is.
Algorithms are easier to understand than commutators.
I actually know exactly how commutators work, and have lots of experience on 3x3, but I didn't grasp this.
Even in your own video you struggled near the end to solve using your own method.

This is an interesting method, maybe just not for me :p
Maybe other people will like it though :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
14
Likes
11
@dudefaceguy Here's some 4x4 example solves with your method-
"1. Solve two opposite centers.
2. Solve a 1x3x3 block and a 1x3x4 block (similar to Roux) on the opposite face.
3a. Solve two more corners such that the last 3 corners are out of place, then solve the last 3 corners using a commutator.
3b. Solve the last edge pair of the 1x3x3 block to extend it to a 1x3x4 block.
4. Extend one of the 1x3x4 blocks into a 2x3x4 block by solving one middle slice excluding the top layer.
5. Use the unsolved slice to solve exactly 7 of the remaining 10 edge pieces.
6. Solve the remaining 3 edge pieces and some center pieces with a commutator.
7. Solve the remaining center pieces with 2 or 3 commutators."


Scramble: D2 L R2 F2 L2 R2 D2 B L2 U2 B' U2 B2 F' U' F2 D2 L2 R' U' R Fw2 Rw2 R' B2 D2 Fw2 F L' B Uw2 F D2 B' Uw L2 Uw2 L' B2 Uw' B Rw Fw B Uw2 U Fw2
x2
R2 f r U2 r' U R' y r U2 r' z // 2 Opposite Centers (10)
R U R2 L U' r' U' F' L2 F // Red 1x3x3 (10)
R2 U' r L F' L D L2 U R' U' r2 R' F R2 F' R' U R2 U' R2 U' R U r' U2 R U R' U' R y D' R U' R' D // Orange 1x3x4 (36)
y U2 R' F2 R F' R' F2 R2 U R' // Corners (10)
U' R l L R2 D' R2 L2 U R' // Remaining Edge (10)
2R U 2R' m' U m' D2 U m' U m D2 2R U' 2L2 U2 m2 U 2L' U2 2L m U2 m' 2R2 U' 2R2 U m U2 m2 U2 m 2R2 U 2R2 U' m' U2 m // Left M slice (40)
U2 2R U2 2R2 U' 2R2' U2 2R U2 2R2 U 2R' r U R' U' 2R' U R U' R' // Solve 7/10 Edges (21)

// Non-Intuitive Near-Impossible L3E Commutator
// Non-Intuitive Near-Impossible Last 12 Centers Commutators
137 STM + ~40-50 for the rest = 180 ish

This method is extremely difficult to solve with, not for beginners whatsoever, requires a very high level understanding of the cube, many parts are too complex to do efficiently.
I spent actually over an hour on the solve, because how complicated it is.
Algorithms are easier to understand than commutators.
I actually know exactly how commutators work, and have lots of experience on 3x3, but I didn't grasp this.
Even in your own video you struggled near the end to solve using your own method.

This is an interesting method, maybe just not for me :p
Maybe other people will like it though :)
Wow, thank you very much for testing out this method! I agree that it is definitely not a beginner-friendly method. The intended audience is very specific and possibly includes only myself. It's not meant to be a generally popular or universal method, but rather to fill a specific niche for weirdos like myself by providing a couple of things that I couldn't find in other methods.

The ideal candidate would be someone like myself, who learns Heise for 3x3 because they really REALLY don't like learning algorithms, and then wants to try larger cubes without learning parity algorithms. It also helps if you really REALLY love commutators and enjoy spending lots of time to work out move-optimal solutions. I will often spend a few minutes on a single commutator, trying to save one or two moves or solve one extra piece. This is not necessary of course, but I really enjoy doing it.

I realize that most people will not be looking for these things when selecting a method. But, I couldn't find a method that satisfied by own weird criteria so I made one. I gave absolutely no regard for things that are very important in speedsolving methods, like minimizing rotations, avoiding slice moves, and other ergonomics. Making a big cube method intended for Heise mains is already restricting the intended audience to like 5 people in the world.

Thank you for linking the solve, because I am not good at following notation. The 3/4 slice step was definitely very difficult for me to figure out at first, but it can be done pretty easily. It looked like you were making bars and then pairing them with edge pieces and inserting them, which I tried to do at first also. I've found it to be a lot more efficient to build the 3/4 slice like this:

1. Place the edge in the top layer on the L or R side, oriented such that the color you want to pair is on the U face.
2. Rotate the slices (mostly just the unsolved slice) to join center pieces with the edge, making a bar that goes from the L to the R face - perpendicular to the slice where it will be inserted. Rotate the U layer 180 degrees to shift the edge piece between the L and R side, depending on where the center pieces are located. The 3 pieces can be joined with only U and r moves, and sometimes l moves if necessary.
3. Once the two center pieces are joined to the edge, rotate U 90 degrees to place the three pieces in the correct slice.

This was not clear in my video - I probably should have spent more time on this step.

As for L3E commutator, the moves will always be exactly the same, or mirrored, if the 3 edges are in the same slice. For example, if the unsolved slice is u and the unsolved edges are in the columns FL, FR, and BR, and the FL edge belongs in the FR column, use [L': [F' U' F, u]]. This, or it's mirror, will solve all cases of L3E in the same slice. I use this in my video. If instead the last edges are in different slices, the commutator can sometimes require an ugly conjugate, but it can be easier to include center pieces.

Thanks again for posting the solve and for linking it!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
209
Likes
99
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
alg.cubing.net

It's all contained in the link.


I’m sure this has been thought of before, but isn’t there a way to algorithmically combine steps 4b and 4c of roux? It doesn’t seem like there would be a ton of algs. Just want to get input; I couldn’t find this anywhere.
Yeah. It's just called L6EP, and is useful in L7E or when you get an eoskip in LSE. Otherwise, just use EOLR.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
86
Likes
19
Location
Location? I’m a marmoset, not a human being.
alg.cubing.net

It's all contained in the link.



Yeah. It's just called L6EP, and is useful in L7E or when you get an eoskip in LSE. Otherwise, just use EOLR.
Thanks so much!
Do you know where any algs are? I know about EOLR, but I did a quick search on speedsolving wiki and a bit on google, and I couldn’t find anything. I just want to see how many there are and what they’re like.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
86
Likes
19
Location
Location? I’m a marmoset, not a human being.
Here they are un sorted.

There are 96 (including EPLL) and they're all probably very good. I don't know how many are trivial, but they'll be an easy set to learn. Average movecount is around 8.6 iirc.
Thanks so much! I’m more of a beginner so maybe I’ll look into simpler ways of doing that. Maybe getting l/r edges together in the bottom layer after EO and then apply an alg to solve the whole thing? I might put that into cube explorer because I’m pretty sure no one has tried that out and it shouldn’t be a lot of algs. I’d like to hear your thoughts on a beginner version of L6EP executed that way. In other words, algorithmically (or possibly intuitively) predicting 4c. Would that have any extra algs than just normal 4c or no? I’m a bit confused about that.

Edit: you can skip the 4c step with l/r edges on the bottom together, I randomly found one case while playing around with alg.cubing.net: https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M2_U2_M2_U2_U_M2&alg=U_M2_U2_M2_U3_M2_U
Don’t know if this is even useful, but the alg I found doesn’t ever go into the 4c roux step.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
398
Likes
168
Thanks so much! I’m more of a beginner so maybe I’ll look into simpler ways of doing that. Maybe getting l/r edges together in the bottom layer after EO and then apply an alg to solve the whole thing? I might put that into cube explorer because I’m pretty sure no one has tried that out and it shouldn’t be a lot of algs. I’d like to hear your thoughts on a beginner version of L6EP executed that way. In other words, algorithmically (or possibly intuitively) predicting 4c. Would that have any extra algs than just normal 4c or no? I’m a bit confused about that.

Edit: you can skip the 4c step with l/r edges on the bottom together, I randomly found one case while playing around with alg.cubing.net: https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=M2_U2_M2_U2_U_M2&alg=U_M2_U2_M2_U3_M2_U
Don’t know if this is even useful, but the alg I found doesn’t ever go into the 4c roux step.
In my opinion, 4c starts when LR edges (or FB edges if you're doing EOFB) are on the D layer and EO is solved. That way, you can make the solve better by implementing techniques like dots evasion when applicable. As a Roux solver, I know that as you get more experienced with L6E, it gets easier to predict 4c after EOLR is solved, and I bet that more experienced solvers can take that further and predict it earlier. At any rate, I don't think the bad recognition is worth it, and the speed gain would probably be negligible in cases where it applies.
 
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
60
Likes
25
Location
United States
WCA
2018ISOM02
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzgIKWl
Hello, guys. I'm new here and just finished reading this thread. Also I checked "List of methods". Is there any actual or work in progress algorithmic method to blockbuild to F2L - 1 slot state?
I don't think blockbuilding could be algorithmic? I'm not quite sure what you are asking...
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,412
Likes
862
I'm new here and just finished reading this thread.
That must have taken you a whole day… (I've done it once before, but that was when the thread was only 100-ish pages long.)

Anyway, no, there isn't any work being done on "algorithmic" blockbuilding. The biggest obstacle is the sheer alg count; it's just not realistic to learn all of the different cases as separate algs. For example, starting with a 2×2×3 block, the number of cases to build an additional square is 3024; restricting this to the cases where there's already a pair built still has 323 cases. For this reason, blockbuilding outside of inspection is usually done by forming pairs and joining them up (relatively few cases), as opposed to directly solving a whole block at once. (If you have 15 seconds of inspection time, that can make it easier to plan out solutions that are better than just creating pairs separately and joining them.)
 
Top